You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently when both xapi and caliper keys are set in EVENT_TRACKING_BACKENDS and pointed to eventtracking.backends.event_bus.EventBusRoutingBackend each event that passes the whitelist will be sent to the same event bus stream twice.
The consumer does not discriminate about which backend it is handling, passing all events to any configured backend. This causes events to be transformed and sent twice. When batching, LRSs will reject the batch due to duplicate event ids. Off the top of my head we should either:
Have separate streams for each backend (better separation of concerns between xapi / caliper, requires a consumer for each) OR
Have one EVENT_TRACKING_BACKENDS for event-routing-backends and let it decide where to send things on event consumption (most efficient, but loses the ability to filter before sending and configure different filters for xapi and caliper?)
Neither of these are great, I'm open to other suggestions but this is a high priority issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently when both xapi and caliper keys are set in
EVENT_TRACKING_BACKENDS
and pointed toeventtracking.backends.event_bus.EventBusRoutingBackend
each event that passes the whitelist will be sent to the same event bus stream twice.The consumer does not discriminate about which backend it is handling, passing all events to any configured backend. This causes events to be transformed and sent twice. When batching, LRSs will reject the batch due to duplicate event ids. Off the top of my head we should either:
EVENT_TRACKING_BACKENDS
for event-routing-backends and let it decide where to send things on event consumption (most efficient, but loses the ability to filter before sending and configure different filters for xapi and caliper?)Neither of these are great, I'm open to other suggestions but this is a high priority issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: