Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix improper Lucene write.lock handling in DNN Platform #5986

Open
trilogy-ai bot opened this issue Feb 28, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Fix improper Lucene write.lock handling in DNN Platform #5986

trilogy-ai bot opened this issue Feb 28, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@trilogy-ai
Copy link

trilogy-ai bot commented Feb 28, 2024

Revisions to the indexing code ensure proper handling of Lucene's write.lock files. Modifications include introducing a more robust lock management strategy utilizing Lucene's LockFactory and implementing retry logic with exponential backoff during lock acquisition attempts to mitigate temporary lock contention.

Execution ID: 01HQQC81Z0Q62GC92P3JS65DPC

@valadas
Copy link
Contributor

valadas commented Feb 28, 2024

This is new, can we have some info about what is @trilogy-ai ?

@mitchelsellers
Copy link
Contributor

@valadas I'm looking into this

@Tantalon
Copy link

Tantalon commented Mar 1, 2024

Please feel free to close this.

trilogy-ai is a bot that connects our work management system to AI agents so that work can be completed automatically. For code fixes, it generates a ticket like this for Sweep AI to handle.

We only intended it to run on repositories in the trilogy-group organization. In this case, because there are engineering maintenance requests for DNN, it created this ticket. We've added a check to trilogy-ai, so no more tickets should be created. Apologies for the noise.

@valadas
Copy link
Contributor

valadas commented Mar 1, 2024

Will a PR be coming to fix this in Platform or is this something Evoq specific ?

@Tantalon
Copy link

Tantalon commented Mar 1, 2024

An engineer is working on a Platform fix for it.

@valadas
Copy link
Contributor

valadas commented Mar 1, 2024

Awesome, then I think we can keep this issue here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants