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

Genserver timeout #8

Closed
pkrawat1 opened this issue Dec 19, 2017 · 0 comments
Closed

Genserver timeout #8

pkrawat1 opened this issue Dec 19, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

@pkrawat1
Copy link
Member

When the api takes more time to respond, the Genserver timeouts.

One options is to wait for the request to complete using

call(worker, {:authorize, gateway, amount, card, opts}, :infinity)

There is third filed which whcih specifies time in milliseconds for the handle_call of genserver. Default is 5s

@pkrawat1 pkrawat1 self-assigned this Dec 21, 2017
@pkrawat1 pkrawat1 added this to the Release 1.5.0 milestone Dec 21, 2017
@pkrawat1 pkrawat1 removed this from the Release 1.5.0 milestone Jan 25, 2018
oyeb added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 30, 2018
* Integration tests no longer use the worker as a workaround for #8
* Added more test cases, can possibly be improved using describe blocks with
local setup.
* There are almost no assertions and it is expected that errors will
bubble up to the pattern matches.
oyeb added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 15, 2018
oyeb added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 13, 2018
* Integration tests no longer use the worker as a workaround for #8
* Added more test cases, can possibly be improved using describe blocks with
local setup.
* There are almost no assertions and it is expected that errors will
bubble up to the pattern matches.
ashish173 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2018
* Ignore some optional params for RF, RV, CP

Some optional params like billing, customer, merchant must not be
expanded in case of capture, refund and void.

* Improved mock tests, fixes #98

Mock tests now mostly check if the request is correctly built.
Since most requests have common parameters, they are not checked
everywhere.

* Improve integration tests (more cases), fixes #108

* Integration tests no longer use the worker as a workaround for #8
* Added more test cases, can possibly be improved using describe blocks with
local setup.
* There are almost no assertions and it is expected that errors will
bubble up to the pattern matches.
ashish173 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 22, 2018
ashish173 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 22, 2018
* Ignore some optional params for RF, RV, CP

Some optional params like billing, customer, merchant must not be
expanded in case of capture, refund and void.

* Improved mock tests, fixes #98

Mock tests now mostly check if the request is correctly built.
Since most requests have common parameters, they are not checked
everywhere.

* Improve integration tests (more cases), fixes #108

* Integration tests no longer use the worker as a workaround for #8
* Added more test cases, can possibly be improved using describe blocks with
local setup.
* There are almost no assertions and it is expected that errors will
bubble up to the pattern matches.
ashish173 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 22, 2018
ashish173 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 22, 2018
* Ignore some optional params for RF, RV, CP

Some optional params like billing, customer, merchant must not be
expanded in case of capture, refund and void.

* Improved mock tests, fixes #98

Mock tests now mostly check if the request is correctly built.
Since most requests have common parameters, they are not checked
everywhere.

* Improve integration tests (more cases), fixes #108

* Integration tests no longer use the worker as a workaround for #8
* Added more test cases, can possibly be improved using describe blocks with
local setup.
* There are almost no assertions and it is expected that errors will
bubble up to the pattern matches.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant