Skip to content

Move RavenDb id generation out of the common persistence seam - #5922

Merged
rbev merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
dont-leak-raven-ids
Sep 25, 2026
Merged

rbev merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
dont-leak-raven-ids

Conversation

@rbev

@rbev rbev commented Sep 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Stop assigning RavenDB-shaped IDs in the shared Audit ProcessedMessage constructor. The RavenDB ingestion unit of work now assigns the existing ProcessedMessages-{processing-started-ticks}-{processing-id} document ID before storing the message or its body.
  • Let InMemory assign a storage-neutral processing ID for its existing deduplication check. No new field is added to ProcessedMessage.
  • Preserve existing RavenDB document IDs, attachment keys, and /messages/{id}/body URLs; add a RavenDB test for the ID format and body lookup.

Related Error-instance PRs

@rbev
rbev added this pull request to stack #5920 September 25, 2026 01:22
@rbev
rbev force-pushed the dont-leak-raven-ids branch from 6ffe746 to dc92c84 Compare September 25, 2026 05:54
Base automatically changed from audit-deterministic-ids to master September 25, 2026 06:25
@rbev
rbev force-pushed the dont-leak-raven-ids branch from dc92c84 to 47465f0 Compare September 25, 2026 06:25
@rbev
rbev marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2026 06:25
@rbev rbev changed the title [SQL Audit Ingestion 3] Move RavenDb id generation out of the common persistence seam code Move RavenDb id generation out of the common persistence seam code Sep 25, 2026
@rbev rbev changed the title Move RavenDb id generation out of the common persistence seam code Move RavenDb id generation out of the common persistence seam Sep 25, 2026
@rbev
rbev merged commit c3bc240 into master Sep 25, 2026
36 checks passed
@rbev
rbev deleted the dont-leak-raven-ids branch September 25, 2026 06:45
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants