Timeline for Are queueable jobs actually queueable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2017 at 8:21 | comment | added | Daniel Ballinger | @dzh Might pay to test that idea out a bit to see how it works. Things might still get out of order with retries on failed events. | |
| May 15, 2017 at 2:43 | comment | added | dzh | Apparently Platform events could be another mitigation for ensuring the sequence of events. | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 22:30 | vote | accept | dzh | ||
| Jun 23, 2016 at 13:03 | comment | added | dzh | Had a look at data and seems around 10% of the transactions ran earlier than transaction created before it. | |
| Jun 23, 2016 at 1:50 | comment | added | sfdcfox♦ | Those pilot programs are ancient. Who knows if they'll ever see the light of day. I wasn't disagreeing with this answer, of course, just that we don't know what we don't know. One should definitely use chaining if the order is dependent. | |
| Jun 23, 2016 at 0:48 | comment | added | Daniel Ballinger | @sfdcfox My concern with relying on the observed ordering is that it could break. I could see the proposed pilot changes in Bigger Apex Limits with Enhanced Futures and Run Future Methods with Higher Limits shuffling when async jobs run. | |
| Jun 23, 2016 at 0:29 | comment | added | sfdcfox♦ | The problem is, of course, we've all observed that older jobs go before newer jobs. We have no idea if this is intentional, or if it'll change. Future calls also seem to work the same way for now. It'd be interesting to see if we could get the Word on the matter. | |
| Jun 23, 2016 at 0:16 | history | answered | Daniel Ballinger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |