♻️ rabbitmq queue names ⚠️🚨

[GitHK]

devops ⚠️

Should have no impact when releasing. TL:DR;: the names of the exclusive queues where changed, not the other queues.

What do these changes do?

NOTE: the side effect of this is that the web socket does not connect. Users see the red cloud and they cannot open projects.

• ♻️ fixed get_rabbitmq_client_unique_name which now actually returns a unique queue name that is stable for the service slot in which is running. This means that if a container restarts, even with multiple replaces, the same name will be given.
• ♻️ since the docker webserver image is used to run multiple services, there is a collision in the uniqueness of the "client_unique_name". All services that are run from the same base docker image get a slightly different hostname.
• 🐛 webserver fails on boot if it cannot subscribe to a queue, no longer continues to start

Related issue/s

How to test

Dev-ops checklist

• [x] No ENV changes or I properly updated ENV (read the instruction)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 79.8%. Comparing base (cafbf96) to head (23b21bf). Report is 262 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5931?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #5931 +/- ## ========================================= - Coverage 84.5% 79.8% -4.8% ========================================= Files 10 500 +490 Lines 214 25580 +25366 Branches 25 0 -25 ========================================= + Hits 181 20418 +20237 - Misses 23 5162 +5139 + Partials 10 0 -10 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5931/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [integrationtests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5931/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) | `51.0% <ø> (?)` | | | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5931/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) | `81.5% <ø> (-3.1%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5931?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [...server/notifications/\_rabbitmq\_consumers\_common.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5931?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=services%2Fweb%2Fserver%2Fsrc%2Fsimcore_service_webserver%2Fnotifications%2F_rabbitmq_consumers_common.py&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation#diff-c2VydmljZXMvd2ViL3NlcnZlci9zcmMvc2ltY29yZV9zZXJ2aWNlX3dlYnNlcnZlci9ub3RpZmljYXRpb25zL19yYWJiaXRtcV9jb25zdW1lcnNfY29tbW9uLnB5) | `100.0% <ø> (ø)` | | ... and [509 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5931/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation)

[sonarcloud[bot]]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.1% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[GitHK]

Thanks a lot, I see no warning signals or exclamation marks etc., so I presume it is fine if this change does not go into the next prod release (this week) but only in the next one, likely in 4-6 weeks. Is that correct?

@mrnicegyu11 after double checking with @sanderegg we do not expect any side effects when deploying. Maybe do you still want to flag it with a warning to just keep an eye on it? @matusdrobuliak66

[odeimaiz]

thanks