We check the length of the description before sending a product for review when it is sufficient and in a parallel process it is change to insufficient as a result a product with an insufficient description will be sent to review. Therefore there must be locks in both saving and sending for review. Ideally a lock on an object should be obtaine for any actions that change this object. First we get the lock then we load the entity then we do checks then we call the change logic. The reason why this is not typically done in web applications is that there is often only one source of changes to a given resource.
The user create an order
He does not change it anymore. One system processe the order change the status another system starts sets its status then a third. They do not work together with one order. Resources that a user can eit such as articles or profile settings are usually not eite at Iran Mobile Number Database the same time. Therefore usually everything works without locks. And when it doesnt work a bug appears everyone says well this happens someone corrects the data and thats the end of it until next time. Loki story I worke on a similar project. We had the functionality of mass sending for review to another system.
The managers of this system contacte us
With a message that for many products the list of changes was duplicate and the duplicates came from our system. After checking the data and timestamps in both Pakistan Whatsapp Number List databases the following was reveale. The supplier sent several tens of thousands of products for review. The items were sent one at a time so processing took hours. To launch console tasks we use an internal queue. There a timeout for completing one task was configure for hours and retry time. Therefore after hours the task starte again. Since the list of products was the same the SQL queries in it were absolutely the same.
