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

Be able to handle gracefully notifications that do not contain any notification info #82

Closed
chadell opened this issue Sep 22, 2021 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
status: internal review Internal discussion is required to move forward with issue

Comments

@chadell
Copy link
Collaborator

chadell commented Sep 22, 2021

Environment

  • circuit_maintenance_parser version: 2.0.1

Proposed Functionality

Today, a Provider processing a notification can only return either the maintenance objects or raise a ProviderError when it was not possible to get, at least, a maintenance object from the notification.
Some times the notification parsed is not actually containing any relevant information and it's not actually needed to be parsed and raise an error, just signal that it was not containing any relevant info.

Use Case

Being able to differentiate between parsing errors and non relevant notification would make the library clients able to handle each one in a different way.

@glennmatthews
Copy link
Contributor

An example of the need for this is with Lumen, where emails regarding support tickets come from the same address ([email protected]) as emails regarding scheduled maintenance. This results in a lot of "failed" parsing for the support ticket emails.

@chadell chadell added the status: gathering feedback Further discussion is needed to determine this issue's scope and/or implementation label Sep 29, 2021
@chadell chadell self-assigned this Sep 29, 2021
@chadell chadell added status: internal review Internal discussion is required to move forward with issue and removed status: gathering feedback Further discussion is needed to determine this issue's scope and/or implementation labels Sep 29, 2021
@chadell
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chadell commented Oct 1, 2021

Fixed in #91

@chadell chadell closed this as completed Oct 1, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status: internal review Internal discussion is required to move forward with issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants