docs(batch): clarify ordering/async processing #4081
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
boring-cyborg
bot
added
batch
svozza
reviewed
Jun 23, 2025
Co-authored-by: Stefano Vozza <svozza@amazon.com>
|
svozza
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Changes
This PR adds a new callout in the SQS processing section of the Batch Processing docs to clarify that order of processing is not guaranteed by default, and nudges customers to look into changing the default behavior or using the SQS FIFO processor (see below):
The PR also adds additional clarifications around this topic in the section dedicated to sequential batch processing (second paragraph above code snippet in code below):
The PR also cleans up outdated sections and marks the sync methods as deprecated and to be removed in the next major version, since the asynchronous one can transparently cover for both, and we have this item in our v3 discussion (#2560).
Issue number: closes #4080
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.
Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.