[Bug]: When consumer fails to connect to SQS due to connectivity instant retry occurs

[fraserbenjamin]

[Bug]: When consumer fails to connect to SQS due to connectivity instant retry occurs

[nicholasgriffintn]

Hey, yeah we can't react to the code Error or the error type SQSError overall as this would make every error from SQS a connection error that's not what we're looking to do.

One possible way of detecting might be to look for ENOTFOUND, but that's also a little hacky and not super supported.

I don't think we can't ultimately support every possible use case with this library, and we're not really looking to, it's main aim is to be simple boilerplate that we used internally and shared externally.

[fraserbenjamin]

Hey, yeah we can't react to the code Error or the error type SQSError overall as this would make every error from SQS a connection error that's not what we're looking to do.

One possible way of detecting might be to look for ENOTFOUND, but that's also a little hacky and not super supported.

I don't think we can't ultimately support every possible use case with this library, and we're not really looking to, it's main aim is to be simple boilerplate that we used internally and shared externally.

Yeah 100% agree and appreciate your time on this so far thanks, with high traffic that could cause a big delay if the odd message fails for a genuine reason. Totally understand not being able to support every use case although surely a malformed url or no connection are 2 very common cases especially if deploying to cloud where a malformed security group or bad env variable could then cause high cpu/memory and lots of potentially expensive logging to occur without people realising straight away. Especially since the loop can be every 1-2ms which is a lot of events.

In the first draft PR I raised I added another configurable option that a timeout happens on any errors which whilst not perfect I'd say is a better alternative than having the potential for the issues mentioned above. Would be keen to know your opinion on adding something like that back in, happy to do the work but want to check its the way you'd like to go first.