starred/asynq

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/hibiken/asynq.git synced 2026-04-25 23:15:51 +03:00

[GH-ISSUE #611] [FEATURE REQUEST] Add callback-function after task is done #298

New issue

Open

opened 2026-03-02 05:20:17 +03:00 by kerem · 5 comments

kerem commented

2026-03-02 05:20:17 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @Lilihx on GitHub (Feb 6, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/hibiken/asynq/issues/611

Originally assigned to: @hibiken on GitHub.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I need a callback to notice consumer after the worker task done.
Does asynq have a callback ?

Describe the solution you'd like
A clear and concise description of what you want to happen.

Describe alternatives you've considered
A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

Originally created by @Lilihx on GitHub (Feb 6, 2023). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/hibiken/asynq/issues/611 Originally assigned to: @hibiken on GitHub. **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** I need a callback to notice consumer after the worker task done. Does asynq have a callback ? **Describe the solution you'd like** A clear and concise description of what you want to happen. **Describe alternatives you've considered** A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered. **Additional context** Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

kerem added the

enhancement

label

2026-03-02 05:20:17 +03:00

kerem commented

2026-03-02 05:20:17 +03:00

Author

Owner

@bfwbbrj commented on GitHub (Mar 17, 2023):

Can you share some background information? What would the use case be like?

@bfwbbrj commented on GitHub (Mar 17, 2023): Can you share some background information? What would the use case be like?

kerem commented

2026-03-02 05:20:18 +03:00

Author

Owner

@lee3164 commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2023):

Can you share some background information? What would the use case be like?

Sometimes, we need to schedule task B after task A is done

@lee3164 commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2023): > Can you share some background information? What would the use case be like? Sometimes, we need to schedule task B after task A is done

kerem commented

2026-03-02 05:20:18 +03:00

Author

Owner

@lee3164 commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2023):

Can you share some background information? What would the use case be like?

Sometimes, we need to schedule task B after task A is done

@lee3164 commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2023): > Can you share some background information? What would the use case be like? Sometimes, we need to schedule task B after task A is done

kerem commented

2026-03-02 05:20:18 +03:00

Author

Owner

@bfwbbrj commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2023):

Can you share some background information? What would the use case be like?

Sometimes, we need to schedule task B after task A is done

In this case, I believe simply calling asynq.Client.Enqueue after task A is done would satisfy your needs.

@bfwbbrj commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2023): > > Can you share some background information? What would the use case be like? > > Sometimes, we need to schedule task B after task A is done In this case, I believe simply calling `asynq.Client.Enqueue` after task A is done would satisfy your needs.

kerem commented

2026-03-02 05:20:18 +03:00

Author

Owner

@lee3164 commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2023):

Yes, because this is a simple case. If we have such a feature, we can get many benefits from it.

Our code is clean, and our schedule logic is in the same place, for example:

func schedule(ctx) {
    client.Enqueue(ctx, taskA)
    client.Enqueue(ctx, taskB, After(TaskA))
    client.Enqueue(ctx, taskC, After(TaskB))
}

In some cases, we need more complicated and fine control. for example:

func schedule(ctx) {
    client.Enqueue(ctx, taskA)
    client.Enqueue(ctx, taskB)
    client.Enqueue(ctx, taskC, After(TaskA, TaskB))
}

@lee3164 commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2023): Yes, because this is a simple case. If we have such a feature, we can get many benefits from it. 1. Our code is clean, and our schedule logic is in the same place, for example: ``` func schedule(ctx) { client.Enqueue(ctx, taskA) client.Enqueue(ctx, taskB, After(TaskA)) client.Enqueue(ctx, taskC, After(TaskB)) } ``` 2. In some cases, we need more complicated and fine control. for example: ``` func schedule(ctx) { client.Enqueue(ctx, taskA) client.Enqueue(ctx, taskB) client.Enqueue(ctx, taskC, After(TaskA, TaskB)) } ```

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-02 06:05:15 +03:00

[PR #298] [MERGED] Upgrade go-redis/redis to version 8 #704

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-07 22:06:33 +03:00

[GH-ISSUE #321] [FEATURE REQUEST] Instrumentation/Tracing for asynq redis client #1152

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-07 22:12:46 +03:00

[PR #298] [MERGED] Upgrade go-redis/redis to version 8 #1715

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-15 19:28:47 +03:00

[GH-ISSUE #321] [FEATURE REQUEST] Instrumentation/Tracing for asynq redis client #2161