Issue with send feature for fifo queues

[astyves-seedbox]

Hello!

GuiStack/GuiStack/Repositories/ISQSRepository.cs

Line 183 in 7173e17

var response = await sqs.SendMessageAsync(new SendMessageRequest(queueUrl, messageBody));

To be able to send a message to a Fifo queue we need to specify a MessageGroupId and a MessageDeduplicationId.

As a quick fix, I suggest to add this to fix the problem:

            var message = new SendMessageRequest(queueUrl, messageBody);

            if (queueUrl.EndsWith(".fifo", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
                message.MessageGroupId = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
                message.MessageDeduplicationId = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();

            var response = await sqs.SendMessageAsync(message);

[Visual-Vincent]

Hello astyves,

Reading up on the documentation, which appears to contradict itself in some places, you seem to be correct. I have only tried sending to FIFO queues in LocalStack, which appears to be more lenient as it has worked without these properties for me in the past.

However, when content-based deduplication is enabled for the queue we might not want to set MessageDeduplicationId ourselves, as that is meant to be calculated from the body of the message.

I will look into making a fix for this. Potentially I might add support for setting these properties in the GUI.

Thank you for the report!

[astyves-seedbox]

I'm also using LocalStack on my end. It's possible that it wasn't fully synced with AWS SQS when you built the program. As for the MessageDeduplicationId, I didn't realize you could enable content-based deduplication - great find!

Thanks for the quick response!

[Visual-Vincent]

Publishing an update since this issue is closing in on celebrating its first year:

This has not been forgotten :)

Infact, I've started rebuilding the entire frontend in SvelteKit instead, which provides a better structure and will be easier for me to make modifications to. Apart from not having had enough time to work on GuiStack last year, part of the reason why this has not yet been fixed is that making changes to the old frontend is finicky.

I can't give any sort of timeline, but my plan is to first reimplement all existing features in the new frontend, including DynamoDB support, and after that I'll look into further fixes/improvements.