Greetings - Mr. Green here!
Using the regular Tweet button, I noticed that it's not tweeting in the order of the tweets even though I have' Random Order' unchecked.
Example:
TWEET 1
TWEET 2
TWEET 3
TWEET 4
with
ACCOUNT 1
ACCOUNT 2
4 Tweets / 2 Accounts = 2 Tweets per Account
ACCOUNT 1 = TWEETED TWEET 1
ACCOUNT 2 = TWEETED TWEET 3
10 MINS LATER
ACCOUNT 1 = TWEETED TWEET 4
ACCOUNT 2 = TWEETED TWEET 2
The issue I see with this is if the job stops for whatever reason, I don't know which Tweets were not posted, unless I scrape through the entire logs which I don't want to do VS. them being in order I can see which one was the last tweet and get rid of the rest of resume.
Is this a bug or do I need to add additional configuration to ensure it goes in order? For what it's worth, I do have the "normal" radio button marked...
Thanks!
V
Tweets in Random Order even though not checked?
- martin@rootjazz
- Site Admin
- Posts: 34373
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:06 pm
- Location: The Funk
- Contact:
Re: Tweets in Random Order even though not checked?
Let me check. Maybe a randomise_order function crept in accidentally where it shouldn't
Regards,
Martin
Regards,
Martin
Re: Tweets in Random Order even though not checked?
Thanks Martin,
-V
-V
- martin@rootjazz
- Site Admin
- Posts: 34373
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:06 pm
- Location: The Funk
- Contact:
Re: Tweets in Random Order even though not checked?
Working fine here.
Are you threading the SHARED action? If so, then order will go out the window
Are you threading the SHARED action? If so, then order will go out the window
Re: Tweets in Random Order even though not checked?
Yes I am!
I put 2 threads believing I needed 1 per each account. So keeping it at 1 should do the trick then!
Good to know, thanks Martin!
- V
I put 2 threads believing I needed 1 per each account. So keeping it at 1 should do the trick then!
Good to know, thanks Martin!
- V
- martin@rootjazz
- Site Admin
- Posts: 34373
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:06 pm
- Location: The Funk
- Contact:
Re: Tweets in Random Order even though not checked?
Ok then, yes that will be it. When threading is used, ordering is not guaranteed. Although it is "usually" somewhat in order
1>10 items, there is no OS guarantee that items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 will be sent in order, it could be 1 2 4 3 9 5 6 7 8 (why the OS does it this way I don't know).
But even so, if it was sent in order, there could still be a bad ordering as delays on network could mean items 1 and 2 sent, 2 has a network issue, 1 completes get given 3 to process and completes that before 2 is completed.
If ordering important, it *has* to be 1 thread
Regards,
Martin