Manuel Astudillo

The problem is that in order to return a "feedback" we need to perform a breaking change, since Queue.add must return the "added" job, even if it was not really...

It would also be possible to emit a global "ignored" event or something when adding a job, I am open to a PR for that.

It is actually the desired behaviour, and as far as I remember this behaviour is necessary to guarantee atomicity and the hazard that a given repeatable job could add itself...

not sure if this applies to every actually, maybe only to standard cron based jobs :/

Thanks for the PR. Could you please motivate why you would like to force taking a lock? it could potentially have a lot of side effects.

In the scenario above, I do not get why the job is stalled, you wrote that the supervisor process crashes, but not the remote server processing the job, right?

If the process running bull crashes, the jobs will picked up later by other bull workers, I still do not fully understand your use case :/

Can you explain the point 4 a bit more? (If processing is in progress, I take lock of job and run standard requests every 15s)

I have studied the code above and I do not understand why it is needed, it looks as if you have implemented a similar mechanism of what already exists in...

ok, so your use case is to run a different process function when re-processing a stalled job?