feat: terminateVisibilityTimeout = number to customise the timeout

[Frederick888]

Resolves #523

Description:
This allows users to introduce a delay before the message can be received again. In some cases this can improve the overall success rate.

Type of change:

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Why is this change required?:
When tasks are not time critical, a small delay can mitigate some intermittent errors, or give supervisors like K8s a little time to kill broken consumers.

Code changes:

• terminateVisibilityTimeout option has been updated to accept custom visibility timeouts.

I reused the option as I thought it was the most non-intrusive way to introduce this feature. If it appears to be confusing, I can also add a new option. But since the underlying SQS command is the same, I think it's ok.

---

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot CLA CHECK All Contributors have signed the CLA

[Frederick888]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[nicholasgriffintn]

Thanks for the PR, this makes sense. I am currently thinking if it makes sense to add a new option though (terminateVisibilityTimeoutMs) rather than this logic and then just default that to 0 and allow it to be changed.

[Frederick888]

Thanks for the review! To be honest I'm on the fence too. If we reuse the terminateVisibilityTimeout option, the naming is a bit confusing; if we add a terminateVisibilityTimeoutMs, without looking at their types, there will appear to be a timeout and a timeout in milliseconds at the same time, and I'm not sure what should happen if terminateVisibilityTimeout == false but terminateVisibilityTimeoutMs is set.

I'm happy to leave the decision to you. I can update the code and docs if you opt for a new option in the end.

PS: Forgot to npm run format. Just pushed :)

[nicholasgriffintn]

Yeah that makes sense too, I think I'll just merge this into canary for now and think on it, if I don't decide against it by Wednesday, I'll push it up to main.

Thanks a lot for the contribution!