Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

increase the timeout time #558

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 6, 2025
Merged

increase the timeout time #558

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 6, 2025

Conversation

jnathangreeg
Copy link
Contributor

@jnathangreeg jnathangreeg commented Jan 6, 2025

PR Type

Enhancement


Description

  • Increased the default rate limit sleep duration to 60 seconds.

  • Updated both post_with_ratelimit and get_with_rate_limit methods.


Changes walkthrough 📝

Relevant files
Enhancement
backend_api.py
Adjusted rate limit sleep duration in API methods               

infrastructure/backend_api.py

  • Increased the default rate_limit_sleep from 45 to 60 seconds.
  • Updated in both post_with_ratelimit and get_with_rate_limit methods.
  • +2/-2     

    💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

    Signed-off-by: jnathangreeg <[email protected]>
    Copy link

    PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

    Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

    ⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 1 🔵⚪⚪⚪⚪
    🧪 No relevant tests
    🔒 No security concerns identified
    ⚡ No major issues detected

    Copy link

    PR Code Suggestions ✨

    Explore these optional code suggestions:

    CategorySuggestion                                                                                                                                    Score
    Possible issue
    Add missing sleep functionality in rate-limiting retry mechanism to prevent API abuse

    The rate_limit_sleep variable is defined but never used in the rate-limiting logic.
    Implement sleep between retries when rate limits are hit to prevent overwhelming the
    server.

    infrastructure/backend_api.py [1976-1982]

     def post_with_ratelimit(self, url, **args):
         # Extract optional parameters with defaults
         rate_limit_retries = args.pop("rate_limit_retries", 1)
         rate_limit_sleep = args.pop("rate_limit_sleep", 60)
     
         for attempt in range(1, rate_limit_retries + 1):
             r = self.post(url, **args)
    +        if r.status_code == 429:  # Too Many Requests
    +            if attempt < rate_limit_retries:
    +                time.sleep(rate_limit_sleep)
    +            continue
    • Apply this suggestion
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9

    Why: Critical improvement that implements proper rate limiting by adding sleep functionality when hitting rate limits (429 status). Without this, the rate_limit_sleep parameter has no effect, potentially leading to API abuse.

    9
    Implement consistent rate-limiting behavior across all HTTP methods

    The same rate-limiting issue exists in the get_with_rate_limit method. Add the sleep
    functionality there as well for consistency.

    infrastructure/backend_api.py [2008-2013]

     def get_with_rate_limit(self, url, **args):
         rate_limit_retries = args.pop("rate_limit_retries", 1)
         rate_limit_sleep = args.pop("rate_limit_sleep", 60)
     
         for attempt in range(1, rate_limit_retries + 1):
             r = self.get(url, **args)
    +        if r.status_code == 429:  # Too Many Requests
    +            if attempt < rate_limit_retries:
    +                time.sleep(rate_limit_sleep)
    +            continue
    • Apply this suggestion
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9

    Why: Essential consistency fix that adds the same rate limiting logic to GET requests. Without this, the rate_limit_sleep parameter is unused and GET requests could overwhelm the API despite rate limits.

    9

    Copy link

    github-actions bot commented Jan 6, 2025

    Failed to generate code suggestions for PR

    @jnathangreeg jnathangreeg merged commit 1964d27 into master Jan 6, 2025
    2 checks passed
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    2 participants