[RateLimit] Test and fix peeking behavior on rate limit policies #53259
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
392dd0e to
e4a8c33
Compare
|
Thank you @wouterj. |
This was referenced Dec 30, 2023
Merged
Merged
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Although heavily discouraged for user-land code, we've implemented peeking behavior for rate limiting in 6.2 with #46110. However, I found that our rate limit policies show very inconsistent behavior on this.
As we didn't have great test covering peeking return values, we broke BC with #51676 in 6.4. I propose this PR to verify the behavior of the policies and also make it inconsistent. I target 6.3 because we rely on this in the login throttling since 6.2 and this shows buggy error messages ("try again in 0 minute") when not using the default policy for login throttling.
Note
When merging this PR, there will be heavy merge conflicts in the SlidingWindowLimiter. You can ignore the changes in this PR for this policy in 6.4. I'll rebase and update #52835 to fix the sliding window limiter in 6.4+