-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 410
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
Use exponential backoff with jitter #2419
Conversation
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
531bd4c
to
5065b5a
Compare
@j0holo could you please squash your commits so there is only one with a email address that matches your GitHub email address? |
5065b5a
to
5653b38
Compare
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2419 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 64.32% 26.91% -37.42%
===========================================
Files 392 392
Lines 19234 19251 +17
===========================================
- Hits 12373 5182 -7191
- Misses 5962 13514 +7552
+ Partials 899 555 -344
... and 122 files with indirect coverage changes
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
ad1fde5
to
c2d9d1d
Compare
Yeah, I already saw that problem. Fixed it now. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for contributing! I have a few suggestions 🤗
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
c2d9d1d
to
4681e54
Compare
4681e54
to
c8a27b6
Compare
@j0holo Assuming that your git configuration includes email address now, please don't squash and force-push your commits anymore – we are squashing them on PR merge anyway, but that makes reviews harder. @w84thesun PTAL |
That's not an error, just a bit confusing message. I will fix it in another PR |
@j0holo Please reformat your code with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes look reasonable to me! Let's fix the linter complaints and merge this!
…erretDB into exponential-backoff-with-jitter
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
I figured because I had to squash my changes in the beginning and because nothing is noted about in the contribution guide. |
It is documented here – that's our extra guidelines for advanced contributors. :) But yeah, I think we could move a part of it to CONTRIBUTING.md |
I see, it would help for new contributors to do the right thing at once. |
Created #2427 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🚀
Description
Closes #1720.
I have added ctxutil.SleepWithJitter based on https://aws.amazon.com/ru/blogs/architecture/exponential-backoff-and-jitter/ (FullJitter).
I did not complete all tasks in the issue for the following reason:
For the three unit tests I have added I had difficulty with making sure my tests are correct because SleepWithJitter uses rand.Int63n which makes it difficult to validate testing boundaries.
Readiness checklist
task all
, and it passed. <-- returnspackage.txt: open package.txt: no such file or directory
@FerretDB/core
), Assignee, Labels, Project and project's Sprint fields.