feat: rate limit requests using aperture #14
Conversation
WalkthroughThe codebase has been updated to handle rate limiting when making HTTP requests to the GitHub API. A new function Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on X ? TipsChat with CodeRabbit Bot (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 5
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- contributors.js (3 hunks)
- network.js (3 hunks)
Additional comments: 8
contributors.js (5)
13-13: The import statement has been correctly updated to use the new
makeRequestWithRateLimitfunction fromnetwork.js. This aligns with the PR objectives.46-46: The
makeRequestWithRateLimitfunction is called with the correct parameters, and the response is destructured to obtainresanddata. Ensure that themakeRequestWithRateLimitfunction is designed to return an object with these properties.74-74: Similar to the previous hunk, the
makeRequestWithRateLimitfunction is used correctly here. Verify that the function returns an object withresanddataproperties.71-77: The pagination logic in
getRepoContributorsseems correct, and the function is using themakeRequestWithRateLimitfunction as expected. Ensure that themakeRequestWithRateLimitfunction handles pagination internally or that the calling function correctly interprets when to stop paginating.71-77: The data processing functions
aggregateAllContributorsandsortReposByContributionsCountare not directly affected by the changes in this PR. However, ensure that the data structure returned by themakeRequestWithRateLimitfunction is compatible with the expected input for these functions.network.js (3)
114-114: The
FlowStatusused inflow.setStatus(FlowStatus.Error);is not defined in the provided code. Please ensure thatFlowStatusis imported or defined within the scope.101-102: The deadline set for the gRPC call in
makeRequestWithRateLimitis very short (300 milliseconds). Please verify if this is the intended behavior.77-80: The
rateLimitOptionsparameter inmakeRequestWithRateLimitis not being used. Please clarify its intended usage and implement it if necessary.
network.js
Outdated
| const flow = await apertureClient.startFlow("external-api-request", { | ||
| labels: { | ||
| url: url, | ||
| }, | ||
| grpcCallOptions: { | ||
| deadline: Date.now() + 300, // ms | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| if (flow.shouldRun()) { | ||
| // Add business logic to process incoming request | ||
| console.log("Request accepted. Processing..."); | ||
| const {res, data} = await makeRequest(...arguments) | ||
| return { res, data} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The use of ...arguments in makeRequestWithRateLimit could lead to maintenance issues. It's better to explicitly pass the method, url, and requestOptions to makeRequest.
- const {res, data} = await makeRequest(...arguments)
+ const {res, data} = await makeRequest(method, url, requestOptions)Committable suggestion
❗ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| async function makeRequestWithRateLimit(method, url, requestOptions){ | |
| const flow = await apertureClient.startFlow("external-api-request", { | |
| labels: { | |
| url: url, | |
| }, | |
| grpcCallOptions: { | |
| deadline: Date.now() + 300, // ms | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| if (flow.shouldRun()) { | |
| // Add business logic to process incoming request | |
| console.log("Request accepted. Processing..."); | |
| const {res, data} = await makeRequest(...arguments) | |
| return { res, data} | |
| async function makeRequestWithRateLimit(method, url, requestOptions){ | |
| const flow = await apertureClient.startFlow("external-api-request", { | |
| labels: { | |
| url: url, | |
| }, | |
| grpcCallOptions: { | |
| deadline: Date.now() + 300, // ms | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| if (flow.shouldRun()) { | |
| // Add business logic to process incoming request | |
| console.log("Request accepted. Processing..."); | |
| const {res, data} = await makeRequest(method, url, requestOptions) | |
| return { res, data} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 4
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to filter (2)
- package-lock.json
- package.json
Files selected for processing (2)
- contributors.js (3 hunks)
- network.js (3 hunks)
Additional comments: 6
contributors.js (3)
- 9-9: The import statement includes both
makeRequestandmakeRequestWithRateLimit, but the summary suggestsmakeRequestwas replaced. Verify ifmakeRequestis still being used elsewhere in the codebase or if it should be removed from the import.
The import statement in
contributors.jscorrectly includes bothmakeRequestandmakeRequestWithRateLimit. ThemakeRequestfunction is still present innetwork.js, indicating it's likely still in use. No further action is required regarding this import.
42-42: The change to use
makeRequestWithRateLimitingetAllReposaligns with the PR objective to introduce rate limiting.70-70: The change to use
makeRequestWithRateLimitingetRepoContributorsis consistent with the PR objective to introduce rate limiting.network.js (3)
7-15: Lazy initialization of
apertureClientseems correctly implemented.22-24: The documentation update for
makeRequestcorrectly reflects the new parameter structure.94-118: The implementation of
makeRequestWithRateLimitcorrectly uses theapertureClientto control the flow of requests based on rate limiting.
network.js
Outdated
| if (flow.shouldRun()) { | ||
| // Add business logic to process incoming request | ||
| console.log("Request accepted. Processing..."); | ||
| const {res, data} = await makeRequest(...arguments) | ||
| return { res, data} | ||
| } else { | ||
| console.log("Request rate-limited. Try again later."); | ||
| // Handle flow rejection | ||
| flow.setStatus(FlowStatus.Error); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The makeRequestWithRateLimit function should throw an error or return a rejected promise when the request is rate-limited, as previously suggested.
+ console.log("Request rate-limited. Try again later.");
+ // Handle flow rejection
+ flow.setStatus(FlowStatus.Error);
+ throw new Error("Request rate-limited. Try again later.");Committable suggestion
❗ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| if (flow.shouldRun()) { | |
| // Add business logic to process incoming request | |
| console.log("Request accepted. Processing..."); | |
| const {res, data} = await makeRequest(...arguments) | |
| return { res, data} | |
| } else { | |
| console.log("Request rate-limited. Try again later."); | |
| // Handle flow rejection | |
| flow.setStatus(FlowStatus.Error); | |
| } | |
| if (flow.shouldRun()) { | |
| // Add business logic to process incoming request | |
| console.log("Request accepted. Processing..."); | |
| const {res, data} = await makeRequest(...arguments) | |
| return { res, data} | |
| } else { | |
| console.log("Request rate-limited. Try again later."); | |
| // Handle flow rejection | |
| flow.setStatus(FlowStatus.Error); | |
| throw new Error("Request rate-limited. Try again later."); | |
| } |
| @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ export async function getAllRepos(owner=REPO_OWNER, options) { | |||
| GITHUB_REQUEST_OPTIONS.headers["Authorization"] = "token "+options.GITHUB_PERSONAL_TOKEN; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The previous comment about the potential side effects of modifying GITHUB_REQUEST_OPTIONS directly is still valid. Consider creating a new options object within the function scope to avoid potential side effects.
| console.log("Repo list request finished"); | ||
| console.log('HTTP status: ', res.statusCode); | ||
| // console.log(data) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The previous comment about ensuring proper error handling in case the request fails or the status code indicates an error is still valid. Consider adding explicit error handling to manage different HTTP status codes and request failures.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to filter (2)
- package-lock.json
- package.json
Files selected for processing (3)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- network.js (3 hunks)
- test/index.test.js (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .github/workflows/test.yml
Additional comments: 6
network.js (4)
2-15: The lazy initialization of
ApertureClientingetApertureClientis a good practice to avoid unnecessary instantiation if the client is not used.22-24: Renaming of
optionstorequestOptionsand the addition ofbodyandheadersin the JSDoc comments is consistent and improves clarity.106-108: Ensure that the environment variables
APERTURE_SERVICE_ADDRESSandAPERTURE_API_KEYare correctly set for theApertureClientto function properly.Verification successful
The executed script confirms that the
APERTURE_SERVICE_ADDRESSandAPERTURE_API_KEYenvironment variables are not set in the current environment. However, this does not necessarily mean that there is an issue with the codebase itself. The environment variables are typically set in the deployment environment or through a configuration file, and it is not the responsibility of the codebase to set them.The code snippet provided in the review comment suggests that the application logs an error and a couple of informational messages if the
ApertureClientis not set up correctly, which is a reasonable way to handle the situation where the environment variables are not set. The application then proceeds to make the request without rate limiting.Given this information, the code appears to handle the scenario of missing environment variables appropriately by notifying the user and falling back to a non-rate-limited request.
* 119-125: Verify that `FlowStatus.Error` is a valid status and ensure that `flow.end()` is called to properly clean up the flow after it's no longer needed.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify that the required environment variables are set echo "Checking for APERTURE_SERVICE_ADDRESS and APERTURE_API_KEY environment variables..." if [[ -z "$APERTURE_SERVICE_ADDRESS" || -z "$APERTURE_API_KEY" ]]; then echo "Environment variables for ApertureClient are not set." else echo "Environment variables for ApertureClient are set." fiLength of output: 307
Verification successful
FlowStatus.Errorandflow.end()are both present innetwork.js, which confirms their validity in the context of the codebase.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify that FlowStatus.Error is a valid status ast-grep --lang javascript --pattern $'enum FlowStatus { $$$ Error($_) $$$ }'Length of output: 550
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify that FlowStatus.Error is a valid status by checking if it's a property of an object ast-grep --lang javascript --pattern $'const FlowStatus = { $$$ Error: $_, $$$ }' # Verify that the flow.end() method exists ast-grep --lang javascript --pattern $'class $_ { $$$ end() { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 176
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Use ripgrep to search for FlowStatus.Error and flow.end() in the codebase rg "FlowStatus\.Error" --files-with-matches rg "flow\.end\(\)" --files-with-matchesLength of output: 109
test/index.test.js (2)
1-1: Ensure that the environment variables loaded by 'dotenv/config' are actually used in the tests. If not, this import might be unnecessary.
2-7: The import statements and test suite setup appear to be correct and consistent with typical Mocha test files.
| if (requestOptions.data) { | ||
| req.write(requestOptions.data); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The previous comment about renaming requestOptions.data to requestOptions.body has not been addressed. This should be consistent with the JSDoc comments and the rest of the codebase.
- if (requestOptions.data) {
- req.write(requestOptions.data);
+ if (requestOptions.body) {
+ req.write(requestOptions.body);Committable suggestion
❗ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| if (requestOptions.data) { | |
| req.write(requestOptions.data); | |
| if (requestOptions.body) { | |
| req.write(requestOptions.body); |
network.js
Outdated
| flow = await getApertureClient().startFlow("external-api", { | ||
| labels: { | ||
| url: url, | ||
| }, | ||
| grpcCallOptions: { | ||
| deadline: Date.now() + 300, // ms | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The deadline in grpcCallOptions is set to Date.now() + 300, which is likely incorrect as Date.now() returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, and adding 300 would still represent a time in the past. The deadline should be set to a future time.
- deadline: Date.now() + 300, // ms
+ deadline: Date.now() + 300000, // 300 seconds in the futureCommittable suggestion
❗ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| flow = await getApertureClient().startFlow("external-api", { | |
| labels: { | |
| url: url, | |
| }, | |
| grpcCallOptions: { | |
| deadline: Date.now() + 300, // ms | |
| }, | |
| flow = await getApertureClient().startFlow("external-api", { | |
| labels: { | |
| url: url, | |
| }, | |
| grpcCallOptions: { | |
| deadline: Date.now() + 300000, // 300 seconds in the future | |
| }, |
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Refactor
Documentation