Skip to content

docs(client): add retry backoff and circuit breaker resilience recommendations (#104) - #102

Closed
showmemercy19-rgb wants to merge 1 commit into
AstralDeep:mainfrom
showmemercy19-rgb:docs/add-client-resilience-guide
Closed

showmemercy19-rgb wants to merge 1 commit into
AstralDeep:mainfrom
showmemercy19-rgb:docs/add-client-resilience-guide

Conversation

@showmemercy19-rgb

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adds client resilience and backoff recommendations.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

All applicable PR CI workflows passed for 5b82a2c.

Ready for maintainer code review.

@armstrongsam25 armstrongsam25 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for contributing. I reviewed the full diff against current main and the LETS constitution.

The entire guide is two bullets, and neither asserted behavior is documented accurately: current LETSClient._request uses capped exponential delays and Retry-After handling, with no full-jitter sampling or circuit-breaker state/threshold. Please describe the implemented RetryPolicy, retryable statuses, request-id/idempotency rules, total deadline and typed failures, with runnable examples or mark unimplemented proposals explicitly. Do not publish full jitter/circuit breakers as current SDK guarantees.

Please expand this into complete, source-backed documentation before merge (constitution XI and XII). This head contains no measurable executable lines, so changed-line coverage is not applicable; that should be recorded explicitly in the PR. No tests or candidate code were executed during this review.

@armstrongsam25

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closing after source-based triage of head 5b82a2c. The guide lists full jitter and circuit-breaker thresholding without configuration, code, examples or an explicitly scoped proposal. The current client implements bounded exponential delays and Retry-After handling, with neither mechanism. No usable resilience guidance or implemented correction is supplied.

Evidence: implemented retry handling; bounded retry path; entire submitted guide.

Triage criterion: unsupported-completion. Closing this unmerged PR does not close an unfulfilled task, delete the contributor branch, or award bounty points. A distinct substantive revision may be reviewed after reopening.

@armstrongsam25 armstrongsam25 added the triage:unsupported-completion Claimed completed scope is absent from the reviewed implementation or evidence. label Oct 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

triage:unsupported-completion Claimed completed scope is absent from the reviewed implementation or evidence.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants