-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 530
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
fix regression when throttle timeout is marginal #1572
Open
MDSLKTR
wants to merge
3
commits into
tulios:master
Choose a base branch
from
MDSLKTR:fix-regression-when-throttle-timeout-is-marginal
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+14
−9
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
I feel like I'm missing something here. From reading this code it looks to me like we're going to be checking every single time around the event loop, since the
setTimeout
is always called with 0.So the very first time we get throttled, we'll set
throttleCurrentTimestamp
to 0 andthrottledUntil
to 10.timeUntilThrottled
is10 - 0
, which is greater than 0 and we don't already have a scheduled timer, so we schedule it for next tick. Next tick happens so we null out the timeout id and we updatethrottleCurrentTimestamp
with the current time, let's say it's 1. NowtimeUntilThrottled
is 10 - 1 which is still greater than 0, so we do the same thing over again.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.
you are right, this would probably create many more calls then necessary, i could imagine that instead using Math.max(timeUntilUnthrottled, 0) would then be more applicable?
This would delay the next call until it is predicting the throttleling to be over, this marginal offset is then solved by setting the timestamp and there would not be the case where timeUntilUnthrottled is 0 i think
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.
It might be helpful to read the previous implementation (and the original one). If you check the PR that introduced this (#1532 (comment)), I made a similar suggestion. We just need to make sure we don't end up in an infinite loop
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.
Yeah, i tried to align with what was there before, currently this works without causing a loop, and the added test from the previous PR also passes. Not sure if there is a better way of testing this properly
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.
Is there a way to move this forward? so far it looks good and not causing any infinite loops