Fix OperationLimits remarks

[Daniel-Alblas-VFI]

With the changes in #3303 it seems that values are now always overwritten by values set in the server in FetchOperationLimitsAsync, rather than only in the case described in the remarks of OperationLimits.

Proposed changes

Modify the Remarks of OperationLimits to be aligned with current functionality

Related Issues

• Refactor client state persistence and add more tests #3303

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce?
Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR.

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Test enhancement (non-breaking change to increase test coverage)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected, requires version increase of Nuget packages)
• Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc.
• I have signed the CLA.
• I ran tests locally with my changes, all passed.
• I fixed all failing tests in the CI pipelines.
• I fixed all introduced issues with CodeQL and LGTM.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works and increased code coverage.
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate).
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules.

Further comments

N/A

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[marcschier]

I wonder if the original documentation should not be the actual behavior. It think it never was, but it would be great to limit operation limits below what the server returns, e.g. set 3, server responds with 4, leave at 3. I know we always fill in what the server returns, but that feels incorrect. Maybe open a bug?

[romanett]

I wonder if the original documentation should not be the actual behavior. It think it never was, but it would be great to limit operation limits below what the server returns, e.g. set 3, server responds with 4, leave at 3. I know we always fill in what the server returns, but that feels incorrect. Maybe open a bug?

@Daniel-Alblas-VFI what do you think?

[Daniel-Alblas-VFI]

I wonder if the original documentation should not be the actual behavior. It think it never was, but it would be great to limit operation limits below what the server returns, e.g. set 3, server responds with 4, leave at 3. I know we always fill in what the server returns, but that feels incorrect. Maybe open a bug?

@Daniel-Alblas-VFI what do you think?

Seems reasonable to me! #3501