Skip to content

fix: correct rate limiting calculation to prevent incorrect delay display #7771

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

fix: correct rate limiting calculation to prevent incorrect delay display #7771

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 7 additions & 3 deletions src/core/task/Task.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2528,11 +2528,15 @@ export class Task extends EventEmitter<TaskEvents> implements TaskLike {

// Use the shared timestamp so that subtasks respect the same rate-limit
// window as their parent tasks.
if (Task.lastGlobalApiRequestTime) {
const rateLimit = apiConfiguration?.rateLimitSeconds || 0
Copy link
Contributor Author

@roomote roomote bot Sep 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Minor suggestion: Consider renaming this variable to rateLimitSeconds to match the configuration property name (apiConfiguration?.rateLimitSeconds). This would make the code more consistent and self-documenting.

if (Task.lastGlobalApiRequestTime && rateLimit > 0) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

@roomote roomote bot Sep 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this intentional? While checking for rateLimit > 0 correctly handles the undefined/0 case, what happens if someone accidentally configures a negative rate limit? Should we add validation to ensure rateLimit >= 0 or use Math.max(0, rateLimit) to be defensive?

const now = Date.now()
const timeSinceLastRequest = now - Task.lastGlobalApiRequestTime
const rateLimit = apiConfiguration?.rateLimitSeconds || 0
rateLimitDelay = Math.ceil(Math.max(0, rateLimit * 1000 - timeSinceLastRequest) / 1000)
const remainingDelay = rateLimit * 1000 - timeSinceLastRequest
// Only apply rate limit if there's actually time remaining to wait
if (remainingDelay > 0) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

@roomote roomote bot Sep 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could we improve readability by combining these conditions? Something like:

Suggested change
if (remainingDelay > 0) {
if (Task.lastGlobalApiRequestTime && rateLimit > 0) {
const now = Date.now()
const timeSinceLastRequest = now - Task.lastGlobalApiRequestTime
const remainingDelay = rateLimit * 1000 - timeSinceLastRequest
rateLimitDelay = remainingDelay > 0 ? Math.ceil(remainingDelay / 1000) : 0
}

This would eliminate the nested if statement while maintaining the same logic.

rateLimitDelay = Math.ceil(remainingDelay / 1000)
}
}

// Only show rate limiting message if we're not retrying. If retrying, we'll include the delay there.
Expand Down
Loading