You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Current implementation is fine for now, but rather a dirty fix...
It'd be better to use a sort of stack implementation for posting. Any bot posts/responses, would need to go onto the stack, and then the stack would correctly pop each post off under a correct amount of delay to avoid the rate-limiting (of 50 posts per second, at least globally).
The upside of doing this will remove the sometimes overuse of delay when it doesn't need to be used, aka making the bot faster again, even if slightly.
EDIT: I'm likely going to push this off until one of the bots has 50+ servers, because then it'll be absolute necessity.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Andrew-J-Larson
changed the title
[Enhancement #3] Best post handling to avoid rate-limiting
[Enhancement #3] Better post handling to avoid rate-limiting
Apr 18, 2021
Because we may change rate limits at any time and rate limits can be different per application, rate limits should not be hard coded into your bot/application. In order to properly support our dynamic rate limits, your bot/application should parse for our rate limits in response headers and locally prevent exceeding the limits as they change.
Current implementation is fine for now, but rather a dirty fix...
It'd be better to use a sort of stack implementation for posting. Any bot posts/responses, would need to go onto the stack, and then the stack would correctly pop each post off under a correct amount of delay to avoid the rate-limiting (of 50 posts per second, at least globally).
The upside of doing this will remove the sometimes overuse of delay when it doesn't need to be used, aka making the bot faster again, even if slightly.
EDIT: I'm likely going to push this off until one of the bots has 50+ servers, because then it'll be absolute necessity.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: