Closed
Bug 697126
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Add X-Backoff to token server and other non-storage APIs
Categories
(Cloud Services Graveyard :: Server: Token, defect)
Cloud Services Graveyard
Server: Token
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: mconnor, Assigned: rfkelly)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [qa+])
Attachments
(1 file)
1.06 KB,
patch
|
telliott
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
can add the same const magic to the code, but should document this if nothing else and let it be a Zeus impl detail...
Updated•13 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [qa+]
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
Not much point here, since user API is going away eventually.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
Does the token server API support this header?
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
Morphing this bug.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Component: Server: Registration → Server: Token
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
Summary: add x-weave-backoff to User API → Add X-Backoff to token server and other non-storage APIs
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
rfkelly, please close as appropriate if new code does the right thing…
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
I don't think this is documented as part of the tokenserver API, and there's nothing in the code that would generate it currently. We should split these details off into a generic "Services HTTP APIs all support the following headers" section of the docs...
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
Let's get the standard Retry-After/X-Backoff pair into the tokenserver docs in preparation for fxa+sync launch; we can refactor the docs to make this a standard thing later on.
Attachment #8358315 -
Flags: review?(telliott)
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
(Alternately we could just use "Backoff" since "X-*" headers are out of vogue these days)
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
Hah, I was just about to ping you about this! Occurred to me in the shower this morning.
Filed Bug 958795 for Android.
Mark, Tim, Chris: not sure where you're currently at with tracking this kind of stuff for the desktop client, so headsup!
Assignee: nobody → rfkelly
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
For a bit of context: Making this work was a P0 from SvcOps in the days of the Instant Sync meltdown. tl;dr it's really good to have an explicit way to tell clients to sync less frequently. 503+Retry-After presumes the service is down, 20x + X-Backoff is a valid way to successfully serve clients while still pushing them into less-frequent syncing.
sidenote: we should have unit tests to ensure that all client code understands Retry-After and X-Backoff are Very Important for scheduling. Manual syncs MAY override, but automatic sync intervals MUST follow backoff headers.
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike Connor [:mconnor] from comment #9)
> sidenote: we should have unit tests to ensure that all client code
> understands Retry-After and X-Backoff are Very Important for scheduling.
> Manual syncs MAY override, but automatic sync intervals MUST follow backoff
> headers.
Sometimes I think that the Android Sync codebase is actually an elaborate backoff-handling system with accompanying unit tests, and Fennec is a favicon management app that also displays HTML.
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Richard Newman [:rnewman] from comment #8)
> Hah, I was just about to ping you about this! Occurred to me in the shower
> this morning.
>
> Filed Bug 958795 for Android.
>
> Mark, Tim, Chris: not sure where you're currently at with tracking this kind
> of stuff for the desktop client, so headsup!
Bug 958447 already exists for desktop.
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8358315 [details] [diff] [review]
tokenserver-backoff.diff
Review of attachment 8358315 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I think that when we actually do more extensive protocol work, these should be merged or given more distinct semantics, but that's a separate conversation from documenting them (which is fine here)
Attachment #8358315 -
Flags: review?(telliott) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
Committed in https://github.com/mozilla-services/docs/commit/400ff966ac1539ee8b8874b1f543cdc52fbbd705
Do we want to keep this bug open to track more open-ended work on the protocol for this?
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
unblocking TS metabug since this made it into the docs
No longer blocks: 956217
Comment 15•11 years ago
|
||
Ryan, can we close this?
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•11 years ago
|
||
Yes We Can
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago → 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•2 years ago
|
Product: Cloud Services → Cloud Services Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•