-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
fix: revert tower http request #66
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
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@galzilber has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 4 minutes and 33 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
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.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed everything up to ec7869a in 36 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
13lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. Cargo.toml:50
- Draft comment:
Reverting tower-http to v0.6.2: Ensure intentional downgrade and validate that no critical fixes from 0.7.0 are lost. Consider documenting the reason. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the PR author to ensure the downgrade is intentional and to validate that no critical fixes are lost, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention or ensure behavior. It also suggests documenting the reason, which is similar to asking for an update to the PR description. Therefore, this comment should be removed.
Workflow ID: wflow_F1KEIwsKPoyssFXf
You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.
Important
Downgrade
tower-httpversion from0.7.0to0.6.2inCargo.toml.tower-httpversion from0.7.0to0.6.2inCargo.toml.This description was created by
for ec7869a. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.