In order to analyse rest-gateway rate limit responses in turnilo/superset:
x-requestctl header gets scrubbed at the edge on response.
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | None | T399291 Epic: API Rate Limiting Architecture | |||
| Open | None | T412585 Epic: Enforce API rate limits (WE5.1.3c) | |||
| Duplicate | Clement_Goubert | T414349 Log rate limits from rest-gateway in webrequests |
I just filed T417780: rest gateway: include x-wmf-* headers in response, now I'm wondering if the two tasks should be combined, and if they are the same. Do we need a separate "rate limit was applied" header? Wouldn't status 429 already tell us that?
@HCoplin-WMF can you clarify? CC @JAllemandou
The x-requestctl I'm proposing would put it in the place we look for in Turnilo to understand what rate limit rules are applied and where. Given how it's currently used, I think a better format for it would be rg:${x-wmf-ratelimit-class} actually. This would match what we do for haproxy enforced rules hap:${rule_name}. @Joe any objections/thoughts about this?