Repository navigation
feat: add retry mechanism and observer for HTTP requests - #1
Merged
Merged
Conversation
- Introduced MaxRetries option to the Client for configurable retry behavior. - Implemented exponential backoff with jitter for retries on network errors and specific HTTP status codes. - Added an observer callback to log attempts and their outcomes. - Updated the Classify method to utilize the new retry logic. - Enhanced error handling to differentiate between retryable and non-retryable errors. - Added tests to verify retry behavior and observer functionality. chore: add .gitignore and golangci-lint configuration - Added .gitignore to exclude coverage output files. - Created .golangci.yml for linting configuration with a comprehensive set of linters. docs: update README with retries and logging details - Documented the retry mechanism and logging capabilities in the README. style: format code and improve readability - Reformatted code in various files for consistency and clarity. - Adjusted spacing and alignment in maps and structs for better readability. chore: update go.mod and go.sum for dependencies - Updated Go version to 1.26.0. - Added new dependencies for linting and code analysis tools. - Updated indirect dependencies to their latest versions. feat: add mise.toml for task automation - Created mise.toml to define tasks for testing, coverage, linting, and formatting.
The vulnerability step in .github/workflows/test.yml calls `go tool govulncheck`, but govulncheck was never listed in go.mod's tool block, so the step failed with `go: no such tool "govulncheck"`. Add golang.org/x/vuln/cmd/govulncheck alongside nilaway and gofumpt, and add a `mise vulncheck` task so the check is reachable locally instead of only from CI. The task reports plain text rather than mirroring CI's JSON and jq pipeline; that pipeline exists only so CI can ignore stdlib findings, which need a toolchain bump rather than an in-repo fix. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Collaborator
Author
|
/nit |
|
🤖 Review posted: 5 inline comments ⤴ AI Reviewer commandsYou can ask for another review by commenting on this PR:
The command must be the first thing in the comment, and only repository owners, members, and collaborators can trigger one. Or tell me to stay out of the way:
An explicit request — a slash command above, or requesting a review from me — still runs either way. You can also ask for a specific model on any review — append it after the command, or use
Available models:
You can also ask me to rebase:
Or ask me for a merge verdict:
Or let me approve your work without being asked:
Production |
Collaborator
Author
|
/verdict |
|
🤖 Working out a verdict… AI Reviewer commandsYou can ask for another review by commenting on this PR:
The command must be the first thing in the comment, and only repository owners, members, and collaborators can trigger one. Or tell me to stay out of the way:
An explicit request — a slash command above, or requesting a review from me — still runs either way. You can also ask for a specific model on any review — append it after the command, or use
Available models:
You can also ask me to rebase:
Or ask me for a merge verdict:
Or let me approve your work without being asked:
Production |
![prerender-ai-reviewer[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/4326869?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The retry logic reads cleanly and the exponential backoff with Retry-After handling is sensible. My notes are small polish items, mostly in the new CI workflow.
The main thing to check is .github/workflows/test.yml: it references a frontend-checks job that this workflow never defines, which suggests it was copied from another repo. Nothing here blocks merge."
AI Reviewer commands
You can ask for another review by commenting on this PR:
/caveman— Ultra-compressed findings — one line each, no throat-clearing/grumpy— Critical senior-dev pass focused on bugs, edge cases, and security/nit— Fine-grained style, naming, and structure polish linters miss/quality— Multi-axis pass across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance
The command must be the first thing in the comment, and only repository owners, members, and collaborators can trigger one.
Or tell me to stay out of the way:
@prerenderbot ignore this PR— no automatic review, fix, or rebase on this PR (undo withunignore)@prerenderbot ignore me— the same, for every PR you open in this repository (undo withunignore)
An explicit request — a slash command above, or requesting a review from me — still runs either way.
You can also ask for a specific model on any review — append it after the command, or use /model on its own for the default review:
/nit claude-fable-5/model gpt-3.5-turbo
Available models:
- anthropic:
claude-fable-5,claude-fable-5-1,claude-haiku-4-5-20251001,claude-opus-4-5-20251101,claude-opus-4-6,claude-opus-4-7,claude-opus-4-8,claude-opus-5,claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929,claude-sonnet-4-6,claude-sonnet-5 - openai:
gpt-3.5-turbo,gpt-3.5-turbo-0125,gpt-3.5-turbo-1106,gpt-3.5-turbo-16k,gpt-4,gpt-4-0613,gpt-4-turbo,gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09,gpt-4.1,gpt-4.1-2025-04-14,gpt-4.1-mini,gpt-4.1-mini-2025-04-14,gpt-4.1-nano,gpt-4.1-nano-2025-04-14,gpt-4o,gpt-4o-2024-05-13,gpt-4o-2024-08-06,gpt-4o-2024-11-20,gpt-4o-mini,gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18,gpt-5,gpt-5-2025-08-07,gpt-5-chat-latest,gpt-5-codex,gpt-5-mini,gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07,gpt-5-nano,gpt-5-nano-2025-08-07,gpt-5-pro,gpt-5-pro-2025-10-06,gpt-5.1,gpt-5.1-2025-11-13,gpt-5.1-chat-latest,gpt-5.1-codex,gpt-5.1-codex-max,gpt-5.1-codex-mini,gpt-5.2,gpt-5.2-2025-12-11,gpt-5.2-chat-latest,gpt-5.2-codex,gpt-5.2-pro,gpt-5.2-pro-2025-12-11,gpt-5.3-chat-latest,gpt-5.3-codex,gpt-5.4,gpt-5.4-2026-03-05,gpt-5.4-mini,gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17,gpt-5.4-nano,gpt-5.4-nano-2026-03-17,gpt-5.4-pro,gpt-5.4-pro-2026-03-05,gpt-5.5,gpt-5.5-2026-04-23,gpt-5.5-pro,gpt-5.5-pro-2026-04-23,gpt-5.6-luna,gpt-5.6-sol,gpt-5.6-terra,gpt-6-astra,gpt-live-1,o1,o1-2024-12-17,o1-pro,o1-pro-2025-03-19,o3,o3-2025-04-16,o3-mini,o3-mini-2025-01-31,o3-pro,o3-pro-2025-06-10,o4-mini,o4-mini-2025-04-16
You can also ask me to rebase:
/rebase— rebase this PR onto its base branch, resolving merge conflicts
Or ask me for a merge verdict:
/verdict— review this PR and, if I am confident in it, approve it
Or let me approve your work without being asked:
@prerenderbot approve me— approve the pull requests you open here when I am confident in them (undo withunapprove)
Requested review: Nitpicker Review (/nit)
Was this review helpful? 👍 Yes · 👎 No
Production
|
Review the following changes in direct dependencies. Learn more about Socket for GitHub.
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
chore: add .gitignore and golangci-lint configuration
docs: update README with retries and logging details
style: format code and improve readability
chore: update go.mod and go.sum for dependencies
feat: add mise.toml for task automation