Merged
Conversation
This was referenced Jun 10, 2024
Member
Yeah, I think that's probably fine. In the worst case, we accidentally rename it in the future, but we then will likely get reports of a broken link and fix it. |
Collaborator
Author
|
Try it now, but I'm not sure if that wording is exactly right ... I've been working here from 6am to 8pm non-stop 😩. |
MackinnonBuck
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2024
Co-authored-by: Mackinnon Buck <mackinnon.buck@gmail.com>
Collaborator
Author
|
Ok ... all good. 🍻I'll get this merged as soon as it builds. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #32789
Addresses #32692
Addresses #31909
Mackinnon,
I'm blocked at the moment on working on the What's New side of this until another PR merges, but I'll have the What's New part for this updated (some coverage was placed that I'll be touching up) by EOD on a separate PR.UPDATE: Not blocked any longer on What's New. I'll take care of it after the four reference article PRs are merged.
WRT this coverage: It seems like we'd call the default logic "a computed backoff strategy" instead of "an exponential backoff strategy." However, your custom example is exponential, so I retain that language for the example.
I was curious about the default logic, and I think devs will be curious, too. The link goes here ...
https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adotnet%2Faspnetcore%20computeDefaultRetryInterval&type=code
... and that's probably a decent approach for avoiding a hard link with a specific set of line numbers. It will work well as long as the FN name
computeDefaultRetryIntervalis stable. I like the way that it finds the exact line in the file for them when they click on the search result, and I like the way that it would find this FN if it moved to a different file in the future. However, we can pull that link and those remarks if you don't want to risk it breaking at some point.As usual, the INCLUDE that explains what the link loads follows the link, and the content of that INCLUDE can be seen here ...
https://github.com/dotnet/AspNetCore.Docs/blob/main/aspnetcore/includes/aspnetcore-repo-ref-source-links.md
Internal previews