-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 365
Feat: Progressive/tiered lockouts based on failure count #1402
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
Open
rodrigobnogueira
wants to merge
6
commits into
jazzband:master
Choose a base branch
from
rodrigobnogueira:feature/tiered-lockouts
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7eef2f1
feat: introduce progressive lockout tiers for dynamic cool-off period…
7298e9e
style: Sort imports in `helpers` and `checks` modules.
e1bb4ce
style: apply isort and black formatting, add test and docstring for g…
546cf4d
style: apply black formatting to axes/checks.py
039c974
Use plain names for tier helper functions
rodrigobnogueira 004b05d
Use Codecov action v5 and tolerate upload errors
rodrigobnogueira File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Hey, I think we don't need to prefix things with underscore here since that has only been done for the built-ins such as
__init__. It's a valid approach but since it would introduce another habit into the codebase I'd keep it simple and just use one plain naming convention for all functions.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.
Yes, absolutely agreed on keeping one naming convention.
I’ve updated the new helpers to use plain names (no leading underscore) and adjusted call sites accordingly.
Please let me know if you’d like any further tweaks.