@wouterj how should I handle the Redirect login fail attempts ?

Thank you@vasilvestre! And I'm sorry for not being available at the second half of the week.

This PR looks good to me - all pending comments are minor ones no big design changes. The only thing I'm wondering about is whether to use FQCN in the configuration - that might not be very easy to use for Yaml and XML users. Would love feedback from the core team about this.

I just finish the PR on a live coding session, it was a nice moment so no problem!

Yeah FQCN isn't fine for YAML and XML, how is the core team dealing with it recently?
I switched from 'fixed_window' to FQCN because of previous discussion, what should we go for?

I'm not comfortable using a FQCN in configuration, I would prefer to keep using strings instead.

I'm not comfortable using a FQCN in configuration, I would prefer to keep using strings instead.

Strings are back.

It was my understanding the FQCN was only being dropped in config, notLimit::getStrategy()?

It was my understanding the FQCN was only being dropped in config, notLimit::getStrategy()?

Well I do not really understand what you mean actually, where should we use it?

This should still be an option, no?

I thought Fabien's comment was about removing FQCN from the configuration.

Limiter isn't set at this moment, we set it in limiter itself in create()

publicfunctioncreate(?string$key =null):LimiterInterface{$id =$this->config['id'].$key;$lock =$this->lockFactory ?$this->lockFactory->createLock($id) :newNoLock();switch ($this->config['strategy']) {case'token_bucket':returnnewTokenBucketLimiter($id,$this->config['limit'],$this->config['rate'],$this->storage,$lock);case'fixed_window':returnnewFixedWindowLimiter($id,$this->config['limit'],$this->config['interval'],$this->storage,$lock);default:thrownew \LogicException(sprintf('Limiter strategy "%s" does not exists, it must be either "token_bucket" or "fixed_window".',$this->config['strategy']));    }}

Edit : OK I got it mate sorry ! I haven't worked yet on headers and this isn't the goal here so I didn't think about it. This will be useful in future, when we will be able to attach a response or whatever and set headers, that's it ?
Fixed now !

Flaky test here but fixable through#38320

Edit : It's already merged so I rebased and test should all pass :)

So, now, I'm wondering about the design:

Why didn't we addgetRemainingTokens andgetRetryAfter toLimiterInterface instead?
Also, I don't see the point ofgetStrategy andgetMetadata, those look like leaking configuration to me, nothing that can be dealt with from an abstract pov.

So, now, I'm wondering about the design:

Why didn't we addgetRemainingTokens andgetRetryAfter toLimiterInterface instead?
Also, I don't see the point ofgetStrategy andgetMetadata, those look like leaking configuration to me, nothing that can be dealt with from an abstract pov.

See#38257 (comment) for history details, it's not needed right now but it will be useful for test, as shown there :#38257 (comment)

I'm not convinced at all that the abstraction needs to provide reflective information. Wiring should be tested by another mean IMHO.

Why didn't we add getRemainingTokens and getRetryAfter to LimiterInterface instead?

We should also resolve this question :)

@wouterj I think Nicolas is right here, the Limit object isn't that useful. WDYT?

Why didn't we addgetRemainingTokens andgetRetryAfter toLimiterInterface instead?

Please note that I'm far from experienced with rate limiting (I just wanted login throttling), but my ideas on this:

• This state information differs per$key, so it's not a real clean getter but insteadgetRemainingTokens($key) andgetRetryAfter($key). Not a deal breaker, just seems a bit code-smelly.
• This state information can be changed at any moment by another process - which is whyconsume() is protected by a lock. My idea was that it's the most useful to provide information on the state at the moment the decision was made - not at an arbitrary moment in time.
• Returning this object fromconsume() has the advantage of IO blocking the retry time in the process. E.g:

  while (!($limit =$limiter->consume())->isAccepted()) {$limit->wait();}

Thanks@wouterj, that makes sense!
We now need to settle aboutgetStrategy andgetMetadata (which I'd currently prefer removing, please explain why if you disagree), then good to go on my side.

We now need to settle about getStrategy and getMetadata (which I'd currently prefer removing, please explain why if you disagree), then good to go on my side.

I don't have a strong opinion on this one (and not a real use-case). If you think it's better to remove it, let's do that. It's easier to add it if we find good use-cases than to remove it in the future :)

The ci check fail happens on a code part I haven't modified, what to do ?

Thank you@vasilvestre.

@wouterj We have a rate limiting for failed attempts let's say 3 for a sliding window of 1 hour.
I want to know preemptively if the request should go through, reducing load on the server for let's say a public api (my use case is grpc call where 429 equivalent response code is not respected).
Could I use $rateLimiter->consume(0) to get the current state to prohibit further code execution if remainingAttempts is zero(0). (In this case isAccepted is always set to true)

Then if the attempt is failed I would consume(1).

Is this how it is supposed to work?

Anyone able to respond to this one? I think it's a pretty valid case to get the current state

@wouterj We have a rate limiting for failed attempts let's say 3 for a sliding window of 1 hour. I want to know preemptively if the request should go through, reducing load on the server for let's say a public api (my use case is grpc call where 429 equivalent response code is not respected). Could I use $rateLimiter->consume(0) to get the current state to prohibit further code execution if remainingAttempts is zero(0). (In this case isAccepted is always set to true)

The RateLimiter evolved a LOT since this PR. AFAIK the documentation says to consume 1 and if an exception is thrown then you don't have load on your server.

Pseudo code fromdocumentation:

class ApiController extends AbstractController{    public function heavyProcess(Request $request, RateLimiterFactory $anonymousApiLimiter): Response    {        $limiter = $anonymousApiLimiter->create($request->getClientIp());        if (false === $limiter->consume(1)->isAccepted()) {            throw new TooManyRequestsHttpException();        }        // you can also use the ensureAccepted() method - which throws a        // RateLimitExceededException if the limit has been reached        // $limiter->consume(1)->ensureAccepted();        // Heavy process    }}

Anyone able to respond to this one? I think it's a pretty valid case to get the current state

Maybe you could make a new issue or find wouterj on a social network.