Open sming opened 3 years ago
we finally know how API clients will experience the BT Timeout :
we (Prism) need to decide if the above is acceptable. @malish8632 's argument is that this is the current behaviour and always has been, hence no changes are necessary.
My argument is that many more users who've never received a timeout before will now receive one, in the shape of a 200, which is super misleading cos it actually failed, in effect.
Hence the agreed-upon action is to phrase the 1, 2, 3 above as a "reminder" of how heroic returns requests that time out.
Implement Findings
Use Case Resolved: unknown Bigtable timeout & retry behaviour
Design & Implementation Notes
Concrete changes to make