Fix #1899 fallback circuit breaker gap#1938
Open
TianchunGu wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
This is a small follow-up to #1899 that addresses the maintainer review comment about the default
fallbackToHostpath.In #1899, a terminal primary-provider error rescued by host fallback keeps the breaker closed. Because
fallbackToHostis enabled by default, later pipeline calls can still hit the broken paid provider once before falling back, so the request storm can continue.This patch changes that behavior:
Validation
From
apps/memos-local-plugin:I also tried
npm run test:unit -- tests/unit/llm/client.test.ts, but that package script always prepends the fulltests/unitsuite. The LLM client test passed there too, while unrelated server tests failed in my sandbox withlisten EPERM: operation not permitted 127.0.0.1, and the known storage tests still show existing base-branch failures.Related: #1897, #1899