#nukes_idempotency-409
1 messages ¡ Page 1 of 1 (latest)
đ Welcome to your new thread!
â˛ď¸ We'll be here soon! Typically we respond in a few minutes, but sometimes we might take a bit longer if the server is busy or if you have a particularly tricky question.
âąď¸ We close idle threads, which makes them read-only. Once a thread is closed it won't be reopened, but you can always start a new thread if you have another question.
đ This thread will always be available, even after it's closed. You can find it again using Discord's search, or you can save this link: https://discord.com/channels/841573134531821608/1306375829407928331
đ Have more to share? Add more details, code, screenshots, videos, etc. below.
Below are links to other discussions we've had with you in the past week in case you want to review that information. If your question is related to one of these previous discussions, please provide a comprehensive summary of the current state and what you need help with now. We help many users simultaneously, so a summary allows us to resolve your issue as soon as possible.
- nukesforbreakfast_docs, 17 hours ago, 12 messages
Hello, good questions. I am less familiar with that error code. Looking in to it and will get back to you
ok. I linked request IDs in my test mode that show the behavior I'm seeing, which didn't match my original understanding.
nukes_idempotency-409
@lethal spoke If you make 2 requests in parallel with the same idempotency key, then one will run and the other one will return the idempotency_key_in_use error code. That is definitely expected in that case
can that second request be safely retried though until a non-409 error code is returned?
yes
In a perfect world we would basically "wait" for the original request to finish adn then return the response but we don't while it's running so you should retry with exponential back-off.
ok, that's what I have configured.
I was just incorrectly treating the 409 as fatal
so if I accidentally re-use the idempotency key for a different payload, that will instead be a 400 status code, not a 409, correct?
yes
ok great, thank you