Search
13 results for “api-design”
Search results
Idempotency in Distributed Systems
Why Stripe returns the exact same response, error included, for a reused idempotency key instead of retrying the operation, and why reusing that same key with different parameters is treated as an error, not a new request.
Rate Limiting Algorithms
How the token bucket algorithm AWS API Gateway actually uses separates a steady-state rate from a burst allowance, and why a request only fails once the bucket is genuinely empty, not the instant the average rate is exceeded.
A client sends a payment request, the network times out before a response arrives, and the client retries with the same idempotency key. What actually happens on the server?
If the original request already completed (successfully or even with an error like a 500) before the retry arrives, the server returns the exact same result it returned (or would have returned) the first time, the same status code and response body, without re-executing the underlying operation, so the customer isn't charged twice just because the client never saw the first response. This is the entire point of an idempotency key: it lets a client safely retry an operation whose actual outcome it's genuinely uncertain about (did the first request even reach the server? did it complete before the timeout?) without that retry risking a duplicate side effect.
Why does reusing the same idempotency key with different request parameters return an error instead of just processing the new parameters?
An idempotency key is a promise that a specific, exact operation happened once; if the same key showed up with different parameters, honoring the new parameters would silently violate that promise; either the original operation's recorded result no longer describes what the key represents, or the client made a mistake by rIeusing a key it should have generated fresh for a genuinely different request. Rejecting the mismatched reuse as an error, rather than guessing which parameters were "correct" or silently processing the new ones, surfaces that client-side mistake immediately instead of masking it.
Why are idempotency keys typically associated with state-changing requests like POST, and are they ever relevant to DELETE?
GET is defined to have no side effects at all, retrying it any number of times simply returns the current state and changes nothing, so there is no duplicate-side-effect risk an idempotency key could protect against, GET genuinely doesn't need one. DELETE is idempotent in the narrow sense that deleting an already-deleted resource is a no-op or a consistent "not found," but whether an idempotency key is relevant to it is API- and version-specific, not settled by the HTTP verb alone: a DELETE can still trigger complex, non-idempotent side effects (a refund, a cascading cleanup, a billing adjustment), and some APIs explicitly accept an idempotency key on DELETE for exactly that reason. Idempotency keys exist to make an operation's retry semantics explicit and safe regardless of whether the underlying operation is inherently idempotent, checking the specific endpoint's documented contract matters more than assuming based on the verb.
In the token bucket algorithm, what do the "rate" and "burst" settings each actually control?
The rate is how many tokens get added to the bucket per second, the steady-state throughput the API is designed to sustain indefinitely. The burst is the bucket's total capacity, the maximum number of tokens that can accumulate and therefore the largest spike of concurrent requests the API will accept in a single instant before it starts rejecting anything further. A request consumes one token; as long as the bucket has a token available, the request proceeds immediately, rate and burst are two independent numbers, not one combined setting, because sustained throughput and tolerance for short spikes are genuinely different things to configure.
A client sends a sudden spike of requests that exceeds the configured rate, but the API doesn't immediately reject any of them. Why not, and when does rejection actually start?
The token bucket has accumulated capacity up to the burst limit, if the client had been under the rate limit recently, unused tokens built up in the bucket, and that reserve absorbs a short spike without any request failing, exactly the point of separating burst capacity from steady-state rate. Rejection (a 429 response) only starts once the bucket is actually empty, every accumulated token has been consumed and the spike is sustained long enough that the rate of token consumption keeps exceeding the rate of token replenishment. This is why a token bucket, unlike a hard per-second cap, tolerates brief bursts gracefully while still enforcing a real steady-state ceiling.
Why would a system use a sliding window rate limiter instead of a token bucket, and what problem does it fix?
A naive fixed window (say, "100 requests per minute, resetting on the minute") allows a client to send 100 requests in the last second of one window and another 100 in the first second of the next, 200 requests in a two-second span despite the stated 100/minute limit, an artifact of the window boundary rather than actual demand. A sliding window rate limiter instead evaluates the limit over a continuously moving time range rather than fixed, discrete buckets, which avoids that boundary-doubling effect at the cost of typically more state to track (timestamps of recent requests, not just a single counter) compared to a token bucket's simpler accumulator model.
What problem does policy-as-code solve that a manual infrastructure change review does not?
A manual review depends on a human noticing a specific misconfiguration, an open security group, an unencrypted storage bucket, in a plan diff that may span hundreds of resources, and that scrutiny has to be repeated consistently by every reviewer on every change. Policy-as-code encodes the same rule once as executable logic and runs it automatically against every plan, so an overly permissive security group is caught the same way on the hundredth change as the first, without depending on which reviewer happened to be paying attention that day.
Name three CSS properties, besides z-index with positioning, that create a new stacking context, and why does that matter when debugging a layering bug?
Opacity below 1, any non-none `transform`, and `filter` or `backdrop-filter` with a value other than `none` all create a new stacking context, along with several others like `isolation: isolate` and `will-change` naming a stacking-context property. This matters when debugging because a completely unrelated-looking style change, adding a fade transition via opacity, or a hover effect via transform, can silently create a new stacking context and change how that element's children layer against the rest of the page, a z-index layering bug that has nothing to do with z-index values themselves, but with an accidental new stacking context somewhere in the ancestor chain.
Azure Web App Zero-Downtime Deployment: A Hands-On Guide to Deployment Slots, Auto Scaling, and Load Testing
A practical Azure App Service lab covering staging slots, slot swaps, autoscaling, and traffic testing.
Why does OWASP SAMM recommend treating third-party dependencies with the same security rigor as internal code?
Modern applications are typically built from far more third-party dependency code than code the team actually wrote, so a security process that only scrutinizes internal code is scrutinizing a small fraction of what actually ships. SAMM's guidance moves from simply maintaining a Bill of Materials, to actively evaluating dependencies and responding to known risks, to applying the same rigorous analysis given to internal code, precisely because a vulnerable dependency is exploitable in production exactly like a vulnerability the team wrote themselves, regardless of who authored the code.
PostgreSQL's documentation says it's "impossible to suppress nested-loop joins entirely" even with enable_nestloop off. What does that tell you about relying on planner hints to force a specific join algorithm?
That specific guarantee is documented only for `enable_nestloop`: turning it off only discourages the planner by making nested loops look artificially expensive in cost estimation, it can't hard-disable them, because for some queries a nested loop is the only viable plan at all (for example, certain correlated subquery shapes), so the planner will still use one if it must. `enable_hashjoin` and `enable_mergejoin` don't carry that same caveat, disabling either one actually can prevent the planner from choosing that join type, since a nested loop (or the other remaining method) is always available as a fallback plan. In practice, though, all three settings are best treated as a debugging/diagnostic tool for understanding planner behavior, not a reliable production mechanism for forcing a specific join algorithm, the actual fix for a bad plan is almost always better statistics (via `ANALYZE`) or a better index, not overriding the planner's method choice.