Release/0.1.2#6
Conversation
…; fix(progress): instant speed
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f2fc36b97d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| .split('|') | ||
| .find_map(|part| { | ||
| let p = part.trim(); | ||
| p.strip_prefix("retry-after=") | ||
| .and_then(|s| s.parse::<u64>().ok()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
scan_domain now derives backoff from attempts[0].reason by looking for retry-after=..., but that field is populated by analyze_http_observation as HTTP {status_code} {status_label} and does not include response headers, so this parser always falls back to 0 and then clamps to a ~1s wait. For domains that send 429 with a real Retry-After (e.g. 10–60s), the scanner will still hammer retries almost immediately, which both defeats the intended throttling behavior and can skew classification toward persistent rate-limit failures.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if let Some(mut redirect_signal) = classify_redirect(final_url) { | ||
| redirect_signal.reason = format!("Final URL: {}", redirect_signal.reason); | ||
| redirect_signal.confidence = redirect_signal.confidence.saturating_add(5).min(95); | ||
| choose_better_signal(&mut best_signal, redirect_signal.clone()); | ||
| signals.push(redirect_signal); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
analyze_http_observation already records classify_redirect(final_url) before body analysis, but this new block invokes it again and pushes a second (boosted) signal from the same URL. Because should_block treats verdict_consensus >= 2 as corroboration, a single redirect hint can now satisfy the multi-signal rule by itself, causing false blocked classifications on otherwise successful responses (for example, benign URLs containing marker-like path fragments).
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Release v0.1.2 with Signal Quality improvements.
Features Implemented
Fixes
Roadmap