Skip to content

Don't perform excessive growth in api_calls generator#13475

Merged
fitzgen merged 1 commit into
bytecodealliance:mainfrom
alexcrichton:api-limit-growth
May 26, 2026
Merged

Don't perform excessive growth in api_calls generator#13475
fitzgen merged 1 commit into
bytecodealliance:mainfrom
alexcrichton:api-limit-growth

Conversation

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Limit growth to a reasonable number of slots to avoid the growth taking too long. Growth through the API isn't the most optimal at this time.

Limit growth to a reasonable number of slots to avoid the growth taking
too long. Growth through the API isn't the most optimal at this time.
@alexcrichton alexcrichton requested a review from a team as a code owner May 24, 2026 15:47
@alexcrichton alexcrichton requested review from fitzgen and removed request for a team May 24, 2026 15:47
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the fuzzing Issues related to our fuzzing infrastructure label May 24, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @fitzgen

Details This issue or pull request has been labeled: "fuzzing"

Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:

  • fitzgen: fuzzing

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the .github/subscribe-to-label.json configuration file.

Learn more.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@angelnereira angelnereira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

% 10 had modulo bias; int_in_range fixes both the bound and the distribution. The asymmetric caps (100 vs 10) make sense given page cost. LGTM.

@fitzgen fitzgen added this pull request to the merge queue May 26, 2026
@fitzgen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

fitzgen commented May 26, 2026

@angelnereira was this an AI comment? Please familiarize yourself with the Bytecode Alliance's AI tool use policy.

Either way, it is strange, verging on anti-social, to review (and especially approve) PRs of projects that you are not a maintainer of. If you had questions or something coming from a place of curiosity, that is one thing, but positioning yourself as a gatekeeper for the project (by stating things with authority and setting the approve or request changes bits) when you are not actually in that position is not welcome.

Thanks.

@angelnereira
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@angelnereira was this an AI comment? Please familiarize yourself with the Bytecode Alliance's AI tool use policy.

Either way, it is strange, verging on anti-social, to review (and especially approve) PRs of projects that you are not a maintainer of. If you had questions or something coming from a place of curiosity, that is one thing, but positioning yourself as a gatekeeper for the project (by stating things with authority and setting the approve or request changes bits) when you are not actually in that position is not welcome.

Thanks.

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the noise.

I understand the concern. I did not intend to imply authority over the project or position myself as a gatekeeper. I’ll avoid using formal approve/request-changes reviews on PRs where I’m not a maintainer, and will keep future feedback to questions or clearly non-authoritative comments when appropriate.

I’ll also review the Bytecode Alliance AI tool use policy.

Thanks for pointing this out. :)

Merged via the queue into bytecodealliance:main with commit 45a234a May 26, 2026
51 checks passed
@alexcrichton alexcrichton deleted the api-limit-growth branch May 26, 2026 20:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

fuzzing Issues related to our fuzzing infrastructure

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants