Don't perform excessive growth in api_calls generator#13475
Conversation
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.
Subscribe to Label Actioncc @fitzgen DetailsThis issue or pull request has been labeled: "fuzzing"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the |
angelnereira
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
% 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.
|
@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. :) |
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.