Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ability to change rate-limit policy inside the confugration YAML , per environment #389

Closed
detox3r opened this issue Sep 20, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@detox3r
Copy link

detox3r commented Sep 20, 2023

Please describe the feature.

to put it simply, I need a rate-limit policy value for QA and a different for PROD.

So I was thinking can I just change the the configuration.QA.yaml to (for the apis part):

apis:
  - name: myApi
    policies:
      inbound:
        rate-limit:
          calls: 100
          renewal-period: 60

I've tried this but it didnt work. is there any other way to achieve this ?

@github-actions
Copy link

🎉 Thank you for opening this issue! Please be patient while we will look into it and get back to you as this is an open source project. In the meantime make sure you take a look at the closed issues in case your question has already been answered. Don't forget to provide any additional information if needed (e.g. scrubbed logs, detailed feature requests,etc.).
Whenever it's feasible, please don't hesitate to send a Pull Request (PR) our way. We'd greatly appreciate it, and we'll gladly assess and incorporate your changes. 🎉

@waelkdouh
Copy link
Contributor

Why don't you use namedvalues inside your policies and simply override them across environments? Please search some of our closed issues which has similar questions in the past to give you an idea on how to achieve that.

@waelkdouh waelkdouh added the question Further information is requested label Sep 20, 2023
@detox3r
Copy link
Author

detox3r commented Sep 22, 2023

got it. that worked. I had to define the variable as a namedvalue and the rest was just following conventional apiops. Thanks

@detox3r detox3r closed this as completed Sep 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants