Skip to content

Conversation

@lukevalenta
Copy link
Contributor

The original reason I put 429 is that this could have been the result of rate limiting at the sequencer. However, there are other reasons this could happen, for example if the worker gets redeployed and in-flight requests from the batcher to sequencer fail. 503 seems more appropriate and still signals to the client to retry again later.

@lukevalenta lukevalenta requested a review from rozbb September 26, 2025 19:17
@lukevalenta lukevalenta merged commit feae7d5 into main Sep 29, 2025
1 check passed
@lukevalenta lukevalenta deleted the lvalenta/sequence-503 branch September 29, 2025 13:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants