chore: expect resposne code for positive cases

[achmelo]

Description

Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.

Linked to # (issue)
Part of the # (epic)

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• fix: Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• feat: New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• docs: Change in a documentation
• refactor: Refactor the code
• chore: Chore, repository cleanup, updates the dependencies.
• BREAKING CHANGE or !: Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• PR title conforms to commit message guideline ## Commit Message Structure Guideline
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas. In JS I did provide JSDoc
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• The java tests in the area I was working on leverage @nested annotations
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

For more details about how should the code look like read the Contributing guideline

[pablocarle]

I think this number was specified for HA integration tests, could you verify this branch with the ITs pipeline?
If it needs to be updated we should have it parameterized depending on whether it's run as HA or single instance

[pablocarle]

cc @taban03

[taban03]

Yep, in our HA ITs it was failing, because the calls are routed randomly to different GW instances and the rate limit is set on instance level so it might never reach this limit.

[achmelo]

It's now configurable via "gateway.bucketCapacity." I'm not sure if that would solve your problem with HA, as it can still be random, and you will not get the exact number of requests for each instance. It was probably passing due to missing the lower boundary check.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud