Remove pytest-postgresql hotfix

Build has FAILED

wrong base commit

lgtm

Build is green

Build is green

Rebase + remove useless loader call in test

Better fix for environment manipulation

Build is green

In T3312#64763, @anlambert wrote:

If we need to tune rate limit for specific type of users, this could be easily added in the new throttling
code I am currently working on.

• Add python test to cover the bundle type
• Add frontend tests to ensure the ui behaves as expected.

Thanks! Please make sure we can also have specific rate limits for specific classees of authenticated users, on top of the default new rate limit for all registered users.

In T3312#64760, @anlambert wrote:

@zack, @rdicosmo yes this is totally feasible by adding a dedicated Django REST Framework throttling handler for authenticated users.

Let's work on that then.

@zack, @rdicosmo yes this is totally feasible by adding a dedicated Django REST Framework throttling handler for authenticated users.

@anlambert ; ping me when this is done, so we can answer some pending requests :-)

couples of questions and suggestions inline. Request changes for the sake of those though.

Build is green

typo

Build has FAILED

remove unecessered line on test_api_client

Build has FAILED

fix typo and errors

In D5707#144937, @vlorentz wrote:

What is the difference between nbEdgesAccessed and currentEdgeAccessed? It looks like the latter is not used at all (only incremented, but never read), but I may be missing something

I see that in multiple place, you set currentEdgeAccessed = 0; before breaking/returning. What is it for? Is the same instance of Traversal used to serve multiple queries?

What is the difference between nbEdgesAccessed and currentEdgeAccessed? It looks like the latter is not used at all (only incremented, but never read), but I may be missing something

Build is green

Build is green

change commit name

squash commits

Build is green

• add all possible values for the request

In T3311#64737, @vlorentz wrote:

I think the only issue with (3) is not being retroactive

I think the only issue with (3) is not being retroactive

This is a good idea, thanks for raising it.

lgtm

Note that it helped yet but i reproduced the issue in jenkins *locally*.
Prior to that, other issues with our moving cogs (swh.core, etc...) prevented it
(other unrelated failures arose).

hopefully ;)

Build is green