WebCmdlets get Retry-After from headers if StatusCode is 429

[CarloToso]

PR Summary

If the Status Code is 429 it tries to get the Retry-After property from the headers and use it as WebSession.RetryIntervalInSeconds

(I decided to use an if-else instead of a ternary operator for better code readability)

PR Context

Fixes #13188

[kilasuit]

Whilst I agree with you about the readability aspect, we should make use of the language features here to reduce the overall size of the codebase, which the ternary operator gives us. What we really need is a mechanism for a reader to convert a file on the fly to a more readable means, though that doesn't yet exist, so we have to do our best with what we have available today.

Therefore I'd ask that you make use of the ternary operator in this PR as I'm sure others would either ask you to or would accept this pr and then add another in future to move to that.
What I'd ask is that you keep the commit showing it like this as that can be used to show what it looks like in an if/else vs using the ternary operator which is very useful for learning & teaching purposes.

[CarloToso]

@kilasuit Done

[kilasuit]

Approving based on my prior comment

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 11 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +9 -2
Percentile : 4.4%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +9 -2

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.