Skip to content

Document pool rate limiting in Copilot instructions#4397

Draft
mdaigle wants to merge 1 commit into
dev/mdaigle/pool-channel-rate-limitingfrom
dev/mdaigle/pool-rate-limit-instructions
Draft

Document pool rate limiting in Copilot instructions#4397
mdaigle wants to merge 1 commit into
dev/mdaigle/pool-channel-rate-limitingfrom
dev/mdaigle/pool-rate-limit-instructions

Conversation

@mdaigle

@mdaigle mdaigle commented Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

This is Part 3 of 3 splitting #4376 ("Dev/mdaigle/pool rate limit") into stacked, reviewable PRs. It stacks on #4396 (Part 2) — review/merge that first.

This PR updates the repository's Copilot/agent instruction files to document the connection-pool rate-limiting feature and the associated testing guidance (e.g. TimeProvider/FakeTimeProvider usage and blocking-period / rate-limiter test patterns).

Changes

  • .github/copilot-instructions.md
  • .github/instructions/testing.instructions.md

Stacking

Checklist

  • Documentation only — no code changes
  • No public API changes
  • No breaking changes

Document the connection-pool rate-limiting feature and related testing guidance (TimeProvider/FakeTimeProvider usage, blocking-period and rate-limiter test patterns) in the repository Copilot instruction files.
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings June 23, 2026 17:34
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this to To triage in SqlClient Board Jun 23, 2026

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR updates the repository’s contributor/agent guidance documents under .github/, adding stricter conventions for writing tests and adding a required workflow for discovering applicable instruction files via applyTo patterns.

Changes:

  • Expanded the testing guide’s expectations for what test comments should explain and added “Implementation Guidance” emphasizing AAA.
  • Reworked the “Test Structure” section into an explicit Arrange–Act–Assert (AAA) pattern description with a canonical example.
  • Added a required “Instruction File Lookup” workflow to .github/copilot-instructions.md directing agents to consult .github/instructions/ before making changes.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File Description
.github/instructions/testing.instructions.md Adds/strengthens guidance for test documentation and AAA structure, including a canonical pattern example.
.github/copilot-instructions.md Adds a required workflow telling agents to locate and apply matching instruction files via applyTo patterns before editing/creating files.

Comment on lines +227 to 242
[Fact]
public void MethodName_Scenario_ExpectedResult()
{
[Fact]
public void MethodName_Scenario_ExpectedResult()
{
// Arrange
var sut = new SystemUnderTest();

// Act
var result = sut.PerformAction();

// Assert
Assert.Equal(expected, result);
}
// Arrange
// Set up test fixtures, initial state, dependencies, and test data
var sut = new SystemUnderTest();
var input = new TestData();

// Act
// Execute the code under test
var result = sut.PerformAction(input);

// Assert
// Validate outcomes and expectations
Assert.Equal(expected, result);
}
Comment on lines 214 to 217
public void AppRunWithMalformedConnectionStringReturnsOneAndWritesParseError()
{
// Arrange / Act / Assert
}
Comment on lines +155 to +160
## Instruction File Lookup (Required Workflow)

Before creating or modifying any file, check if matching instruction files exist:

1. Scan `.github/instructions/` for files with `applyTo` patterns that match your file path
2. Read **all** matching instruction files completely before writing code
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: To triage

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants