Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

429 Too many requests #40

Open
atpanos opened this issue May 14, 2021 · 16 comments
Open

429 Too many requests #40

atpanos opened this issue May 14, 2021 · 16 comments

Comments

@atpanos
Copy link
Contributor

atpanos commented May 14, 2021

Is it only me?
After some small amount of time I get only 429 on the termincheck.
Any workaround?
I did not change any time parameter.

@Pfuenzle
Copy link
Contributor

Nope, Me and some other people (#11) also have this issue, it's probably because of the bot entering the code too fast.
@prok42 had the idea to use the URL that came with the confirmation email, as this way the entry of the code can be bypassed, which will probably fix this

@atpanos
Copy link
Contributor Author

atpanos commented May 14, 2021

I don't even have a confirmation code. Still trying to get one for the age of 62.

@atpanos
Copy link
Contributor Author

atpanos commented May 15, 2021

Screenshot_20210515-163603.png
I set the timer up to 300 and still the same issue...

@KingLoui1986
Copy link

I also experiance the same, I also played around with different time settings.
But the webpage seems to identify my connection attempt immediatly as a bot attempt. I have no other explanation for it than that.
It also recognizes my very first connection attempt as a Bot and immediatly replys with 429.
Does no one else have a similar same observation?
Did anyone found a solution for the problem already?
image

@anp369
Copy link

anp369 commented May 17, 2021 via email

@KingLoui1986
Copy link

I think this suggestion posted by @TobseF in Issue #43 could potentially be a solution for this problem as well.

Ich weiß nicht wie es sich auf die Suche auswirkt, aber wenn bei jedem Check ein "neuer Browser" genommen werden soll, dann lässt sich dass sehr einfach nachrüsten. Vielleicht wird das Cookie mitverwendet um häufige Abfragen zu erkennen. Dann würde es helfen in der locations-Schleife den Driver neu aufzubauen:

driver.close()
driver = createDriver()

Originally posted by @TobseF in #43 (comment)

@atpanos
Copy link
Contributor Author

atpanos commented May 19, 2021

i don't think it will have any affect.
i just ran it on windows (gradle build, java -jar ...) and it works.
only on docker on my raspberry i get only 429, even on the first call.

@Pfuenzle
Copy link
Contributor

Did you try to change the useragent to a windows one?

@atpanos
Copy link
Contributor Author

atpanos commented May 19, 2021

i did, but somehow it does not work, you mean through the config file, correct?

@Pfuenzle
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, with the config, the server should then have no idea if the client is running in docker or on a desktop

@atpanos
Copy link
Contributor Author

atpanos commented May 19, 2021

#61
there was a change required to get the change of user-agent to work.
on docker in windows now it works.
now i will try on raspberry pi.

EDIT: still not working on raspberry pi :(

@atpanos
Copy link
Contributor Author

atpanos commented May 19, 2021

@KingLoui1986 did you try the driver close solution?

@TimApplepie
Copy link

@prok42 had the idea to use the URL that came with the confirmation email, as this way the entry of the code can be bypassed, which will probably fix this

I did exactly this in my fork. Fixed the issue for me.
Feel free to use it.

@GameScripting
Copy link

@TimApplepie I tried to merge & use your changes, however I noticed that your change requires me to already have received a placement code, right?

@TimApplepie
Copy link

@TimApplepie I tried to merge & use your changes, however I noticed that your change requires me to already have received a placement code, right?

Correct

@prok42
Copy link

prok42 commented May 27, 2021

@TimApplepie if you have the time, a pull request to get your feature merged here would be great (maybe add a switch how Vermuttlungscodes should be used - entered "interactively" or used "directly" (the latter may save you from 429, the first is maybe more robust if URL structures should change)

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

No branches or pull requests

7 participants