It's quite easy to throttle an axios request itself. The real headache is how to handle the promises that are returned from nullified requests. What is considered sane behavior when dealing with promises that are returned from a nullified axios request? Should they stay pending forever?
I don't see any perfect solution to this problem. But then I come to a solution that is kind of cheating:
What if we don't throttle the axios call, instead we throttle the actual XMLHttpRequest?
This makes things way easier, because it avoids the promise problem, and it's easier to implement. The idea is to implement a cache for recent requests, and if a new request matches a recent one, you just pull the result from cache and skip the XMLHttpRequest.
Because of the way axios interceptors work, the following snippet can be used to skip a certain XHR call conditionally:
// This should be the *last* request interceptor to add
axios.interceptors.request.use(function (config) {
/* check the cache, if hit, then intentionally throw
* this will cause the XHR call to be skipped
* but the error is still handled by response interceptor
* we can then recover from error to the cached response
**/
if (requestCache.isCached(config)) {
const skipXHRError = new Error('skip')
skipXHRError.isSkipXHR = true
skipXHRError.request = config
throw skipXHRError
} else {
/* if not cached yet
* check if request should be throttled
* then open up the cache to wait for a response
**/
if (requestCache.shouldThrottle(config)) {
requestCache.waitForResponse(config)
}
return config;
}
});
// This should be the *first* response interceptor to add
axios.interceptors.response.use(function (response) {
requestCache.setCachedResponse(response.config, response)
return response;
}, function (error) {
/* recover from error back to normality
* but this time we use an cached response result
**/
if (error.isSkipXHR) {
return requestCache.getCachedResponse(error.request)
}
return Promise.reject(error);
});