fix(nats): prefer account tenancy - #54
Conversation
yordis
commented
May 23, 2026
- Strict multi-tenant NATS guidance needs to reflect Accounts as the native isolation boundary.
- Subject-prefix tenancy should be reserved for shared-account fallbacks or explicit platform surfaces.
- Generic examples should avoid teaching weaker tenant isolation as the default.
Signed-off-by: Yordis Prieto <yordis.prieto@gmail.com>
PR SummaryLow Risk Overview Reframes subject-prefix tenancy as an explicit fallback (shared accounts or platform/aggregation surfaces), adds a new anti-pattern warning against relying on Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7cd01df. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Your plan currently allows 1 review/hour. Refill in 49 minutes and 49 seconds. Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After more review capacity refills, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, review capacity refills continuously over time. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |