Skip to content

fix(nats): prefer account tenancy - #54

Merged
yordis merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
yordis/fix-nats-account-tenancy
May 23, 2026
Merged

fix(nats): prefer account tenancy#54
yordis merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
yordis/fix-nats-account-tenancy

Conversation

@yordis

@yordis yordis commented May 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
  • 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>
@cursor

cursor Bot commented May 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

PR Summary

Low Risk
Documentation-only updates that change recommended NATS multi-tenancy patterns; low implementation risk but could influence architectural decisions if misunderstood.

Overview
Updates the nats-design-subject skill and references to treat NATS Accounts as the default multi-tenant isolation boundary, keeping tenant subjects short and using exports/imports for cross-tenant federation.

Reframes subject-prefix tenancy as an explicit fallback (shared accounts or platform/aggregation surfaces), adds a new anti-pattern warning against relying on {tenant}.> for strict isolation, and revises JetStream/security/use-case examples to be account-scoped (streams/KV per account, platform monitoring/analytics via imported subjects).

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7cd01df. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented May 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@yordis, we couldn't start this review because you've used your available PR reviews for now.

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 @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 6669d654-224c-4e30-a2f8-a9c108b4b269

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1d3d39f and 7cd01df.

📒 Files selected for processing (6)
  • plugins/trogonstack-nats/skills/nats-design-subject/SKILL.md
  • plugins/trogonstack-nats/skills/nats-design-subject/references/anti-patterns.md
  • plugins/trogonstack-nats/skills/nats-design-subject/references/jetstream.md
  • plugins/trogonstack-nats/skills/nats-design-subject/references/patterns.md
  • plugins/trogonstack-nats/skills/nats-design-subject/references/security.md
  • plugins/trogonstack-nats/skills/nats-design-subject/references/use-cases.md
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch yordis/fix-nats-account-tenancy

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@yordis
yordis merged commit e2c90ef into main May 23, 2026
4 checks passed
@yordis
yordis deleted the yordis/fix-nats-account-tenancy branch May 23, 2026 08:24
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant