feat: throttle getAll* methods and rename getAll to dangerouslyGetAll

[angeloashmore]

Types of changes

• Chore (a non-breaking change which is related to package maintenance)
• Bug fix (a non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (a non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Description

This adds throttle-like behavior to all getAll* methods. 500ms is used as the duration between network requests.

This ensures API performance is sustainable even with large queries. getAll* methods should be treated as long-running requests that may make multiple network requests in a safe timely manner.

The following algorithm is used:

1. Query for a page of results.

2. If the result tells us there are additional pages:

   1. Wait the throttle threshold duration (500ms).
   2. Return to Step 1 with the next page.

   If there are no additional pages:

   1. Return the aggregate list of pages.

For example, with a 3 page query:

Request page 1 - 250ms
[wait 500ms]
Request page 2 - 350ms
[wait 500ms]
Request page 3 - 250ms

DONE
Total time: 1850ms

With a 1 page query:

Request page 1 - 250ms

DONE
Total time: 250ms

This PR also renames getAll to dangerouslyGetAll to dissuade usage.

Checklist:

• My change requires an update to the official documentation.
• All TSDoc comments are up-to-date and new ones have been added where necessary.
• All new and existing tests are passing.

🐢

[lihbr]

Awesome job! I just think there are some minor tweaks to be made but I really like the approach you took to throttle that neatly when in ideal conditions ☺️ You can go when resolved! 🚀

[angeloashmore]

Thanks for the review @lihbr @srenault! I made some changes and commented on your comments.

[lihbr]

I'm happy with it as-is. Just to make sure I got it right:

• getAll is now dangerouslyGetAll;
• A 500ms delay between each request is added;
• That's it(?)

[angeloashmore]

Yep, that's right! I edited the original comment to reflect the latest simplifications.

If that's good with you, I'll merge it and publish in a new beta version (along with #196).

[lihbr]

Yup, good for me! @srenault is it a green light for you also?

If yes, we'll proceed to update the documentation and bring to the user more consideration before they start using these methods.

[angeloashmore]

This was approved by @srenault outside GitHub. 🎉