Skip to content

Support async actions #437

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
mergify merged 4 commits into from
Mar 2, 2024
Merged

Support async actions #437

mergify merged 4 commits into from
Mar 2, 2024
+97 −3

Conversation

@hasier
Copy link
Contributor

@hasier hasier commented Feb 6, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Fixes #249 #412

Second PR after breaking down #433 (follows #434)

After DRYing the iter() function, make AsyncRetrying support async callbacks.

Supersedes hasier#1

@hasier hasier mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2024
Merged
@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Feb 6, 2024

⚠️ No release notes detected. Please make sure to use reno to add a changelog entry.

@hasier hasier mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2024
Closed
jd
jd previously requested changes Feb 6, 2024
View reviewed changes
tenacity/_asyncio.py Outdated
WrappedFn = t.TypeVar("WrappedFn", bound=t.Callable[..., t.Awaitable[t.Any]])


def is_coroutine_callable(call: t.Callable[..., t.Any]) -> bool:
Copy link
Owner

@jd jd Feb 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we have unit tests around this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hasier hasier Feb 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good call! I ended up moving the function to _utils and slightly amending it (odd partial behaviour in 3.8 and 3.9, even though docs say otherwise). wdyt? 2616c4a

@mergify mergify bot dismissed jd’s stale review February 6, 2024 12:46

Pull request has been modified.

@hasier hasier force-pushed the support-async-actions-2 branch from 323c008 to 2616c4a Compare February 6, 2024 12:52
@hasier hasier requested a review from jd February 6, 2024 12:55
jd
jd reviewed Feb 6, 2024
View reviewed changes
@hasier hasier mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2024
Closed
@hasier
Copy link
Contributor Author

hasier commented Feb 13, 2024

@jd any more thoughts on this? Happy to clarify anything else I may have missed.

@hasier hasier requested a review from jd February 13, 2024 09:37
jd
jd previously approved these changes Feb 19, 2024
View reviewed changes
@mergify mergify bot dismissed jd’s stale review February 20, 2024 09:06

Pull request has been modified.

@hasier
Copy link
Contributor Author

hasier commented Feb 26, 2024

@jd I merged changes from main and tests seem to pass, feel free to re-approve and merge whenever you prefer 🙂

@jd jd added the no-changelog No changelog needed label Mar 2, 2024
@mergify mergify bot merged commit bfa2c80 into jd:main Mar 2, 2024
@hasier hasier deleted the support-async-actions-2 branch March 6, 2024 11:05
@hasier
Copy link
Contributor Author

hasier commented Mar 18, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@jd now that this is merged, do you think it's ready to be released in a new version? Or would you rather see some async strategies merged first too? The only issue I see with that is how we'd solve sync+async combinations 🤔 Gave a go at fixing the sync+async issue and it seems to be working, let me know what you think! #451

@hasier hasier mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jd jd jd approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

no-changelog No changelog needed

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Is an async retry_error_callback possible?

2 participants

@hasier @jd