Make AsyncRetrying callable (as Retrying class)

[ivanprado]

Not entirely sure, but I would say that this line should be added so that it follows the same structure that Retrying class.

[jd]

Does it make sense to have that BaseRetrying instead?
We should add test if it makes sense.

[ivanprado]

To give you more context. I'm using AsyncRetrying as:

async def task():
  pass

retrying = AsyncRetrying(...)
await retrying.call(task)

But the sync version would be different (according to the documentation):

def task():
  pass

retrying = Retrying(...)
retrying(task)

Note that call invokation is not required in the later. So, at first sight, I would say that this PR makes sense.

Let me know if you think this makes sense. If this is the case I'll try to implement a unit test.

[jd]

Yeah makes sense to me. I think we assumed it was available on BaseRetrying. Does it make sense to move it there?

[ivanprado]

Does it make sense to move it there?

@jd I've been thinking about it. My proposal would be to just directly override the __call__ in both Retrying and AsyncRetrying. So instead:

class AsyncRetrying(BaseRetrying):

  async def call(...):
     pass

  __call__ = call

We would have:

class AsyncRetrying(BaseRetrying):
  async def call(...):
    pass

The same for Retrying but without the async.

This would also require changing the line https://github.com/jd/tenacity/blob/master/tenacity/__init__.py#L329 for:
return self(f, *args, **kw)
but I think this is Ok.

What do you think?

[ivanprado]

@jd I've been updating the proposal.

• Now all classes extending BaseRetrying are forced to implement __call__.
• Retrying, AsyncRetrying and TornadoRetying are updated accordingly.
• All unit tests are updated to use __call__ instead of call.
• A new unit test was included to test this interface on AsyncRetrying.

Let me know what do you think.

[ivanprado]

Thank you @jd for the review.