Would it make sense to make retry transient? function public?

[jozuas]

I'm thinking that it would be nice to have the ability to define your own retry function, and in the retry function if the conditions that I care about don't match, default to

req/lib/req/steps.ex

Line 2292 in 85bd743

defp transient?(%Req.Response{status: status}) when status in [408, 429, 500, 502, 503, 504] do

I'll be happy to make a PR if this sounds reasonable.

[wojtekmach]

This is very arbitrary but I'd like to keep Req.Steps to just have steps functions as it's already pretty big module. The downside is we can't have this function which I agree would be very convenient to have. Perhaps there is another way to solve this?

[jozuas]

I had a look at Req.Steps to see if there's a more general pattern that we could take advantage of, but sadly it seems that only the transient? function would benefit from being exposed. Creating a whole new module e.g. Req.Conveniences would not look so great if there's only one function there of interest.

The retry function implementation can return a tuple {:delay, milliseconds}, maybe we could support new options {:retry, :transient} and {:retry, :safe_transient}?

    Req.new(
      ...,
      retry: fn
        _req, %Req.Response{status: 403} ->
          # Hypothetical service that returns HTTP 403 instead of 429 for "Too Many Requests" 
          {:delay, 30_000}

        _req, _resp ->
          {:retry, :safe_transient}
      end
    )

[jozuas]

@wojtekmach how does the proposal sound? Is this something I could start working on that the Req library would be happy to accept?

[wojtekmach]

Sorry I'm still considering it.