search

softonic / axios-retry

Axios plugin that intercepts failed requests and retries them whenever possible
Other
1.9k stars 167 forks source link

feat: add delayFactor param to exponentialDelay #208

Closed dlchen closed 1 year ago

dlchen commented 2 years ago

Issue

Current implementation of exponentialDelay results in retries based on the order of 100ms – i.e. 100ms, 200ms, 400ms, 800ms, etc. This is in contrast with the Exponential Backoff link found in the README which suggests 1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, etc.

Solution

Add delayFactor param which can be passed 1000. Defaults to 100 as to keep the current behavior.

Related

mindhells commented 1 year ago

I'd really love if we can make this configurable with a default value equal to the current static value (100) That way we don't change behavior and we can use a minor version when releasing this changes WDYT?

dlchen commented 1 year ago

I'd really love if we can make this configurable with a default value equal to the current static value (100) That way we don't change behavior and we can use a minor version when releasing this changes WDYT?

@mindhells please review my attempt at this 7845a5a thanks!

mindhells commented 1 year ago

I'd really love if we can make this configurable with a default value equal to the current static value (100) That way we don't change behavior and we can use a minor version when releasing this changes WDYT?

@mindhells please review my attempt at this 7845a5a thanks!

tests got broken, not sure why 🤔 , would you have a look?

dlchen commented 1 year ago

I'd really love if we can make this configurable with a default value equal to the current static value (100) That way we don't change behavior and we can use a minor version when releasing this changes WDYT?

@mindhells please review my attempt at this 7845a5a thanks!

tests got broken, not sure why 🤔 , would you have a look?

Looks like error was being passed into the retryDelay function for some reason. I removed it and the tests are passing now.

mindhells commented 1 year ago

I'd really love if we can make this configurable with a default value equal to the current static value (100) That way we don't change behavior and we can use a minor version when releasing this changes WDYT?

@mindhells please review my attempt at this 7845a5a thanks!

tests got broken, not sure why 🤔 , would you have a look?

Looks like error was being passed into the retryDelay function for some reason. I removed it and the tests are passing now.

Removing the error parameter from the retryDelay callback would break the library API (see Readme)

dlchen commented 1 year ago

I'd really love if we can make this configurable with a default value equal to the current static value (100) That way we don't change behavior and we can use a minor version when releasing this changes WDYT?

@mindhells please review my attempt at this 7845a5a thanks!

tests got broken, not sure why 🤔 , would you have a look?

Looks like error was being passed into the retryDelay function for some reason. I removed it and the tests are passing now.

Removing the error parameter from the retryDelay callback would break the library API (see Readme)

Gotcha. Well it's kind of awkward since the error is not the first param of the callback. In the name of backwards compatibility this is the best I could come up with. Lmk your thoughts.

mindhells commented 1 year ago

I'd really love if we can make this configurable with a default value equal to the current static value (100) That way we don't change behavior and we can use a minor version when releasing this changes WDYT?

@mindhells please review my attempt at this 7845a5a thanks!

tests got broken, not sure why 🤔 , would you have a look?

Looks like error was being passed into the retryDelay function for some reason. I removed it and the tests are passing now.

Removing the error parameter from the retryDelay callback would break the library API (see Readme)

Gotcha. Well it's kind of awkward since the error is not the first param of the callback. In the name of backwards compatibility this is the best I could come up with. Lmk your thoughts.

LGTM, thanks a lot!