Modifications according to astropy/astroquery#2335.

Codecov Report

Merging #2336 (35ae937) into main (a03f301) will increase coverage by 0.00%. The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2336   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.95%   62.96%           
=======================================
  Files         131      131           
  Lines       17038    17036    -2     
=======================================
  Hits        10727    10727           
+ Misses       6311     6309    -2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
astroquery/astrometry_net/core.py	50.53% <0.00%> (+0.53%)	:arrow_up:

:mega: Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

@mwcraig - could you please have a look at this and the linked issue?

@bsipocz -- I should have some time Friday or Saturday.

gentle ping @mwcraig, if you have time to review this and the referenced issue

My apologies for the epic delay here.

I think it makes sense to return the job id, or at least to have that be an option.

The issue at the moments is that we would need, at a minimum, a deprecation period for removing the keywords.

A better approach might be to add a new keyword, maybe return_job_id or something, that allows users to opt in to this behavior instead of removing the timeout option completely.

Having access to the job ID is important if the user wants to download more results than what the we currently provide.

Classes end here in about 1.5 weeks, could take a longer look then (but don't be shy about pinging if I don't 😬 ).

I agree that backward compatibility is important.

I mostly did this commit to show how it could be possible to implement. I fully expected the actual implementation to me more complex.

I'm very busy with my own studies at the moment, but I could try to implement a better approach to this change when I have more time.

Thank you for your comprehension and your time.

@alsimoneau -- excellent! Let us know when you are ready to move forward on this.

@bsipocz -- I would recommend closing this in favor of #2685.

@alsimoneau -- thanks for opening this: the discussion on this PR led to the fix being made in #2685.