Just an example of such asserts which IMHO are nicer are here:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6596/files#diff-4c0c36f193f2cd65e2b55ba3102c1ba2R38
One line assert with message.

J.



On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:36 PM Anton Zayniev <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi, guys. I'm really surprised about this
>
> > - (+) asserts look nicer and are more readable than if (something):
> >    throw Exception()
>
> I'm pretty sure that all the code I have encountered a way more readable
> using "if/else" or "try/except". But may be it is just me. Could you
> provide an example of code which is better with "assert"?
>
>  - (+) asserts are especially good for cases like None exception - they
> >    add more developer friendly messages when they will fail a few lines
> > below
> >    with (for example) None has no property "dag". But it's ok if those
> get
> >    optimised away.
>
> I think the best way to catch None is to ensure your code would fail
> conveniently. Like raising understandable Exception message, if you believe
> that should be a point of confusion.
>
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 16:22, Iuliia Volkova <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone, I'm usually not write anything in this mail list, but this
> > theme something really strange
> > Exist offissial doc:
> >
> https://docs.python.org/3/reference/simple_stmts.html#the-assert-statement
> >
> > and there is a key information: Assert statements are a convenient way to
> > insert debugging assertions into a program.
> >
> > *Debugging. * - this is a key propose of asserts keyword.
> >
> > there is no any type of possible asserts that cannot be done with normal
> > Exceptions and Errors types that more explicit and detailed when
> 'assert' -
> > you have ValueError, TyperError and etc. what kind of problems must
> solved
> > DEBUG tools in production code that can be easily turned off on servers
> by
> > users?
> >
> > asserts used in tests and in process of debug code, not in production
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:47 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We had a few discussions about using asserts in our code. I pasted some
> > > links below but wanted to extract a gist of it.
> > >
> > > Here are the comments summarised:
> > >
> > >    - (+) asserts look nicer and are more readable than if (something):
> > >    throw Exception()
> > >    - (-) asserts can be optimized away with -O flag so we should not
> > based
> > >    any real logic on having them
> > >    - (+) asserts are good in cases that can happen in development but
> > >    should "never happen" in reality
> > >    - (+) asserts are especially good for cases like None exception -
> they
> > >    add more developer friendly messages when they will fail a few lines
> > > below
> > >    with (for example) None has no property "dag". But it's ok if those
> > get
> > >    optimised away.
> > >
> > > We would like to discuss those points in community and have a
> community -
> > > driven decision on:
> > >
> > > 1) whether we should use asserts?
> > > 2) in which cases
> > > 3) in which cases we should NOT use asserts.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > The links here:
> > >
> > > Slack Discussion:
> > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CCQ7EGB1P/p1575364664041300
> > >
> > > Github threads:
> > >
> > >    - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6596#discussion_r352916409
> > >    - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6596#discussion_r352914727
> > >    -
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/3690#pullrequestreview-143376629
> > >
> > > Stack overflow link for asserts:
> > >
> > >    - https://stackoverflow.com/a/1838411/5691525
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________
> >
> > С уважением, Юлия Волкова
> > Тел. : +7 (911) 116-71-82
> >
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Reply via email to