Hi Yo-Yo Ma, A subset of your use case should be handled by https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/21429 -- BaseCommand should use logging instead of custom output wrappers.
I’m actively working on it and hope to have it ready for Django 3.2. It allows configuring the reporting of exceptions for built-in management commands, but I don’t think it is an appropriate way to execute custom code on command error. Cheers, François Freitag On 5/15/20 5:12 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > Request exceptions have always been easy to manage, because you can use > middleware, and there is the built-in signal: > https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/ref/signals/#got-request-exception > > Problem: > > However, if you want to send data to e.g., Sentry or perform some other > action (logging, etc.) upon any Django management command error, there > aren't built-in facilities to deal with this. Even writing your own command > base class won't suffice, because that won't cover built-in or third-party > commands. > > Solution: > > I propose a "got_command_exception" signal, which would operate similarly > to "got_request_exception", except that it would pass in the management > command class instance as the `sender`, and the provided args/kwargs. Being > run inside of the exception handler would allow for logging.exception(...) > and other exc_info needs. > > > Due to the fact that all commands run through the same call_command > infrastructure, I think this is a good approach to solving the problem I > described. > > If a majority of folks think this is a good approach, I'll make a patch. > > Thoughts? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/2020d9ce-e6aa-6a6c-7cfd-851a836a5acc%40gmail.com.
