On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Cecil Westerhof <[email protected]> wrote:
>> And I'd also skip the bare except clause. If you get any sort of
>> exception, whether it's a bug, a failure from libturpial, a network
>> error, or anything else, your code will just terminate with a bland
>> and useless message. Much better to simply let the exception bubble
>> up.
>
> I kept the except. I like to see the message that went wrong. ;-)
In that case, there's an easier way to deal with it: just raise a
different exception, and let them chain. Something like this:
>>> def send_message(msg):
... try: 1/0
... except: raise FailedMessageException(msg)
...
>>> class FailedMessageException(Exception): pass
...
>>> send_message("Test")
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 2, in send_message
ZeroDivisionError: division by zero
During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in send_message
__main__.FailedMessageException: Test
But I'd still avoid the bare except, and use "except Exception:"
instead. I don't think you want to catch SystemExit in this way, for
instance. So here's how I'd write that code:
>>> def send_message(msg):
... try: 1/0
... except Exception as e: raise FailedMessageException(msg) from e
...
>>> send_message("Test")
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 2, in send_message
ZeroDivisionError: division by zero
The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in send_message
__main__.FailedMessageException: Test
(Also, the use of "from" here causes a slightly different wording,
which I think is more appropriate. But that's minor.)
You get the report of which message failed, plus you get the complete
traceback from the original exception. Much MUCH more useful.
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
