fix(workflow_engine): Graceful Data Condition Eval Handling

[saponifi3d]

Description

• Introduce a new pattern for DataConditionEvaluationException to allow us to raise exceptions to interrupt the control flow
• Override a specific problem in issue_priority_deescalating_handler
• Includes tests to ensure we are gracefully handling DataConditionEvaluationExceptions

[ceorourke]

Would it be possible to put this in setup since it's duplicated in the next test? I know the mock handler might be tricky but at least the data condition should be fine

[saponifi3d]

i was able to get it working like this:

# in workflow_engine/test_base.py
def get_condition_handler_mock(
    evaluate_value: Callable[[Any, Any], DataConditionResult]
) -> DataConditionHandler:
    class MockConditionHandler(DataConditionHandler):
        @staticmethod
        def evaluate_value(value: Any, comparison: Any) -> DataConditionResult:
            return evaluate_value(value, comparison)

    return MockConditionHandler()

# in a test_file.py:
class TestExample(TestCase):
    @mock.patch("sentry.workflow_engine.models.data_condition.condition_handler_registry")
    def test(self, mock_registry):
        def evaluate_value(value: int, comparison: int) -> bool:
            raise DataConditionEvaluationException("Something went wrong")

        mock_condition = get_condition_handler_mock(evaluate_value)
        mock_registry.get.return_value = mock_condition
        dc = self.create_data_condition(
            type=Condition.LEVEL,  # this will be overridden by the mock, cannot be a operator
            comparison=1.0,
            condition_result=DetectorPriorityLevel.HIGH,
        )

        with mock.patch("sentry.workflow_engine.models.data_condition.logger.info") as mock_logger:
            dc.evaluate_value(2)
            assert (
                mock_logger.call_args[0][0]
                == "A known error occurred while evaluating a data condition"
            )

it feels like that's not sharing much though, especially since we'd have to pass in evaluate value as well.

mind if i leave it as is for this pr? and then do a follow up PR with a base tests or mixin to make this more generic.

[ceorourke]

left a comment about test cleanup but not gonna block on it