Skip to content

Added example for bad-except-order #5997

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 28, 2022
Merged

Added example for bad-except-order #5997

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions doc/data/messages/b/bad-except-order/bad.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
try:
print(int(input()))
except Exception:
raise
except TypeError: # [bad-except-order]
# This block cannot be reached since TypeError exception
# is caught by previous exception handler.
raise
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions doc/data/messages/b/bad-except-order/good.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
try:
print(int(input()))
except TypeError:
raise
except Exception:
raise
Comment on lines +5 to +6
Copy link
Member

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls Mar 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This would emit try-except-raise, I think, so maybe we should model doing something with the exception?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@matusvalo matusvalo Mar 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Based on this discussion #5992 (comment) we should prefer simplicity/readability over code cleanness.

Copy link
Member

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls Mar 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's fair, but I think a flexible approach to this is worth considering, because I suspect we'll get an issue someday "I rewrote my code the way pylint said to but then I got another error".

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@matusvalo matusvalo Mar 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I leave the decision to @Pierre-Sassoulas and @DanielNoord

Copy link
Member

@Pierre-Sassoulas Pierre-Sassoulas Mar 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about a pass instead of a raise ? Still simple, but no try-except-raise ?

Copy link
Member

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls Mar 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess it's a losing battle because bare-exception is also in play (probably?). So I'm willing to leave this be 😄