I'm a newbie in Flask and I am trying to display the Built-In Exceptions in python but I can't seem to have them display on my end.
NOTE:
set FLASK_DEBUG = 0
CODE:
def do_something:
try:
doing_something()
except Exception as err:
return f"{err}"
Expectation:
It will display one of the built-in exceptions:
KeyError
IndexError
NameError
Etc.
Reality:
It will return the line of code that didn't worked which is more ambiguous to the end user.
Also:
I have no problem seeing the errors when the debug mode is ON but that's not something that I want to do if I open them in public
Flask supplies you with a function that enables you to register an error handler throughout your entire app; you can do something as shown below:
def handle_exceptions(e):
# Log exception in your logs
# get traceback and sys exception info and log as required
# app.logger.error(getattr(e, 'description', str(e)))
# Print traceback
# return your response using getattr(e, 'code', 500) etc.
# Exception is used to catch all exceptions
app.register_error_handler(Exception, handle_exceptions)
In my honest opinion, this is the way to go. - Following the structure found in werkzeug.exceptions.HTTPException as an example is a solid foundation.
Having a unified exception handler that will standardise your Exception handling, visualisation and logging will make your life a tad better. :)
Try with this:
def do_something:
try:
doing_something()
except Exception as err:
return f"{err.__class__.__name__}: {err}"
I have this in my code:
import api
def do_something():
try:
api = api.Api()
api.call()
except ParseException as e:
logger.exception('Error occurred')
raise ValidationError(detail=e.message)
Basically it calls an API and re-raises the exception with another type.
My test checks the case when the exception is thrown:
#patch('code.api')
def test_exception(self, api_mock):
api_mock.Api.side_effect = ParseException('General Error')
self.assertRaises(
ValidationError,
do_something
)
api_mock.Api.assert_called_once()
However my test fails because ParseException gets thrown and not ValidationError. What is going on?
Note the #patch('code.api') line. This says patch EVERYTHING in code.api. The ParseException is probably in the api module too and thus patched too. If you debug your code you'll see that type(ParseException) is not an instance of Exception but an instance of MagicMock.
I just spent an hour banging my head on the desk, hope this helps someone.
I'm trying to learn Python and mocking infrastructure in Python at the same time (Due to requirement at my work place). I should also mention that I'm also not familiar with mocking feature in C++ or any other language.
So far, from what I've understood is that, with mocking, I can exercise the application code that makes OS. networking etc related calls, without actually invoking those operation.
Let's say I've an application, implemented as network.py
#!/usr/bin/env python
import sys
import socket
class NetworkService(object):
def sock_create(self):
try:
s = socket.socket()
s.close()
print "closed socket"
except Exception, err:
print "error creating socket"
sys.exit(1)
Things that I'd like to achieve with my unit test is:
Make sure that both normal and failure paths get tested.
In this case, to achieve, this I'm trying to come up with a sample unit test case that exercises the sock_create method, as below:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import unittest
import mock
from network import NetworkService
class NetworkServiceTest(unittest.TestCase):
#mock.patch('network.socket')
def test_01_sock_create(self, mock_sock):
reference = NetworkService()
mock_sock.return_value = False
# NetworkService::sock_create::s.close() should NOT get called
reference.sock_create()
self.assertFalse(mock_sock.close.called, "Failed to not call close")
mock_sock.socket.return_value = True
# NetworkService::sock_create::s.close() should get called
reference.sock_create()
# how to test this ???
#mock_sock.close.assert_called_with("")
if __name__ == '__main__':
unittest.main()
As you can see above, the last 'assert' statement is currently commented out; I'm not sure, how to check this? The following gives me error:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import unittest
import mock
from network import NetworkService
class NetworkServiceTest(unittest.TestCase):
#mock.patch('network.socket')
def test_01_sock_create(self, mock_sock):
reference = NetworkService()
mock_sock.return_value = False
reference.sock_create()
self.assertFalse(mock_sock.close.called, "Failed to not call close")
mock_sock.socket.return_value = True
reference.sock_create()
self.assertTrue(mock_sock.close.called, "Should have called s.close")
if __name__ == '__main__':
unittest.main()
and the error:
$ python tester.py
F
======================================================================
FAIL: test_01_sock_create (__main__.NetworkServiceTest)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mock/mock.py", line 1305, in patched
return func(*args, **keywargs)
File "tester.py", line 17, in test_01_sock_create
self.assertTrue(mock_sock.close.called, "Should have called s.close")
AssertionError: Should have called s.close
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 1 test in 0.002s
FAILED (failures=1)
closed socket
error creating socket
NOTE that I'm using mocking in Python 2.7 (mock need to be installed as a separate module)
In network.py you are printing out a string. If you instead would print out the actual error you would see the reason why it's failing. What you would see in this case is that it's failing because of an AttributeError. AttributeError("'bool' object has no attribute 'close'",)
The reason this is happening is because you're giving the mock object the return value of True or False. Since a bool doesn't have any open or close method it'll throw that error.
A few other tips. You're using Exception which will catch all exceptions. Instead, only catch exceptions that you know will happen. Find out what exceptions socket might throw.
That way you would have discovered this earlier.
I'm working on a project that involves connecting to a remote server, waiting for a response, and then performing actions based on that response. We catch a couple of different exceptions, and behave differently depending on which exception is caught. For example:
def myMethod(address, timeout=20):
try:
response = requests.head(address, timeout=timeout)
except requests.exceptions.Timeout:
# do something special
except requests.exceptions.ConnectionError:
# do something special
except requests.exceptions.HTTPError:
# do something special
else:
if response.status_code != requests.codes.ok:
# do something special
return successfulConnection.SUCCESS
To test this, we've written a test like the following
class TestMyMethod(unittest.TestCase):
def test_good_connection(self):
config = {
'head.return_value': type('MockResponse', (), {'status_code': requests.codes.ok}),
'codes.ok': requests.codes.ok
}
with mock.patch('path.to.my.package.requests', **config):
self.assertEqual(
mypackage.myMethod('some_address',
mypackage.successfulConnection.SUCCESS
)
def test_bad_connection(self):
config = {
'head.side_effect': requests.exceptions.ConnectionError,
'requests.exceptions.ConnectionError': requests.exceptions.ConnectionError
}
with mock.patch('path.to.my.package.requests', **config):
self.assertEqual(
mypackage.myMethod('some_address',
mypackage.successfulConnection.FAILURE
)
If I run the function directly, everything happens as expected. I even tested by adding raise requests.exceptions.ConnectionError to the try clause of the function. But when I run my unit tests, I get
ERROR: test_bad_connection (test.test_file.TestMyMethod)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "path/to/sourcefile", line ###, in myMethod
respone = requests.head(address, timeout=timeout)
File "path/to/unittest/mock", line 846, in __call__
return _mock_self.mock_call(*args, **kwargs)
File "path/to/unittest/mock", line 901, in _mock_call
raise effect
my.package.requests.exceptions.ConnectionError
During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "Path/to/my/test", line ##, in test_bad_connection
mypackage.myMethod('some_address',
File "Path/to/package", line ##, in myMethod
except requests.exceptions.ConnectionError:
TypeError: catching classes that do not inherit from BaseException is not allowed
I tried to change the exception I was patching in to BaseException and I got a more or less identical error.
I've read https://stackoverflow.com/a/18163759/3076272 already, so I think it must be a bad __del__ hook somewhere, but I'm not sure where to look for it or what I can even do in the mean time. I'm also relatively new to unittest.mock.patch() so it's very possible that I'm doing something wrong there as well.
This is a Fusion360 add-in so it is using Fusion 360's packaged version of Python 3.3 - as far as I know it's a vanilla version (i.e. they don't roll their own) but I'm not positive of that.
I could reproduce the error with a minimal example:
foo.py:
class MyError(Exception):
pass
class A:
def inner(self):
err = MyError("FOO")
print(type(err))
raise err
def outer(self):
try:
self.inner()
except MyError as err:
print ("catched ", err)
return "OK"
Test without mocking :
class FooTest(unittest.TestCase):
def test_inner(self):
a = foo.A()
self.assertRaises(foo.MyError, a.inner)
def test_outer(self):
a = foo.A()
self.assertEquals("OK", a.outer())
Ok, all is fine, both test pass
The problem comes with the mocks. As soon as the class MyError is mocked, the expect clause cannot catch anything and I get same error as the example from the question :
class FooTest(unittest.TestCase):
def test_inner(self):
a = foo.A()
self.assertRaises(foo.MyError, a.inner)
def test_outer(self):
with unittest.mock.patch('foo.MyError'):
a = exc2.A()
self.assertEquals("OK", a.outer())
Immediately gives :
ERROR: test_outer (__main__.FooTest)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "...\foo.py", line 11, in outer
self.inner()
File "...\foo.py", line 8, in inner
raise err
TypeError: exceptions must derive from BaseException
During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#78>", line 8, in test_outer
File "...\foo.py", line 12, in outer
except MyError as err:
TypeError: catching classes that do not inherit from BaseException is not allowed
Here I get a first TypeErrorthat you did not have, because I am raising a mock while you forced a true exception with 'requests.exceptions.ConnectionError': requests.exceptions.ConnectionError in config. But the problem remains that the except clause tries to catch a mock.
TL/DR: as you mock the full requests package, the except requests.exceptions.ConnectionError clause tries to catch a mock. As the mock is not really a BaseException, it causes the error.
The only solution I can imagine is not to mock the full requests but only the parts that are not exceptions. I must admit I could not find how to say to mock mock everything except this but in your example, you only need to patch requests.head. So I think that this should work :
def test_bad_connection(self):
with mock.patch('path.to.my.package.requests.head',
side_effect=requests.exceptions.ConnectionError):
self.assertEqual(
mypackage.myMethod('some_address',
mypackage.successfulConnection.FAILURE
)
That is : only patch the head method with the exception as side effect.
I just ran into the same issue while trying to mock sqlite3 (and found this post while looking for solutions).
What Serge said is correct:
TL/DR: as you mock the full requests package, the except requests.exceptions.ConnectionError clause tries to catch a mock. As the mock is not really a BaseException, it causes the error.
The only solution I can imagine is not to mock the full requests but only the parts that are not exceptions. I must admit I could not find how to say to mock mock everything except this
My solution was to mock the entire module, then set the mock attribute for the exception to be equal to the exception in the real class, effectively "un-mocking" the exception. For example, in my case:
#mock.patch(MyClass.sqlite3)
def test_connect_fail(self, mock_sqlite3):
mock_sqlite3.connect.side_effect = sqlite3.OperationalError()
mock_sqlite3.OperationalError = sqlite3.OperationalError
self.assertRaises(sqlite3.OperationalError, MyClass, self.db_filename)
For requests, you could assign exceptions individually like this:
mock_requests.exceptions.ConnectionError = requests.exceptions.ConnectionError
or do it for all of the requests exceptions like this:
mock_requests.exceptions = requests.exceptions
I don't know if this is the "right" way to do it, but so far it seems to work for me without any issue.
For those of us who need to mock an exception and can't do that by simply patching head, here is an easy solution that replaces the target exception with an empty one:
Say we have a generic unit to test with an exception we have to have mocked:
# app/foo_file.py
def test_me():
try:
foo()
return "No foo error happened"
except CustomError: # <-- Mock me!
return "The foo error was caught"
We want to mock CustomError but because it is an exception we run into trouble if we try to patch it like everything else. Normally, a call to patch replaces the target with a MagicMock but that won't work here. Mocks are nifty, but they do not behave like exceptions do. Rather than patching with a mock, let's give it a stub exception instead. We'll do that in our test file.
# app/test_foo_file.py
from mock import patch
# A do-nothing exception we are going to replace CustomError with
class StubException(Exception):
pass
# Now apply it to our test
#patch('app.foo_file.foo')
#patch('app.foo_file.CustomError', new_callable=lambda: StubException)
def test_foo(stub_exception, mock_foo):
mock_foo.side_effect = stub_exception("Stub") # Raise our stub to be caught by CustomError
assert test_me() == "The error was caught"
# Success!
So what's with the lambda? The new_callable param calls whatever we give it and replaces the target with the return of that call. If we pass our StubException class straight, it will call the class's constructor and patch our target object with an exception instance rather than a class which isn't what we want. By wrapping it with lambda, it returns our class as we intend.
Once our patching is done, the stub_exception object (which is literally our StubException class) can be raised and caught as if it were the CustomError. Neat!
I faced a similar issue while trying to mock the sh package. While sh is very useful, the fact that all methods and exceptions are defined dynamically make it more difficult to mock them. So following the recommendation of the documentation:
import unittest
from unittest.mock import Mock, patch
class MockSh(Mock):
# error codes are defined dynamically in sh
class ErrorReturnCode_32(BaseException):
pass
# could be any sh command
def mount(self, *args):
raise self.ErrorReturnCode_32
class MyTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
mock_sh = MockSh()
#patch('core.mount.sh', new=mock_sh)
def test_mount(self):
...
I just ran into the same problem when mocking struct.
I get the error:
TypeError: catching classes that do not inherit from BaseException is not allowed
When trying to catch a struct.error raised from struct.unpack.
I found that the simplest way to get around this in my tests was to simply set the value of the error attribute in my mock to be Exception. For example
The method I want to test has this basic pattern:
def some_meth(self):
try:
struct.unpack(fmt, data)
except struct.error:
return False
return True
The test has this basic pattern.
#mock.patch('my_module.struct')
def test_some_meth(self, struct_mock):
'''Explain how some_func should work.'''
struct_mock.error = Exception
self.my_object.some_meth()
struct_mock.unpack.assert_called()
struct_mock.unpack.side_effect = struct_mock.error
self.assertFalse(self.my_object.some_meth()
This is similar to the approach taken by #BillB, but it is certainly simpler as I don't need to add imports to my tests and still get the same behavior. To me it would seem this is the logical conclusion to the general thread of reasoning in the answers here.
Use patch.object to partially mock a class.
My use case:
import unittest
from unittest import mock
import requests
def test_my_function(self):
response = mock.MagicMock()
response.raise_for_status.side_effect = requests.HTTPError
with mock.patch.object(requests, 'get', return_value=response):
my_function()
I'm practicing TDD in Python and came across a problem in testing whether an exception is raised.
Here is my test_phonebook.py with test_add_empty_name_raises_exception which fails.
import unittest
import phonebook
class Test(unittest.TestCase):
def test_add_empty_name_raises_exception(self):
self.assertRaises(ValueError, phonebook.add, "", "1111111111")
if __name__ == "__main__":
# import sys;sys.argv = ['', 'Test.testName']
unittest.main()
Below is my phonebook.py with the method add which adds the data into the dictionary.
import re
_phonebook = {}
file_name = "phonebook.txt"
def is_valid_name(name):
return re.search(r"([A-Z][a-z]*)([\\s\\\'-][A-Z][a-z]*)*", name) is not None
def is_valid_number(number):
return re.search(r"\+?[\d ]+$", number) is not None
def add(name, number):
try:
if is_valid_name(name) and is_valid_number(number):
_phonebook[name] = number
else:
raise ValueError("Invalid arguments.", name, number)
except ValueError as err:
print err.args
if __name__ == '__main__':
pass
My problem is that the test fails even though it is seen in the console log that there was a ValueError raised within the add method.
Finding files... done.
Importing test modules ... done.
('Invalid arguments.', '', '1111111111')
======================================================================
FAIL: test_add_empty_name_raises_exception (path.to.phonebook.test_phonebook.Test)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "path\to\phonebook\test_phonebook.py", line 13, in test_add_empty_name_raises_exception
self.assertRaises(ValueError, phonebook.add, "", "1111111111")
AssertionError: ValueError not raised
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 1 test in 0.002s
How do I solve this? I there something I forgot?
I also tried using the new format for handling exceptions in tests in Python 2.7 but it still hasn't caught the ValueError raising.
def test_add_empty_name_raises_exception(self):
with self.assertRaises(ValueError):
self.phonebook.add("", "1111111111)
I also changed the form of the test case into using lambdas but still no changes.
def test_add_empty_name_raises_exception(self):
self.assertRaises(ValueError, lambda: phonebook.add("", "1111111111"))
I also cleaned my directory and restarted Eclipse Luna and problem still persists.
Possible solution
I was reading the 8.Errors and Exceptions documentation and got to the "Raising Exceptions" part which states that:
If you need to determine whether an exception was raised but don’t intend to handle it,
a simpler form of the raise statement allows you to re-raise the exception:
I added this to the existing add method as such:
def add(name, number):
try:
if is_valid_name(name) and is_valid_number(number):
_phonebook[name] = number
print "Added %s:\t%s" % (name, number)
else:
raise ValueError("Invalid arguments.", name, number)
except ValueError as err:
print err.args
raise
Which caused the test case to pass.
Is this the correct way? To call raise again in the except block?
When you catch an exception (in your except ValueError as err: block), you prevent it from continuing back up the call stack to eventually terminate the program. Essentially, you're saying "I know how to handle this, so no need to panic anyone else."
Re-raising an exception is the proper thing to do if you caught the exception but didn't do so to actually fix anything, for instance, to log that it occurred. Typically, though, one catches an exception in order to correct it.
In your case, you're catching the exception almost immediately after you yourself raised it. Why not put your logging statement in the same else block as the raise? No need for a try: ... except: indent at all.
def add(name, number):
if is_valid_name(name) and is_valid_number(number):
_phonebook[name] = number
print "Added %s:\t%s" % (name, number)
else:
print "Invalid arguments.", name, number
raise ValueError("Invalid arguments.", name, number)
return