I want to ignore some exception in an library code (not my code)
as so:
try:
try: # not my code start
assert False
except:
print('not my code') # not my code end
except:
print('my code')
pass
So I will get into printing 'my code' at the end.
The results currently is:
'not my code' only.
You will get my code if the inner block, as a whole raises an exception. In your case, the inner block
try: # not my code start
assert False
except:
print('not my code') # not my code end
has handled it's exception, so, from the point of view of the outer try, it has completed successfully.
You could only cause the outer exception to be triggered by, raising an unhandled exception in the first try, or calling a function that raises an exception.
Related
I have below script which generates report for large size data.
Due to large size data request call times out.
I have added exception to handle this situation which works fine to get keep script running.
Issue I am having is after exception it goes to next project and skips the projects where it timed out.
I want it to start from same project again.
How can I achieve this ?
if __name__ = ‘__main__’
for project in AllProjectData['value']:
try:
project_name = project['name']
** code to be executed
except:
requests.ConnectionError,
requests.exceptions.ReadTimeout,
requests.exceptions.Timeout,
requests.exceptions.ConnectTimeout
continue
You are catching exceptions in a very odd way. I've never seen it done like this. I believe this code is catching all exceptions. For example:
try:
1/0
except:
ZeroDivisionError
pass
Works fine, but so does (it should raise IndexError):
try:
a = []
print(a[1])
except:
ZeroDivisionError
pass
So you shouldn't write except statements this way. What you should have is something along the lines:
success = False
while not success:
try:
# Your execution code
except (requests.ConnectionError,
requests.exceptions.ReadTimeout,
requests.exceptions.Timeout,
requests.exceptions.ConnectTimeout):
continue
else:
success = True
Also you should try and not put so much code in your except statement as it is confusing as to what you're trying to catch and where. Also, you're completely missing some possibilities like a KeyError when there's no id field in project and others.
Try this -
def myfunc():
# Write the code given in question completely
# Then add this in your except statement
except:
requests.ConnectionError,
requests.exceptions.ReadTimeout,
requests.exceptions.Timeout,
requests.exceptions.ConnectTimeout
# Call your function so that it will jump back to the same function
myfunc()
# You don't need continue keyword because it jumps to the same function
The simplest way would be to use a while loop with a counter variable. Let me demonstrate:
i = 0
while i < len(AllProjectData['value']):
try:
project = AllProjectData['value'][i]
# code to be executed
i += 1 # increment counter on success
except:
requests.ConnectionError,
requests.exceptions.ReadTimeout,
requests.exceptions.Timeout,
requests.exceptions.ConnectTimeout
continue
This way, you will go to the next project only if work on the previous project was executed, as the loop variable is incremented only in the try block.
Note: I have assumed that your iterable is indexable. If it's not, just pass it inside the list() constructor.
Is it possible to tell if there was an exception once you're in the finally clause? Something like:
try:
funky code
finally:
if ???:
print('the funky code raised')
I'm looking to make something like this more DRY:
try:
funky code
except HandleThis:
# handle it
raised = True
except DontHandleThis:
raised = True
raise
else:
raised = False
finally:
logger.info('funky code raised %s', raised)
I don't like that it requires to catch an exception, which you don't intend to handle, just to set a flag.
Since some comments are asking for less "M" in the MCVE, here is some more background on the use-case. The actual problem is about escalation of logging levels.
The funky code is third party and can't be changed.
The failure exception and stack trace does not contain any useful diagnostic information, so using logger.exception in an except block is not helpful here.
If the funky code raised then some information which I need to see has already been logged, at level DEBUG. We do not and can not handle the error, but want to escalate the DEBUG logging because the information needed is in there.
The funky code does not raise, most of the time. I don't want to escalate logging levels for the general case, because it is too verbose.
Hence, the code runs under a log capture context (which sets up custom handlers to intercept log records) and some debug info gets re-logged retrospectively:
try:
with LogCapture() as log:
funky_code() # <-- third party badness
finally:
# log events are buffered in memory. if there was an exception,
# emit everything that was captured at a WARNING level
for record in log.captured:
if <there was an exception>:
log_fn = mylogger.warning
else:
log_fn = getattr(mylogger, record.levelname.lower())
log_fn(record.msg, record.args)
Using a contextmanager
You could use a custom contextmanager, for example:
class DidWeRaise:
__slots__ = ('exception_happened', ) # instances will take less memory
def __enter__(self):
return self
def __exit__(self, exc_type, exc_val, exc_tb):
# If no exception happened the `exc_type` is None
self.exception_happened = exc_type is not None
And then use that inside the try:
try:
with DidWeRaise() as error_state:
# funky code
finally:
if error_state.exception_happened:
print('the funky code raised')
It's still an additional variable but it's probably a lot easier to reuse if you want to use it in multiple places. And you don't need to toggle it yourself.
Using a variable
In case you don't want the contextmanager I would reverse the logic of the trigger and toggle it only in case no exception has happened. That way you don't need an except case for exceptions that you don't want to handle. The most appropriate place would be the else clause that is entered in case the try didn't threw an exception:
exception_happened = True
try:
# funky code
except HandleThis:
# handle this kind of exception
else:
exception_happened = False
finally:
if exception_happened:
print('the funky code raised')
And as already pointed out instead of having a "toggle" variable you could replace it (in this case) with the desired logging function:
mylog = mylogger.WARNING
try:
with LogCapture() as log:
funky_code()
except HandleThis:
# handle this kind of exception
else:
# In case absolutely no exception was thrown in the try we can log on debug level
mylog = mylogger.DEBUG
finally:
for record in log.captured:
mylog(record.msg, record.args)
Of course it would also work if you put it at the end of your try (as other answers here suggested) but I prefer the else clause because it has more meaning ("that code is meant to be executed only if there was no exception in the try block") and may be easier to maintain in the long run. Although it's still more to maintain than the context manager because the variable is set and toggled in different places.
Using sys.exc_info (works only for unhandled exceptions)
The last approach I want to mention is probably not useful for you but maybe useful for future readers who only want to know if there's an unhandled exception (an exception that was not caught in any except block or has been raised inside an except block). In that case you can use sys.exc_info:
import sys
try:
# funky code
except HandleThis:
pass
finally:
if sys.exc_info()[0] is not None:
# only entered if there's an *unhandled* exception, e.g. NOT a HandleThis exception
print('funky code raised')
raised = True
try:
funky code
raised = False
except HandleThis:
# handle it
finally:
logger.info('funky code raised %s', raised)
Given the additional background information added to the question about selecting a log level, this seems very easily adapted to the intended use-case:
mylog = WARNING
try:
funky code
mylog = DEBUG
except HandleThis:
# handle it
finally:
mylog(...)
You can easily assign your caught exception to a variable and use it in the finally block, eg:
>>> x = 1
>>> error = None
>>> try:
... x.foo()
... except Exception as e:
... error = e
... finally:
... if error is not None:
... print(error)
...
'int' object has no attribute 'foo'
Okay, so what it sounds like you actually just want to either modify your existing context manager, or use a similar approach: logbook actually has something called a FingersCrossedHandler that would do exactly what you want. But you could do it yourself, like:
#contextmanager
def LogCapture():
# your existing buffer code here
level = logging.WARN
try:
yield
except UselessException:
level = logging.DEBUG
raise # Or don't, if you just want it to go away
finally:
# emit logs here
Original Response
You're thinking about this a bit sideways.
You do intend to handle the exception - you're handling it by setting a flag. Maybe you don't care about anything else (which seems like a bad idea), but if you care about doing something when an exception is raised, then you want to be explicit about it.
The fact that you're setting a variable, but you want the exception to continue on means that what you really want is to raise your own specific exception, from the exception that was raised:
class MyPkgException(Exception): pass
class MyError(PyPkgException): pass # If there's another exception type, you can also inherit from that
def do_the_badness():
try:
raise FileNotFoundError('Or some other code that raises an error')
except FileNotFoundError as e:
raise MyError('File was not found, doh!') from e
finally:
do_some_cleanup()
try:
do_the_badness()
except MyError as e:
print('The error? Yeah, it happened')
This solves:
Explicitly handling the exception(s) that you're looking to handle
Making the stack traces and original exceptions available
Allowing your code that's going to handle the original exception somewhere else to handle your exception that's thrown
Allowing some top-level exception handling code to just catch MyPkgException to catch all of your exceptions so it can log something and exit with a nice status instead of an ugly stack trace
If it was me, I'd do a little re-ordering of your code.
raised = False
try:
# funky code
except HandleThis:
# handle it
raised = True
except Exception as ex:
# Don't Handle This
raise ex
finally:
if raised:
logger.info('funky code was raised')
I've placed the raised boolean assignment outside of the try statement to ensure scope and made the final except statement a general exception handler for exceptions that you don't want to handle.
This style determines if your code failed. Another approach might me to determine when your code succeeds.
success = False
try:
# funky code
success = True
except HandleThis:
# handle it
pass
except Exception as ex:
# Don't Handle This
raise ex
finally:
if success:
logger.info('funky code was successful')
else:
logger.info('funky code was raised')
If exception happened --> Put this logic in the exception block(s).
If exception did not happen --> Put this logic in the try block after the point in code where the exception can occur.
Finally blocks should be reserved for "cleanup actions," according to the Python language reference. When finally is specified the interpreter proceeds in the except case as follows: Exception is saved, then the finally block is executed first, then lastly the Exception is raised.
Suppose the following code.
try:
some_code_1
except: # will it be called twice, if an error occures in finally?
some_code_2
finally:
some_code_3
Suppose an exception occurs in some_code_3. Do I need an extra try-except clause around some_code_3 (see below) or will the exception with some_code_2 be called again, which in principle could cause an infinite loop?
Is this saver?
try:
some_code_1
except: # will it be called twice, if an error occures in finally?
some_code_2
finally:
try:
some_code_3
except:
pass
Just give it a try:
try:
print(abc) #Will raise NameError
except:
print("In exception")
finally:
print(xyz) #Will raise NameError
Output:
In exception
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "Z:/test/test.py", line 7, in <module>
print(xyz)
NameError: name 'xyz' is not defined
So no, it doesn't end up in an infinite loop
python doesn't go back in the execution flow, but rather statement by statement.
By the time it reaches finally, if an error is thrown there, it needs yet another handle
The finally in your sample code will not catch exception from some_code_3.
whether it's needed to catch exception from some_code_3 depends on your design.
Let's say I have a program that runs continuously, waiting for order from a program with standard input. The method that keeps waiting for order is called "run" using while.
As you see, when run() gets certain order, they pass the order to certain function.
When I run the program, every time I give a command that can cause an error (say: Index error), it breaks and shut down (obviously)
I decided to try to catch the error with try/except
def a(order):
try:
<some algorithm>
return something
except Exception, error:
stderr.write(error)
stderr.flush()
def b(order):
try:
<some algorithm>
return something
except Exception, error:
stderr.write(error)
stderr.flush()
def run(order)
while stdin.notclosed:
try:
read stdin
if stdin==specific order :
x=a(stdin order)
else:
x=b(stdin order)
except Exception,error:
stderr.write(error)
stderr.flush()
run()
However, it seems the program that gives the order can't read the error. From my analyst, it seems the program that gives order only start reading stderr after the program that reads the order ends. However, due to try/catch, the program never ends. Is there anyway that to catch the error, write it, then end it. (The error can came from any function)
PS: Let's assume you can't modify or read the program that gives order. (This is competition, the reason I said this, is since that when I access the stderr, it's empty.)
Not sure if this does what you need, but you could re-raise the exception being handled by adding an emptyraisestatement at the end of theexceptblock as shown below. This will either cause the exception to be handled by the next higher-uptry/exceptblock, if there is one, or terminate the program if there isn't.
Example:
def a(order):
try:
<some algorithm>
return something
except Exception, error:
stderr.write(error)
stderr.flush()
raise # re-raise exception
def a(order):
try:
<some algorithm>
return something
except Exception, error:
import traceback
trace = traceback.format_exc()
return trace
def b(order):
try:
<some algorithm>
return something
except Exception, error:
import traceback
trace = traceback.format_exc()
return trace
def run(order)
while stdin.notclosed:
try:
read stdin
if stdin==specific order :
x=a(stdin order)
else:
x=b(stdin order)
#check if x == trace then sys.exit()
except Exception,error:
stderr.write(error)
stderr.flush()
run()
I have:
try:
...
except Exception, e:
print "Problem. %s" % str(e)
However, somewhere in try, i will need it to behave as if it encountered an Exception. Is it un-pythonic to do:
try:
...
raise Exception, 'Type 1 error'
...
except Exception, e:
print "Problem. Type 2 error %s" % str(e)
I think this is a bad design. If you need to take some action if (and only if) an exception wasn't raised, that is what the else clause is there for. If you need to take some action unconditionally, that's what finally is for. here's a demonstration:
def myraise(arg):
try:
if arg:
raise ValueError('arg is True')
except ValueError as e:
print(e)
else:
print('arg is False')
finally:
print("see this no matter what")
myraise(1)
myraise(0)
You need to factor the unconditional code into finally and put the other stuff in except/else as appropriate.
I think what you are doing is "unPythonic". Trys should really only cover the small part (ideally one line) of the code which you expect might sometimes fail in a certain way. You should be able to use try/except/else/finally to get the required behaviour:
try:
#line which might fail
except ExceptionType: # the exception type which you are worried about
#what to do if it raises the exception
else:
#this gets done if try is successful
finally:
#this gets done last in both cases (try successful or not)