Develop Reference

Where should I print my output at this simple exception handling?(Python)

Hello guys is there any differences between print my output in "try" clause or putting it after "except" clause with "else:"?
here is the code:
try:
Value1 = int(input("Type the first number: "))
Value2 = int(input("Type the second number: "))
Output = Value1 / Value2
except ZeroDivisionError:
print("Attempted to divide by zero!")
else:
print(Output)
or this?
try:
Value1 = int(input("Type the first number: "))
Value2 = int(input("Type the second number: "))
Output = Value1 / Value2
print(Output)
except ZeroDivisionError:
print("Attempted to divide by zero!")
I mean which one is better? because the result is same.
Thanks.

Like you already know we are talking about error handling when we are using try...except.
When an error is generated by an operation (or other statements) Python will stop the try block execution and is passed down to the first except block that matches the raised exception.
In case there isn't an except clause that matches our exception, it is passed on the outer try statement. This until it's handled or no handler is found, the raised exception becomes an unhandled exception and execution stops with a message of the error traceback.
In addition to except block we can use a finally block, that will be executed regardless of whether an exception occurs, and else block. The last one is useful for code that must be executed if the try clause does not raise an exception.
Your examples
How you said this two pieces of code gives the same result. However, with we read on documentation page of Python we have this affirmation:
"The use of the else clause is better than adding additional code to the try clause because it avoids accidentally catching an exception that wasn’t raised by the code being protected by the try … except statement."
Simple speaking if you have different statements that raises the same error, but for one them you aren't interested in catching it, move it to else clause. Look on this question on stack to understand better.
So in your case you can let print statement in try block because you will not catch some particular exceptions from it and there isn't much difference in this case where you put the print statement. However, I think the second example is a good logic separation of type "If no errors where founded then let's execute print".

The else clause is run only when no exception is thrown.
So the reason why you'd want to put it in there is to make it explicit: you only want to print the output if there was no exception.
As you mentioned, in your code, there's no functional difference to what happens.
See the docs for more information.

The first one will work fine as per your expectations (assuming that you don't want to bring up the python error prompt and halt the program).
It simply prescribes that IF 2nd digit is zero then it won't print the Python error prompt and pass it to the print command (And that's how it should be). Otherwise, in every other case, no matter whatever the divisor is, it will always give an output, so that way you eliminate nearly all loopholes.
Suggestion:
Keep the input type as float instead of int, that way you'll be able to print the division for decimal numbers input also. Ex-2/3

How to return a value and raise an Exception

I have two objectives with this try/except statement.
It needs to return a value of 1 if no problems occurred, or 0 if any problems occurred.
It needs to raise an exception and end the script.
I have the return value working. I also have the SystemExit() working. But together, they aren't working.
My Python Script (that's relevant):
except IOError:
value_to_return = 0
return value_to_return
raise SystemExit("FOOBAR")
With this, it ignores the raise SystemExit("FOOBAR") line completely. How do I go about getting a returned value and still raise SystemExit("FOOBAR")? This may be elementary to some, but I'm actually having quite a bit of difficulty with it.

Returning and raising are mutually exclusive.
Raising SystemExit will end the script. A few cleanup routines get to run, and if the caller really, really wants to, they can catch the SystemExit and cancel it, but mostly, you can think of it as stopping execution right there. The caller will never get a chance to see a return value or do anything meaningful with it.
Returning means you want the script to continue. Continuing might mean having the caller raise SystemExit, or it might mean ignoring the error, or it might mean something else. Whatever it means is up to you, as you're the one writing the code.
Finally, are you sure you should be handling this error at all? Catching an exception only to turn it into a system shutdown may not be the most useful behavior. It's not a user-friendly way to deal with problems, and it hides all the useful debugging information you'd get from a stack trace.

You can raise an error with a 'returning_value' argument to be used after the calling.
Another pythonic answer to your problem could be to make use of the error arguments in the raise and then, in your call manage the error to get the value, convert it from string and get your 'return-ish'.
def your_f():
try:
some_io_thingy_ok()
return 1
except IOError:
raise SystemExit("FOOBAR", 0)
try:
my_returning_value = your_f()
except SystemExit as err:
my_returning_value = err.args[1]
print(my_returning_value)
From Python 3 docs :
When an exception occurs, it may have an associated value, also known
as the exception’s argument. The presence and type of the argument
depend on the exception type.
The except clause may specify a variable after the exception name. The
variable is bound to an exception instance with the arguments stored
in instance.args. For convenience, the exception instance defines
str() so the arguments can be printed directly without having to reference .args. One may also instantiate an exception first before
raising it and add any attributes to it as desired.

To exit a script and return an exit status, use sys.exit():
import sys
sys.exit(value_to_return)

I think what you may be looking for is something more like this:
def some_function():
# this function should probably do some stuff, then return 1 if
# it was successful or 0 otherwise.
pass
def calling_function():
a = some_function()
if a == 1:
raise SystemExit('Get the heck outta here!')
else:
# Everything worked!
pass

You can't "raise" and "return" in the same time, so you have to add a special variable to the return value (e.g: in tuple) in case of error.
E.g:
I have a function (named "func") which counts something and I need the (partial) result even if an exception happened during the counting. In my example I will use KeyboardInterrupt exception (the user pressed CTRL-C).
Without exception handling in the function (it's wrong, in case of any exception the function doesn't give back anything):
def func():
s=0
for i in range(10):
s=s+1
time.sleep(0.1)
return s
x=0
try:
for i in range(10):
s=func()
x=x+s
except KeyboardInterrupt:
print(x)
else:
print(x)
And now I introduce a boolean return value (in a tuple, next to the original return value) to indicate if an exception happened. Because in the function I handle only the KeyboardInterrupt exception, I can be sure that's happened, so I can raise the same where I called the function:
def func():
try:
s=0
for i in range(10):
s=s+1
time.sleep(0.1)
except KeyboardInterrupt: # <- the trick is here
return s, True # <- the trick is here
return s, False # <- the trick is here
x=0
try:
for i in range(10):
s,e=func()
x=x+s
if e: # <- and here
raise KeyboardInterrupt # <- and here
except KeyboardInterrupt:
print(x)
else:
print(x)
Note: my example is python3. The time module is used (in both code above), but I haven't import it just to make it shorter. If you want to really try it, put at the beginning:
import time

i was looking for an answer without using try, use 'finally' keyword like this.. if any one knows fill me in
here is an answer for your poblem
try:
9/0#sample error "don't know how to make IOError"
except ZeroDivisionError:
value_to_return = 0
raise SystemExit("FOOBAR")
finally:return value_to_return

try-except-raise clause, good behaviour?

I have noticed me writing try-except clauses like the following very much in the past. The main reason for this is to write less code.
class Synchronizer(object):
# ...
def _assert_dir(self, dirname, argname, argnum):
""" *Private*. Raises OSError if the passed string does not point
to an existing directory on the file-system. """
if not os.path.isdir(dirname):
message = 'passed `%s` argument (%d) does not point to a ' \
'directory on the file-system.'
raise OSError(message % (argname, argnum))
def synchronize(self, source_dir, dest_dir, database):
# Ensure the passed directories do exist.
try:
self._assert_dir(source_dir, 'source_dir', 2)
self._assert_dir(dest_dir, 'dest_dir', 3)
except OSError:
raise
# ...
I was doing it this way, because otherwise I would've needed to write
class Synchronizer(object):
# ...
def synchronize(self, source_dir, dest_dir, database):
# Ensure the passed directories do exist.
if not os.path.isdir(source_dir):
message = 'passed `source_dir` argument (2) does not point to a ' \
'directory on the file-system.'
raise OSError(message)
if not os.path.isdir(dest_dir):
message = 'passed `dest_dir` argument (3) does not point to a ' \
'directory on the file-system.'
raise OSError(message)
# ...
I actually like the idea of writing methods doing check-and-raise operations, but I see one big disadvantage: Readability. Especially for editors that do code-folding, the try statement is not very much telling the reader what happens inside of it, while if not os.path.isdir(source_dir) is quite a good hint.
IMHO the try-except clause is required because it would confuse the catcher of the exception (reader of the traceback) where the exception comes from.
What do you think about this design? Is it awful, great or confusing to you? Or do you have any ideas on how to improve the situation?

There are two questions that I ask myself before using try for handling exceptional conditions and if the answer is YES to both, only then I will try to handle the exception.
Q1. Is this truly an exception scenario? I do not want to execute try blocks if the condition occurs 90% of the time. It is better to use if - else in such a case.
Q2. Can I recover from the error? It makes little sense to handle the exception if I cannot recover from it. It's better to propagate it to a higher level which happens automatically without me having to write extra code.
The code posted by you does not do anything to recover if the directory does not exist and it does not appear that you can do much about it. Why not let the error propagate to a higher level? Why do you even need a try block there?

This depends upon your requirement..
If you want to catch some exception, and continue with the code in your method, then you should use the 2nd scenario. Have yout try-except block inside your method.
def function():
try:
raise IOError
except IOError e:
// Handle
//continue with reset of the function
print "This will get printed"
function()
But if you want to handle all the exception at one place, with specific action for specific type, or you just want to halt your function, if one exception is raised, you can better handle them outside your function: -
def function():
raise IOError
// subsequent code Will not execute
print "This will not get printed"
try:
function()
except IOError e:
// Handle IOError
except EOFError e1:
// Handle EOF Error
By using the 2nd way, you are actually increasing the chance of some of your codes not getting executed. In general, your try-except block should be small. They should be separated for handling exception at different points and not all the exceptions should be handled at one place.
As far as I'm concerned, I generally like to minimize my try-except block as much as possible. That way I know where exactly my exception was raised.

Why do we need the "finally" clause in Python?

I am not sure why we need finally in try...except...finally statements. In my opinion, this code block
try:
run_code1()
except TypeError:
run_code2()
other_code()
is the same with this one using finally:
try:
run_code1()
except TypeError:
run_code2()
finally:
other_code()
Am I missing something?

It makes a difference if you return early:
try:
run_code1()
except TypeError:
run_code2()
return None # The finally block is run before the method returns
finally:
other_code()
Compare to this:
try:
run_code1()
except TypeError:
run_code2()
return None
other_code() # This doesn't get run if there's an exception.
Other situations that can cause differences:
If an exception is thrown inside the except block.
If an exception is thrown in run_code1() but it's not a TypeError.
Other control flow statements such as continue and break statements.

You can use finally to make sure files or resources are closed or released regardless of whether an exception occurs, even if you don't catch the exception. (Or if you don't catch that specific exception.)
myfile = open("test.txt", "w")
try:
myfile.write("the Answer is: ")
myfile.write(42) # raises TypeError, which will be propagated to caller
finally:
myfile.close() # will be executed before TypeError is propagated
In this example you'd be better off using the with statement, but this kind of structure can be used for other kinds of resources.
A few years later, I wrote a blog post about an abuse of finally that readers may find amusing.

They are not equivalent. finally code is run no matter what else happens*.
It is useful for cleanup code that has to run.
*:
As Mark Byers commented, anything causes the process to terminate immediately also prevents the finally-code to run.
The latter could be an os._exit(). or powercut, but an infinite loop or other things also fall into that category.

To add to the other answers above, the finally clause executes no matter what whereas the else clause executes only if an exception was not raised.
For example, writing to a file with no exceptions will output the following:
file = open('test.txt', 'w')
try:
file.write("Testing.")
print("Writing to file.")
except IOError:
print("Could not write to file.")
else:
print("Write successful.")
finally:
file.close()
print("File closed.")
OUTPUT:
Writing to file.
Write successful.
File closed.
If there is an exception, the code will output the following, (note that a deliberate error is caused by keeping the file read-only.
file = open('test.txt', 'r')
try:
file.write("Testing.")
print("Writing to file.")
except IOError:
print("Could not write to file.")
else:
print("Write successful.")
finally:
file.close()
print("File closed.")
OUTPUT:
Could not write to file.
File closed.
We can see that the finally clause executes regardless of an exception. Hope this helps.

Here's a peice of code to clarify the difference:
...
try:
a/b
print('In try block')
except TypeError:
print('In except block')
finally:
print('In finally block')
print('Outside')
a, b = 0, 1
Output:
In try block
In finally block
Outside
(No errors, except block skipped.)
a, b = 1, 0
Output:
In finally block
Traceback (most recent call last):
a/b
ZeroDivisionError: division by zero
(No exception handling is specified for ZeroDivisionError and only the finally block is executed.)
a, b = 0, '1'
Output:
In except block
In finally block
Outside
(Exception is handled properly and the program is not interrupted.)
Note: If you have an except block to handle all types of errors, the finally block will be superfluous.

As explained in the documentation, the finally clause is intended to define clean-up actions that must be executed under all circumstances.
If finally is present, it specifies a ‘cleanup’ handler. The try
clause is executed, including any except and else clauses. If an
exception occurs in any of the clauses and is not handled, the
exception is temporarily saved. The finally clause is executed. If
there is a saved exception it is re-raised at the end of the finally
clause.
An example:
>>> def divide(x, y):
... try:
... result = x / y
... except ZeroDivisionError:
... print("division by zero!")
... else:
... print("result is", result)
... finally:
... print("executing finally clause")
...
>>> divide(2, 1)
result is 2.0
executing finally clause
>>> divide(2, 0)
division by zero!
executing finally clause
>>> divide("2", "1")
executing finally clause
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in divide
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for /: 'str' and 'str'
As you can see, the finally clause is executed in any event. The TypeError raised by dividing two strings is not handled by the except clause and therefore re-raised after the finally clause has been executed.
In real world applications, the finally clause is useful for releasing external resources (such as files or network connections), regardless of whether the use of the resource was successful.

The code blocks are not equivalent. The finally clause will also be run if run_code1() throws an exception other than TypeError, or if run_code2() throws an exception, while other_code() in the first version wouldn't be run in these cases.

In your first example, what happens if run_code1() raises an exception that is not TypeError? ... other_code() will not be executed.
Compare that with the finally: version: other_code() is guaranteed to be executed regardless of any exception being raised.

Using delphi professionally for some years taught me to safeguard my cleanup routines using finally. Delphi pretty much enforces the use of finally to clean up any resources created before the try block, lest you cause a memory leak. This is also how Java, Python and Ruby works.
resource = create_resource
try:
use resource
finally:
resource.cleanup
and resource will be cleaned up regardless of what you do between try and finally. Also, it won't be cleaned up if execution never reaches the try block. (i.e. create_resource itself throws an exception) It makes your code "exception safe".
As to why you actually need a finally block, not all languages do. In C++ where you have automatically called destructors which enforce cleanup when an exception unrolls the stack. I think this is a step up in the direction of cleaner code compared to try...finally languages.
{
type object1;
smart_pointer<type> object1(new type());
} // destructors are automagically called here in LIFO order so no finally required.

Finally can also be used when you want to run "optional" code before running the code for your main work and that optional code may fail for various reasons.
In the following example, we don't know precisely what kind of exceptions store_some_debug_info might throw.
We could run:
try:
store_some_debug_info()
except Exception:
pass
do_something_really_important()
But, most linters will complain about catching too vague of an exception. Also, since we're choosing to just pass for errors, the except block doesn't really add value.
try:
store_some_debug_info()
finally:
do_something_really_important()
The above code has the same effect as the 1st block of code but is more concise.

finally is for defining "clean up actions". The finally clause is executed in any event before leaving the try statement, whether an exception (even if you do not handle it) has occurred or not.
I second #Byers's example.

Perfect example is as below:
try:
#x = Hello + 20
x = 10 + 20
except:
print 'I am in except block'
x = 20 + 30
else:
print 'I am in else block'
x += 1
finally:
print 'Finally x = %s' %(x)

A try block has just one mandatory clause: The try statement.
The except, else and finally clauses are optional and based on user preference.
finally:
Before Python leaves the try statement, it will run the code in the finally block under any conditions, even if it's ending the program. E.g., if Python ran into an error while running code in the except or else block, the finally block will still be executed before stopping the program.

Try running this code first without a finally block,
1 / 0 causes a divide by zero error.
try:
1 / 0
print(1)
except Exception as e:
1 / 0
print(e)
Then try running this code,
try:
1 / 0
print(1)
except Exception as e:
1 / 0
print(e)
finally:
print('finally')
For the first case you don't have a finally block,
So when an error occurs in the except block the program execution halts and you cannot execute anything after the except block.
But for the second case,
The error occurs but before the program halts python executes the finally block first and then causes the program to halt.
Thats is why you use finally and do stuff that is really important.

Run these Python3 codes to watch the need of finally:
CASE1:
count = 0
while True:
count += 1
if count > 3:
break
else:
try:
x = int(input("Enter your lock number here: "))
if x == 586:
print("Your lock has unlocked :)")
break
else:
print("Try again!!")
continue
except:
print("Invalid entry!!")
finally:
print("Your Attempts: {}".format(count))
CASE2:
count = 0
while True:
count += 1
if count > 3:
break
else:
try:
x = int(input("Enter your lock number here: "))
if x == 586:
print("Your lock has unlocked :)")
break
else:
print("Try again!!")
continue
except:
print("Invalid entry!!")
print("Your Attempts: {}".format(count))
Try the following inputs each time:
random integers
correct code which is 586(Try this and you will get your answer)
random strings
** At a very early stage of learning Python.

I was trying to run a code where i wanted to read excel sheets. Issue was, if there is a file which has no sheet named say : SheetSum I am not able to move it to error location!! Code i wrote was:
def read_file(data_file):
# data_file = '\rr\ex.xlsx'
sheets = {}
try:
print("Reading file: "+data_file)
sheets['df_1'] = pd.read_excel(open(data_file,'rb'), 'SheetSum')
except Exception as excpt:
print("Exception occurred", exc_info=True)
return sheets
read_file(file)
shutil.move( file, dirpath +'\\processed_files')
Giving Error :
[WinError 32] The process cannot access the file because it is being
used by another process
I had to add full try except with finally block and tell finally i need to close the file in any case like:
def read_file(data_file):
# data_file = '\rr\ex.xlsx'
sheets = {}
sheets_file = None
try:
print("Reading file: "+data_file)
sheets_file = open(data_file,'rb')
sheets['df_1'] = pd.read_excel(sheets_file, 'SheetSum')
except Exception as excpt:
print("Exception occurred", exc_info=True)
finally:
if sheets_file:
sheets_file.close()
return sheets
read_file(file)
shutil.move( file, dirpath +'\\processed_files')
Otherwise, file still remains open is the background.
If finally is present, it specifies a cleanup handler. The try
clause is executed, including any except and else clauses. If an
exception occurs in any of the clauses and is not handled, the
exception is temporarily saved. The finally clause is executed. If
there is a saved exception it is re-raised at the end of the finally
clause. If the finally clause raises another exception, the saved
exception is set as the context of the new exception.
..More Here

Just to enable Abhijit Sahu's comment on this answer to be seen much better and with syntax highlighting:
Like this, you can observe what happens with which code block when:
try:
x = Hello + 20
x = 10 + 20
except:
print 'I am in except block'
x = 20 + 30
else:
print 'I am in else block'
x += 1
finally:
print 'Finally x = %s' %(x)

Here you can see how try, except, else, and finally work together. Actually, since your code doesn't have 'else' then what you claimed is right. I.e., There is no difference between the two statements that you wrote. But if 'else' is used somewhere, then 'finally' makes a difference

How should I use try...except while defining a function?

I find I've been confused by the problem that when I needn't to use try..except.For last few days it was used in almost every function I defined which I think maybe a bad practice.For example:
class mongodb(object):
def getRecords(self,tname,conditions=''):
try:
col = eval("self.db.%s" %tname)
recs = col.find(condition)
return recs
except Exception,e:
#here make some error log with e.message
What I thought is ,exceptions may be raised everywhere and I have to use try to get them.
And my question is,is it a good practice to use it everywhere when defining functions?If not are there any principles for it?Help would be appreciated!
Regards

That may not be the best thing to do. Whole point of exceptions is that you can catch them on very different level than it's raised. It's best to handle them in the place where you have enough information to make something useful with them (that is very application and context dependent).
For example code below can throw IOError("[Errno 2] No such file or directory"):
def read_data(filename):
return open(filename).read()
In that function you don't have enough information to do something with it, but in place where you actually using this function, in case of such exception, you may decide to try different filename or display error to the user, or something else:
try:
data = read_data('data-file.txt')
except IOError:
data = read_data('another-data-file.txt')
# or
show_error_message("Data file was not found.")
# or something else

This (catching all possible exceptions very broadly) is indeed considered bad practice. You'll mask the real reason for the exception.
Catch only 'explicitely named' types of exceptions (which you expect to happen and you can/will handle gracefully). Let the rest (unexpected ones) bubble as they should.
You can log these (uncaught) exceptions (globally) by overriding sys.excepthook:
import sys
import traceback
# ...
def my_uncaught_exception_hook(exc_type, exc_value, exc_traceback):
msg_exc = "".join( \
traceback.format_exception(exc_type, exc_value, exc_traceback) )
# ... log here...
sys.excepthook = my_uncaught_exception_hook # our uncaught exception hook

You must find a balance between several goals:
An application should recover from as many errors as possible by itself.
An application should report all unrecoverable errors with enough detail to fix the cause of the problem.
Errors can happen everywhere but you don't want to pollute your code with all the error handling code.
Applications shouldn't crash
To solve #3, you can use an exception hook. All unhandled exceptions will cause the current transaction to abort. Catch them at the highest level, roll back the transaction (so the database doesn't become inconsistent) and either throw them again or swallow them (so the app doesn't crash). You should use decorators for this. This solves #4 and #1.
The solution for #2 is experience. You will learn with time what information you need to solve problems. The hard part is to still have the information when an error happens. One solution is to add debug logging calls in the low level methods.
Another solution is a dictionary per thread in which you can store some bits and which you dump when an error happens.

another option is to wrap a large section of code in a try: except: (for instance in a web application, one specific GUI page) and then use sys.exc_info() to print out the error and also the stack where it occurred
import sys
import traceback
try:
#some buggy code
x = ??
except:
print sys.exc_info()[0] #prints the exception class
print sys.exc_info()[1] #prints the error message
print repr(traceback.format_tb(sys.exc_info()[2])) #prints the stack