Skip to content

Conversation

gomri15
Copy link

@gomri15 gomri15 commented Sep 21, 2025

Added handling for exception group with only skips inside of it to the reporter

fixes issue: #13537

@psf-chronographer psf-chronographer bot added the bot:chronographer:provided (automation) changelog entry is part of PR label Sep 21, 2025
@gomri15 gomri15 force-pushed the fix-13537 branch 2 times, most recently from 0380548 to 90fba0d Compare September 21, 2025 15:59
@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

This PR also contains the commits from #13757, could you fix this please? Thanks!

@gomri15
Copy link
Author

gomri15 commented Sep 27, 2025

This PR also contains the commits from #13757, could you fix this please? Thanks!

Done.
Thank you so much for the review, i can only imagine how busy you are with all these reviews.

@gomri15 gomri15 requested a review from nicoddemus September 27, 2025 17:12
Copy link
Member

@bluetech bluetech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Didn't think too much about this, just some comments from reading the PR.

@gomri15 gomri15 force-pushed the fix-13537 branch 3 times, most recently from 9adef4b to 2d37732 Compare October 16, 2025 05:44
@gomri15
Copy link
Author

gomri15 commented Oct 16, 2025

@bluetech Thanks for the review I fixed all the comments

Summary of changes:

  • Change test to be more readable by using parametrization with better names and more explicit parameters
  • Casting to Sequence[BaseExceptions] instead Sequence[Skip] which was wrong
  • Removed redundant comments and changed some comments to ready like sentences

Note: checking if exceptions exist and its insides feels a bit hacky to me using getattr and literal check if excinfo.value.exceptions but I couldn't find a better way of doing this.

open to suggestions, wasn't sure how much more energy should be spent on this since it's such a edge case scenario.

i remember @bluetech mentioned flattening the exception group in #13650 maybe that is the way to go for better clarity and not having to explicitly check the insides of excinfo.value so literally

also so saw a suggestion for TypeGuard but because haven't seen this logic before i the project i hesitated to add it just for this use case

@gomri15 gomri15 requested a review from bluetech October 16, 2025 05:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bot:chronographer:provided (automation) changelog entry is part of PR

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants