| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
The old matcher only worked if the error was raised with `raise Exception('single quotes')`.
This represents a miniscule fraction of errors; for instance, `l[37]` on a short list `l` can raise `IndexError`, and any call to a builtin C function is not going to trace back to a `raise` call.
Instead, this just matches the first line without fail that comes after the context line.
Note that this is still not foolproof; in Python 3.10, `SyntaxError`s are produced as
```
File "<stdin>", line 1
foo(x, z for z in range(10), t, w)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: Generator expression must be parenthesized
```
This matcher will incorrectly pick up ` ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^` as the error message, but the previous behavior was to not pick up any error message at all.
As far as I can tell, this is impossible to handle correctly; the grammar of problem matchers is far too limiting.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Description:
The old matcher only worked if the error was raised with raise Exception('single quotes').
This represents a miniscule fraction of errors; for instance, l[37] on a short list l can raise IndexError, and any call to a builtin C function is not going to trace back to a raise call.
Instead, this just matches the first line without fail that comes after the context line.
Note that this is still not foolproof; in Python 3.10, SyntaxErrors are produced as
File "<stdin>", line 1 foo(x, z for z in range(10), t, w) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SyntaxError: Generator expression must be parenthesizedThis matcher will incorrectly pick up ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ as the error message, but the previous behavior was to not pick up any error message at all.
As far as I can tell, this is impossible to handle correctly; the grammar of problem matchers is far too limiting.
Some other changes:
Related issue:
This follows on from
Check list:
There are no existing tests for this feature, nor do I know if it is even possible to test.
However, I tested this matcher in another action at https://github.com/sigproc-classrooms/sf2_competition_template/runs/6746359679?check_suite_focus=true#step:6:38, where you can see that it has correctly found an error that would not have previously matched.