display single contained exception in excgroups in test summary - #12975
Merged
Zac-HD merged 7 commits intoNov 25, 2024
Merged
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Sorry, something went wrong.
jakkdl
marked this pull request as ready for review
November 19, 2024 16:22
Zac-HD
reviewed
Nov 19, 2024
Comment thread
src/_pytest/_code/code.py
Comment thread
src/_pytest/_code/code.py
Outdated
| and isinstance(self.value, BaseExceptionGroup) | ||
| and (subexc := _get_single_subexc(self.value)) is not None | ||
| ): | ||
| return f"[in {type(self.value).__name__}] {subexc!r}" |
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| return f"[in {type(self.value).__name__}] {subexc!r}" | |
| return f"{subexc!r} [single exception in {type(self.value).__name__}]" |
as discussed in the issue
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fixed, but noted my disagreement in the issue :)
Sorry, something went wrong.
Zac-HD
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2024
Zac-HD
left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @jakkdl!
I really appreciate your writeup in #12943 (comment), but continue to prefer this style for a few reasons:
- when the nodeid is long and we can get truncation of this short message, I want to keep the leaf-type as the first part of this message. Generally users who are seeing ExceptionGroups know they're possible, so I'm not too worried about truncating that note away in such cases
- single-leaf groups are qualitatively simpler to think about than multi-leaf groups - the structure of the latter often matters, for example, while the former are basically just extra structure in the traceback - and so discarding the more complex structure feels a bit worse
- I think we'll probably want to do something better for these cases too at some point, but I don't yet know what and would prefer to wait until we have a proposal that users seem enthusiastic about.
I'm happy with this PR as-is since it seems to me like a clear improvement on the status quo; if nobody else has feedback I'll merge in a few days 🙂
Sorry, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
fixes #12943
As ExceptionInfo still doesn't have proper support for exception groups this continues upon the hacky solution from #10209, modifying the reprcrash as well.
I find this solution ... incredibly hacky and ugly, and am not a fan that n==1 gets handled but not n==2. But conceptually it just gets really tricky to figure out what info to strip, and how to show that. If we're going with stripping structure & group messages we could extend this solution to something like [in ExceptionGroup]: ValueError("foo"), TypeError("bar").
EDIT: less hacky now that I moved the code to ExceptionInfo.exconly