Skip to content

Improve dict traceback#627

Merged
hynek merged 9 commits intohynek:mainfrom
sscherfke:improve-dict-traceback
Jul 16, 2024
Merged

Improve dict traceback#627
hynek merged 9 commits intohynek:mainfrom
sscherfke:improve-dict-traceback

Conversation

@sscherfke
Copy link
Contributor

@sscherfke sscherfke commented Jun 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Summary

Restore feature parity between Rich's traceback extractor:

  • When displaying locals, call repr() on strings, too.
  • Add locals_max_length config option
  • Add locals_hide_sunder config option
  • Add locals_hide_dunder config option
  • Add suppress config option

Pull Request Check List

  • Do not open pull requests from your main branch – use a separate branch!
    • There's a ton of footguns waiting if you don't heed this warning. You can still go back to your project, create a branch from your main branch, push it, and open the pull request from the new branch.
    • This is not a pre-requisite for your your pull request to be accepted, but you have been warned.
  • Added tests for changed code.
    • The CI fails with less than 100% coverage.
  • New APIs are added to our typing tests in api.py.
  • Updated documentation for changed code.
    • New functions/classes have to be added to docs/api.rst by hand.
    • Changed/added classes/methods/functions have appropriate versionadded, versionchanged, or deprecated directives.
      • The next version is the second number in the current release + 1. The first number represents the current year. So if the current version on PyPI is 23.1.0, the next version is gonna be 23.2.0. If the next version is the first in the new year, it'll be 24.1.0.
  • Documentation in .rst and .md files is written using semantic newlines.
  • Changes (and possible deprecations) are documented in the changelog.
  • Consider granting push permissions to the PR branch, so maintainers can fix minor issues themselves without pestering you.

@sscherfke sscherfke force-pushed the improve-dict-traceback branch from 587ea5e to 1d57e3b Compare June 17, 2024 05:49
@hynek
Copy link
Owner

hynek commented Jun 26, 2024

2 questions before I get around to looking at it closely:

@sscherfke
Copy link
Contributor Author

sscherfke commented Jun 26, 2024

wb, @hynek :)

Why are you inverting our asserts? We do expected == result and it happens that one forgets it in new code, but why are there changes to existing one?

I noticed that result == expected and expected == result were mixed in that file so I unified it to the "official" result == expected version. I can change it back though if you want.

Is this related at all to #626 (which used to claim that show_locals=False does nothing)

I was not aware of this question but I will take a look at it. The changes come from requirements at work.

@hynek
Copy link
Owner

hynek commented Jun 26, 2024

wb, @hynek :)

thanks 😵‍💫

Why are you inverting our asserts? We do expected == result and it happens that one forgets it in new code, but why are there changes to existing one?

I noticed that result == expected and expected == result were mixed in that file so I unified it to the "official" result == expected version. I can change it back though if you want.

Please do; we've sufficiently departed anyways.

Is this related at all to #626 (which used to claim that show_locals=False does nothing)

I was not aware of this question but I will take a look at it. The changes come from requirements at work.

I'm not sure it's legit, since he edited it out, but please have a look.

@sscherfke sscherfke mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2024
Closed
@sscherfke
Copy link
Contributor Author

sscherfke commented Jul 9, 2024

Updated the PR and answered the linked question. :-)

hynek
hynek requested changes Jul 13, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Owner

@hynek hynek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I didn't look super close at the code since I assume it's coming from Rich and well-tested.

I expect people to complain about the always-on Rich formatting tho, so I think it should be an option?

@sscherfke sscherfke force-pushed the improve-dict-traceback branch from 6e8bb30 to 889cb22 Compare July 16, 2024 10:58
@sscherfke sscherfke requested a review from hynek July 16, 2024 11:03
hynek
hynek approved these changes Jul 16, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Owner

@hynek hynek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks!

not gonna do a deep review and trust Will here :)

@hynek hynek enabled auto-merge (squash) July 16, 2024 12:45
@hynek hynek merged commit 2759bb9 into hynek:main Jul 16, 2024
@raqbit raqbit mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Closed
@Eldeeqq Eldeeqq mentioned this pull request Sep 25, 2024
Open
This was referenced Nov 13, 2024
Closed
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@hynek hynek hynek approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@sscherfke @hynek