Fix-up of #10307: Don't use bare except#11338
Merged
Merged
Conversation
michaelDCurran
approved these changes
Jul 6, 2020
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
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Link to issue number:
Fix-up of #10307
Summary of the issue:
While having a look at helping to resolve merge conflicts for #7784, I've had to re-read this old code of mine, recently merged into master.
I've back then used twice a bare except neutralized with
noqa: E722.If @LeonarddeR had a chance to review this code, he would have wisely pointed out this is bad practice and requested for a change.
I know there are 271 other occurrences of bare except in the source code of NVDA vs. only 34 of
except Exception, but please allow me to help move in the good direction rather than perpetuate errors - especially as thenoqaconstructs might lead new readers to erroneously assume this construct has recently been validated.Description of how this pull request fixes the issue:
Remove two occurrences, introduced by myself, of:
by the correct form:
Testing performed:
Known issues with pull request:
Change log entry:
N/A