On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-8, Ganesh Pal wrote:
> >> How do we reraise the exception in python , I have used raise not
> >> sure how to reraise the exception
> >
> > raise with no arguments will reraise the exception currently being handled.
> >
> > except Exception:
> > logging.error("something went wrong")
> > raise
>
> Thanks Ian for taking time and looking into the code , o k raise
> keyword for raising exception is fine .
>
> >>>> assert ret ==0,"ERROR (ret %d): " \
> >>>> " \nout: %s\nerr: %s\n" % (ret, out, err)
> >>>> except Exception as e:
> >>>> print("Failed to run %s got %s" % (cmd, e))
> >>>> return False
> >>>> return True
> >>>>
> >>>> def prep_host():
> >>>> """
> >>>> Prepare clustering
> >>>> """
> >>>> for cmd in ["ls -al",
> >>>> "touch /tmp/file1",
> >>>> "mkdir /tmp/dir1"]:
> >>>> try:
> >>>> if not run_cmd_and_verify(cmd, timeout=3600):
> >>>> return False
> >>>> except:
> >>>
> >>> What exceptions are you expecting this to catch? run_cmd_and_verify
> >>> already catches any expected exceptions that it raises.
>
> In my case the exception is nothing but the error example if we plan
> to run the command say #ifconfig -a and the command fails because of
> a type ( say u ran #igconfig -a).
>
> we will the output as
>
> # Failed to run igconfig -a got Error (ret=127)
> out :
> error: command not found: igconfig
>
> So the execption is the error i.e Error (ret=127) out : error: command
> not found: igconfig, Iam fine with this behaviour.
>
>
> >
> > But that exception is already caught by the run_cmd_and_verify
> > function, so what exception are you expecting to be caught *here*?
>
> I wanted to run the command in a loop and have a fxn for the pattern
> that repeats in this case the function is run_cmd_and_verify , the
> only known way to me was using try with expect
>
> I thought I will use try and have pass in except which you don't recommend
>
> for cmd in ["ls -al",
> "touch /tmp/file1",
> "mkdir /tmp/dir1"]:
> try:
> if not run_cmd_and_verify(cmd, timeout=3600):
> print "running command failed "
> return False
> except:
> pass
>
> > You should virtually never just pass in an exception handler. Either
> > handle the exception, or log it and reraise it. If you're going to do
> > neither of those things, then don't use a try-except at all.
>
> What alternative do I have other than try-expect ? can try - else be
> used for my case?
>
> Regards,
> GPal
Every time you say "try-expect", my head wants to explode.
It is called a "try-except" block, because you're using the key words "try" and
"except" when you make one.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
