-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 308
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: QueryJob.exception() *returns* the errors, not raises them #467
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a85fe8f
fix: QueryJob.exception() should *return* errors
plamut 07af774
Reload query job on error, raise any reload errors
plamut 7d9a7e8
Merge branch 'master' into iss-451
plamut a19f07e
Catch errors on reloading failed query jobs
plamut f3ddc14
Add additional unit test
plamut ef2fe8e
Increase retry deadline to mitigate test flakiness
plamut 56c4e96
Merge branch 'master' into iss-451
plamut 739627a
Store the more informative exception in done()
plamut File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why use the private property in this and the other tests? any objections to calling
job.exception()
here and the other tests?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The reasoning was that
job.exception()
can execute additional logic, and errors in that method would make the tests fordone()
fail, too, even if there was nothing wrong with thedone()
method itself.One could argue that the chosen unit of test is too small, and that the class itself should represent a unit as opposed to its individual methods, but addressing that would require quite some refactoring (we already tinker with internal
_properties
, for instance).Here, practicality beats purity IMHO, thus the "cheating" by examining the internal state of the class. Or do you have a strong opinion on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Works for me. I agree that ideally we'd have higher-level tests than this, but makes sense to stay with existing conventions, especially given our 100% coverage requirement.