Design discussion: how should we test for expected ExceptionGroups?

Python 3.11 has been released with the new ExceptionGroup type, and there's a great backport too.

As people start to write code which can raise ExceptionGroups, there's also going to be a corresponding need to test that they raised the expected group of exceptions, and that's where this issue comes in: our existing APIs aren't particularly helpful for this. For example, in the PR to use ExceptionGroups for Pytest teardown errors, I used with pytest.raises(...) to catch the group, but then had to manually unpack the structure and do isinstance() checks by hand.

I'd like to take our time and find the right API, rather than hurrying to any particular conclusion, and that should be based on a volume and diversity of experience that just doesn't exist yet. This issue therefore exists to collect use-cases, design ideas, and discussion, until we're confident that we can ship the right thing for the next decade.

One fairly simple use-case is when you have a single error, wrapped in one or more layers of ExceptionGroups - this is also going to be quite common for people using asyncio.TaskGroup() or trio.open_nursery(strict_exception_groups=True).

I think the usual desire will be to simply "unwrap" these as they're conceptually a single error, and ideally with pytest.raises(...) could do that. For correctness it seems important to specify the expected number of layers to unwrap; and we might also want to have a match= pattern for the message at each layer.

I don't even have an API sketch for this, but it seems important both that this simple case be very convenient, but also that whatever approach we use scales smoothly up to more complicated groups of errors.

To me that is something that needs a outside of pytest experiment that can iterate breaking

Its hard to get right, I'd like to use something like the ideas from dirty equals for it

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to ship something that hasn't already seen some adoption and iteration, and ideally serious use in some different kinds of code (e.g. web-heavy async, GUI or robotics, etc.).

A more complex case, where the solution currently in our self-tests is kinda inelegant:

raise ExceptionGroup(
    "errors during test teardown (2 sub-exceptions)", 
    [KeyError("from module scope"),
     ExceptionGroup(
        "errors while tearing down <Function test_func> (2 sub-exceptions)",  # might want to test this message
        [TypeError("from function scope 1"), ValueError("from function scope 2")]),
    ])

pytest/testing/test_runner.py

Lines 135 to 140 in 646a46e

    
           with pytest.raises(ExceptionGroup, match="errors during test teardown") as e: 
        
               ss.teardown_exact(None) 
        
           mod, func = e.value.exceptions 
        
           assert isinstance(mod, KeyError) 
        
           assert isinstance(func.exceptions[0], TypeError)  # type: ignore 
        
           assert isinstance(func.exceptions[1], ValueError)  # type: ignore

That's all I have for now; I'll share more as they're discovered and hope others will too!

I am also looking forward to an official solution. In the meantime FWIW, I have pieced this together: https://gist.github.com/xaviergmail/90355b7611dcff27a6a0a60297666865

(In my case, I'm testing for exceptiongroups thrown by cattrs)

How about providing some assertion helpers in ExceptionInfo, e.g. something like

with pytest.raises(ExceptionGroup) as exc_info:
    tested_function()
assert exc_info.group_contains(RuntimeError, match='expected message')
assert not exc_info.group_contains(ValueError)

with more or less the same call signature as pytest.raises? Could support additional arguments to specify recursion into subgroups? Probably won't be able to deal with strictly matching complicated nested structures, but could cover lots of typical use cases.

I've implemented a proof of concept and opened a PR for it

Id like to notes that ExcInfo is a api I'd like to see phased out instead of expanding it's

It's a White elephant that's similar to local path and other parts of pyllib

Id like to notes that ExcInfo is a api I'd like to see phased out instead of expanding it's

Hmmm phase out and replace it with what? Also note that this would break a huge number of test suites I believe, so we should do it (if we ever do it that is) with utmost care, preferably being backward compatible too.

@nicoddemus

@nicoddemus i stubled uppon #3399 which has a similar goal but talks of refactoring, lets continue there

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Design discussion: how should we test for expected `ExceptionGroup`s? #10441

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

	with pytest.raises(ExceptionGroup, match="errors during test teardown") as e:
	ss.teardown_exact(None)
	mod, func = e.value.exceptions
	assert isinstance(mod, KeyError)
	assert isinstance(func.exceptions[0], TypeError) # type: ignore
	assert isinstance(func.exceptions[1], ValueError) # type: ignore

Design discussion: how should we test for expected ExceptionGroups? #10441

Description

Activity

Zac-HD commented on Oct 27, 2022

RonnyPfannschmidt commented on Oct 27, 2022

Zac-HD commented on Oct 27, 2022

Zac-HD commented on Oct 27, 2022

xaviergmail commented on Nov 9, 2022

lanzz commented on Sep 9, 2023

lanzz commented on Sep 10, 2023

RonnyPfannschmidt commented on Sep 10, 2023

nicoddemus commented on Sep 10, 2023

RonnyPfannschmidt commented on Sep 18, 2023

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

Design discussion: how should we test for expected `ExceptionGroup`s? #10441