On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 04:53:46PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 17:53 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
[...]
> @@ -202,8 +202,9 @@ class Inventory:
> try:
> self._facts[host] = self._read_all_facts(host)
> self._facts[host]["inventory_hostname"] = host
> - except Exception:
> - raise Error("Can't load facts for
'{}'".format(host))
> + except Exception as ex:
> + raise Error("Can't load facts for '%(host)s':
%(ex)s" %
> + { "host": host, "ex": ex})
Did you actually run into a situation where this was useful? It's
one of those diagnostics that I didn't really expect to trigger in
practice...
Yes, if you create malformed yaml file this triggers. It means the
error message now tells you the place where the yaml syntax error is
Either way, I don't really have a problem with adding it, but
what
I don't like is using a completely different way to format strings
than the rest of the code.
I don't use Python nearly enough to have an opinion on the merits
of either syntax compared to the other, so if the one you're using
here is considered a best practice then we can definitely switch to
it; however, it will have to be done in a separate commit that
converts the entire script at once rather than in a piecemail
fashion.
I've never come across the "{}" syntax before so didn't even
know how to use named params for it until now.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|