On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 03:56:37PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
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.
I kind of agree with Andrea, the preferred formatting in python is to use {} and .format() method, the '%' formatting is old and should not be used. In this case you have these options: "Can't load facts for '{}': {}".format(host, ex) "Can't load facts for '{0}': {1}".format(host, ex) "Can't load facts for '{host}': {ex}".format(host=host, ex=ex) Pavel