[16.0][FIX] prevent a warning message

[benwillig]

Use args[0] instead of name to get the exception message as the name attribute is deprecated

[OCA-git-bot]

Hi @guewen,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

[OCA-git-bot]

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

[simahawk]

Additionally, could you pls rewrite the commit msg to something like

[fix] queue_job: fix exception msg handling

.... long explanation goes here...

[simahawk]

Are you sure the this instance has an attribute called "args[0]"? This seems broken to me 🤔
args will be always there and very likely you'll have a first arg.

I guess you want to have something like orig_exception.args[0] if orig_exception.args else str(orig_exception).

[amh-mw]

Per 8.3 Handling Exceptions ¹,

The except clause may specify a variable after the exception name. The variable is bound to the exception instance which typically has an args attribute that stores the arguments. For convenience, builtin exception types define str() to print all the arguments without explicitly accessing .args.

"Typically" suggests that args will be absent some of the time.

1. At the risk of having a slightly uglier error message, why not just use str(orig_exception) instead of trying to preserve formatting?
2. If the exception handling behavior is changing, it should be covered by unit tests.

Footnotes

1. https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/errors.html#handling-exceptions ↩

[benwillig]

Indeed the syntax looks weird so your proposal would be better. However, @amh-mw made a point so I think it would be better to simply use str(orig_exception).

[simahawk]

Maybe I can give you a little background as I'm the author of this piece of code 😉

The aim was to clearly rip out of the msg the exception class. That's why we have exc_name and exc_message. Exceptions are already messy for end users and this is an attempt to have a better msg.
Not to mention that this proposal will cause duplication of info because the exc name will be repeated.
Hence, calling str was just a safe fallback to make sure you had a msg.

An alternative is to call str and drop surrounding chars like exc name, parentesis, etc but I find this more complex than the little check here.

[benwillig]

I updated the commit

[github-actions]

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.