-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.5k
Removed raise_from_traceback #29174
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
Removed raise_from_traceback #29174
Changes from 1 commit
7df2e4d
eeaf136
16e71d5
2afadae
a23a02a
b815e2d
90a0682
8af6dd3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ | |
) | ||
|
||
import pandas._libs.testing as _testing | ||
from pandas.compat import _get_lzma_file, _import_lzma, raise_with_traceback | ||
from pandas.compat import _get_lzma_file, _import_lzma | ||
|
||
from pandas.core.dtypes.common import ( | ||
is_bool, | ||
|
@@ -2533,7 +2533,7 @@ def exception_matches(self, exc_type, exc_value, trace_back): | |
pat=self.regexp.pattern, val=val | ||
) | ||
e = AssertionError(msg) | ||
raise_with_traceback(e, trace_back) | ||
raise e.with_traceback(trace_back) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. since There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Not overly familiar with this code but seems very logical...I'll give it a shot and see what happens There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Hmm well thinking this through some more some of our There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It was publicly deprecated in 0.24, so with the new version policy, I think ok to remove in 1.0 There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah... missed that. Makes sense - thanks |
||
|
||
return True | ||
else: | ||
|
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.
does this change the current behavior?
for/else
is a pretty obscure idiom that i dont have intuition forThere 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.
Also if you're inclined to tighten the
except Exception
above while in the neighborhood, that'd be coolThere 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
else
clause infor...else
would only get executed if there was nobreak
in thefor
block. In this cause it wouldbreak
if no exception was raised in the try...elseCome to think of it we could get rid of the
try...else
now too. I'll see what that looks like after this CI run completes (mostly want to see if it helps with the HTML issue visibility)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.
Actually misread that. This goes through a fallback pattern of the various parsers trying one after the next. I erroneously just raised on first available - might not be well tested...
For now just reverted; can open a follow up for clean up and except Exception handling as you mentioned