[PATCH] Include traceback in email output

[Kamil Paral]

If the test crashes, provide the full traceback at the end of the
self.outputs. This way we can quickly examine the cause from the body of
the email and don't have to search for full autoqa logs on the server.
---
 lib/python/decorators.py |    6 +++---
 lib/python/test.py       |    8 ++++++--
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/python/decorators.py b/lib/python/decorators.py
index 7db78ad..0e504fc 100644
--- a/lib/python/decorators.py
+++ b/lib/python/decorators.py
@@ -76,12 +76,12 @@ class ExceptionCatcher(object):
                     #if the 'on_exception' is a name of 'class member
function'
                     #then call the f_self.on_exception(oe_args, oe_kwargs)
                     if self.oe_is_self_method:
-                        f_self.__getattribute__(self.oe)(exc = exc_info[1], *self.oe_a,
**self.oe_k)
+                        f_self.__getattribute__(self.oe)(exc = exc_info, *self.oe_a,
**self.oe_k)
                     #'on_exception' is pointer to function
                     else:
-                        self.oe(exc = exc_info[1], *self.oe_a, **self.oe_k)
+                        self.oe(exc = exc_info, *self.oe_a, **self.oe_k)
                     #re-raise the stored exception
-                    raise exc_info[1], None, exc_info[2]
+                    raise exc_info[0], exc_info[1], exc_info[2]
                 return f_result
         return newf
 
diff --git a/lib/python/test.py b/lib/python/test.py
index f04ad10..eccbb09 100644
--- a/lib/python/test.py
+++ b/lib/python/test.py
@@ -49,14 +49,18 @@ class AutoQATest(test.test, object):
         pass
 
     def process_exception(self, exc = None):
+        self._convert_list_variables()
+
         self.result = "CRASHED"
         if exc is not None:
-            self.summary = "%s: %s" % (exc.__class__.__name__, exc)
+            self.summary = "%s: %s" % (exc[1].__class__.__name__, exc[1])
+            self.outputs += '\n%s\n%s' % ('-'*70,
+                ''.join(traceback.format_exception(exc[0], exc[1], exc[2])))
         else:
             self.summary = "Exception: Unknown exception"
         try:
             self.postprocess_iteration()
-        except Exception, e:
+        except Exception:
             traceback.print_exc(file=sys.stderr)
 
     def postprocess_iteration(self):
-- 
1.7.2.3

[Kamil Paral]

----- "Kamil Páral" <kparal(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  If the test crashes, provide the full traceback at the end of the
>  self.outputs. This way we can quickly examine the cause from the body
>  of
>  the email and don't have to search for full autoqa logs on the
>  server.
>  ---
>   lib/python/decorators.py |    6 +++---
>   lib/python/test.py       |    8 ++++++--
>   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) 
Note, this is based on Josef's "[PATCH] Removed individual XYZ_failed 
methods in test.py". James, it should address your concern of now knowing
in which method the exception occurred. We won't have it in the mail
subject, but it will be included in the traceback in the mail body.

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 09:08 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
>  ----- "Kamil Páral" <kparal(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > If the test crashes, provide the full traceback at the end of the
>  > self.outputs. This way we can quickly examine the cause from the body
>  > of
>  > the email and don't have to search for full autoqa logs on the
>  > server.
>  > ---
>  >  lib/python/decorators.py |    6 +++---
>  >  lib/python/test.py       |    8 ++++++--
>  >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>  
>  Note, this is based on Josef's "[PATCH] Removed individual XYZ_failed 
>  methods in test.py". James, it should address your concern of now knowing
>  in which method the exception occurred. We won't have it in the mail
>  subject, but it will be included in the traceback in the mail body. 
Thanks Kamil, this seems like a nice improvement.

With regards to the patch itself, I can't find anything wrong with
either this patchset, or the XYZ_failed set.  I have mixed feelings
though, this is the patch you don't want to see in action, that means
tests are 'sploding :)

Thanks,
James

[Kamil Paral]

----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 09:08 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
>  > ----- "Kamil Páral" <kparal(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > 
>  > > If the test crashes, provide the full traceback at the end of the
>  > > self.outputs. This way we can quickly examine the cause from the
>  body
>  > > of
>  > > the email and don't have to search for full autoqa logs on the
>  > > server.
>  > > ---
>  > >  lib/python/decorators.py |    6 +++---
>  > >  lib/python/test.py       |    8 ++++++--
>  > >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>  > 
>  > Note, this is based on Josef's "[PATCH] Removed individual
>  XYZ_failed 
>  > methods in test.py". James, it should address your concern of now
>  knowing
>  > in which method the exception occurred. We won't have it in the
>  mail
>  > subject, but it will be included in the traceback in the mail body.
>  
>  Thanks Kamil, this seems like a nice improvement.
>  
>  With regards to the patch itself, I can't find anything wrong with
>  either this patchset, or the XYZ_failed set.  I have mixed feelings
>  though, this is the patch you don't want to see in action, that means
>  tests are 'sploding :) 
Ok, both patches pushed.