On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 07:31:27AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+d...@rabbit.us>wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:30:52PM +0400, Konstantin A. Pustovalov wrote: > > > Hello list! > > > > > > I'm using exception_action feature. Some of my tests fail after > > > upgrading 0.08196 -> 0.08204 > > > I have reduced test case to the following: > > http://paste.scsys.co.uk/217862 > > > exception_action is never get called in my setup. Am I doing > > > something wrong or is it intended behavior? > > > > Unintended breakage due to lack of tests - so when a refactor broke it > > things went unnoticed. Can you please add several tests like the one > > attached to t/34exception_action.t[1], and we will fix it for the next > > version. > > > > To be clear, this is not so much related to exception_action as is with > some interaction with Exception::Class, right?
Very wrong. > That is, even without > setting exception_action calling My::X->throw still has its exception > eaten. No. exception_action is something that is specific to a schema *instance*, and what happened is precisely that some $schema->throw_exception calls got converted to DBIC::Exception->throw, entirely bypassing the custom handler. The exception is not "eaten" - it is simply never presented to the handler coderef, which is what this bugreport is about. > Checking $@ isn't really safe before 5.14, BTW. This isn't technically correct, nor relevant ;) _______________________________________________ List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/ Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk