Honored twistedeers,
Consider the following (blocking) decorator, which runs a function in a
transaction:
def _with_transaction(f):
def decorated(self, *args, **kwargs):
conn = self.engine.connect()
txn = conn.begin()
try:
result = f(self, conn, *args, **kwargs)
except:
txn.rollback()
raise
else:
txn.commit()
return
return decorated
Where I to translate this logic verbatim to @inlineCallbacks, I get:
def _with_transaction(f):
@inlineCallbacks
def decorated(self, *args, **kwargs):
conn = yield self.engine.connect()
txn = yield conn.begin()
try:
result = yield f(self, conn, *args, **kwargs)
except:
yield txn.rollback()
raise
else:
yield txn.commit()
returnValue(result)
return decorated
However, there’s a bug here! In the except clause: there’s an (implicit)
current exception, to be re-raised by the bare raise statement. Unfortunately,
when doing yield txn.rollback(), that conveniently eats said exception.
Of course, there’s a fairly simple workaround involving catching BaseException
and capturing the exception instance explicitly.
I’m wondering if this is just a leaky abstraction, or if I should report it as
a bug in @inlineCallbacks?
cheers
lvh
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list [email protected] http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
