[PATCH 1 of 5] repair: use ProgrammingError

Pierre-Yves David pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
Wed Mar 29 07:24:39 EDT 2017

On 03/28/2017 08:59 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote:
> On 3/27/17 2:11 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:18:55AM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>>> Sure, that seems like a good idea. Can you see to it ?
>> It's a good idea, but I feel like the name "ProgrammingError" alone
>> provides some clue as to what's going on, and the migration is good.
>> Queued, I wouldn't mind a followup to make the hint generic to all
>> ProgrammingError instances, but I'm not willing to block on it either.
> FWIW, I agree that losing the hint is sad. How confident are we that
> core won't have these errors? Can we blame all ProgrammingError
> exceptions on extensions?

The general idea about pointing at extensions here is that such bug in 
Mercurial should be caught by the Mercurial test suite (or local 
development process) so user should not be exposed to it (in theory). On 
the other hand, existing extensions code might use API wrong in a way 
that did not raised the error in previous version. So if the user get 
exposed to that error, it it probably because of an extension.


Pierre-Yves David

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list