Improve exceptions

[ColeDCrawford]

Any other ideas of what we would want to improve here @aweakley ?

[aweakley]

I think maybe this should be moved up out of the try: block, because otherwise you don't see the "You must supply..." message.

[aweakley]

I think maybe we should catch the error and process in the same way here: https://github.com/ixc/python-edtf/blob/v5/edtf/fields.py#L135-L138

What do you think about this approach?

diff --git a/edtf/fields.py b/edtf/fields.py
index f717592..2f25c94 100644
--- a/edtf/fields.py
+++ b/edtf/fields.py
@@ -4,10 +4,12 @@ from django.core.exceptions import FieldDoesNotExist
 from django.db import models
 from django.db.models import signals
 from django.db.models.query_utils import DeferredAttribute
+from pyparsing import ParseException
 
 from edtf import EDTFObject, parse_edtf
 from edtf.convert import struct_time_to_date, struct_time_to_jd
 from edtf.natlang import text_to_edtf
+from edtf.parser.edtf_exceptions import EDTFParseException
 
 DATE_ATTRS = (
     "lower_strict",
@@ -132,10 +134,12 @@ class EDTFField(models.CharField):
         if direct_input and (
             existing_value is None or str(existing_value) != direct_input
         ):
-            edtf = parse_edtf(
-                direct_input, fail_silently=True
-            )  # ParseException if invalid; should this be raised?
-            # TODO pyparsing.ParseExceptions are very noisy and dumps the whole grammar (see https://github.com/ixc/python-edtf/issues/46)
+            try:
+                edtf = parse_edtf(
+                    direct_input, fail_silently=True
+                )  # ParseException if invalid; should this be raised?
+            except ParseException as err:
+                raise EDTFParseException(direct_input, err) from None
 
             # set the natural_text (display) field to the direct_input if it is not provided
             if natural_text == "":
diff --git a/edtf/parser/edtf_exceptions.py b/edtf/parser/edtf_exceptions.py
index 9530602..2a2dc18 100644
--- a/edtf/parser/edtf_exceptions.py
+++ b/edtf/parser/edtf_exceptions.py
@@ -2,4 +2,22 @@ from pyparsing import ParseException
 
 
 class EDTFParseException(ParseException):
-    pass
+    """Raised when an input cannot be parsed as an EDTF string.
+
+    Attributes:
+        input_string - the input string that could not be parsed
+        err -- the original ParseException that caused this one
+    """
+
+    def __init__(self, input_string, err):
+        self.input_string = input_string
+        self.err = err
+        super().__init__(err)
+
+    def __str__(self):
+        if not self.input_string or not isinstance(self.err, ParseException):
+            return super().__str__()
+        near_text = ""
+        near_text = self.input_string[max(self.err.loc - 10, 0) : self.err.loc + 10]
+        full_msg = f"Error at position {self.err.loc}: Invalid input or format near '{near_text}'. Please provide a valid EDTF string."
+        return full_msg
diff --git a/edtf/parser/grammar.py b/edtf/parser/grammar.py
index 773f806..701d398 100644
--- a/edtf/parser/grammar.py
+++ b/edtf/parser/grammar.py
@@ -357,8 +357,4 @@ def parse_edtf(input_string, parseAll=True, fail_silently=False, debug=None):
             return None
         if debug:
             raise
-        near_text = ""
-        if input_string:
-            near_text = input_string[max(err.loc - 10, 0) : err.loc + 10]
-        full_msg = f"Error at position {err.loc}: Invalid input or format near '{near_text}'. Please provide a valid EDTF string."
-        raise EDTFParseException(full_msg) from None
+        raise EDTFParseException(input_string, err) from None

[ColeDCrawford]

Thanks for the feedback @aweakley - let me know if there's anything else needed here.

[ColeDCrawford]

I think these are failing due a permissions issue again - the tests themselves seem to pass.

[aweakley]

I'm seeing an error with the coverage report in my latest run here: https://github.com/ixc/python-edtf/actions/runs/9358234831/job/25820224297#step:11:1

Run MishaKav/pytest-coverage-comment@main
File read successfully "/home/runner/work/python-edtf/python-edtf/./coverage_combined.xml"
Generating coverage report
File read successfully "/home/runner/work/python-edtf/python-edtf/./combined_junit_pytest.xml"
File read successfully "/home/runner/work/python-edtf/python-edtf/./combined_junit_pytest.xml"
errors: 0
failures: 0
skipped: 0
tests: 258
time: 2.649
File read successfully "/home/runner/work/python-edtf/python-edtf/./combined_junit_pytest.xml"
Warning: Your comment is too long (maximum is 65536 characters), coverage report will not be added.
Warning: Try add: "--cov-report=term-missing:skip-covered", or add "hide-report: true", or add "report-only-changed-files: true", or switch to "multiple-files" mode
File read successfully "/home/runner/work/python-edtf/python-edtf/./combined_junit_pytest.xml"
./coverage_combined.xml
No previous comment found, creating a new one
Error: HttpError: Resource not accessible by integration
Error: Resource not accessible by integration

[ColeDCrawford]

I think this is the same permissions issue as in PRs like this:

• Handle unspecified + qualified EDTF strings #58 (run example: https://github.com/ixc/python-edtf/actions/runs/9274061816/job/25515576535)
• Significant Digits #55 (run example: https://github.com/ixc/python-edtf/actions/runs/9229322507/job/25435080320)

I think this is because the PRs are from a fork: MishaKav/pytest-coverage-comment#68

If you look at the workflow on my fork, you can see all the tests work and everything runs up until publishing the benchmarks, which fails because I don't have GHPages set up for the fork: https://github.com/artshumrc/python-edtf/actions/runs/9358234517/job/25759630204

[aweakley]

Thank you, this looks great.