Opened 4 months ago
Last modified 2 weeks ago
#35667 assigned Cleanup/optimization
Switch usage to skip_file_prefixes instead of stacklevel when it makes sense
Reported by: | Simon Charette | Owned by: | JaeHyuckSa |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Utilities | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | deprecation stacklevel |
Cc: | Adam Johnson | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | yes |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
In most of our usages of warnings.warn
(and almost every usage that relates to deprecation warnings) we want them to be associated to the first out-of-as that's the most likely location that can be adjusted to avoid the warning.
In order to achieve this goal we've historically attempted to pass a fixed stacklevel
to warnings.warn
which can sometimes be tricky and error prone depending on how nested and convoluted the user or third-party app offending call site might be. In other cases we've opted not to provide a stacklevel
at all as determining the offending call site under all circumstances is impossible.
Well it appears that this is a problem that Python 3.12 allows frameworks to address in a better way with the introduction of warnings.warn(skip_file_prefixes: tuple[str] | None)
. This new feature would allow us to ensure that the proper offending call site is referenced when emitting from a deeply nested call site where stacklevel
is inappropriate.
Since this is a Python 3.12+ feature I'd suggest we introduce a get_non_django_stacklevel() -> int
(better name welcome) function that could be used to pass to warnings.warn(stacklevel)
until we drop support for Python 3.11.
Change History (8)
comment:1 by , 4 months ago
Summary: | Switch warnings.warn usage to skip_file_prefixes instead of stacklevel → Switch usage to skip_file_prefixes instead of stacklevel when it makes sense |
---|
comment:2 by , 4 months ago
Keywords: | deprecation stacklevel added |
---|---|
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Version: | 5.1 → dev |
comment:3 by , 4 months ago
Hello, If you agree, I would like to review this issue and start working on it ?
Thank you.
comment:4 by , 4 months ago
I think we might want to wait for the patch for #35666 to land before committing efforts here Mohammad.
comment:5 by , 3 months ago
Owner: | set to |
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:6 by , 3 months ago
Has patch: | set |
---|
comment:7 by , 3 weeks ago
Patch needs improvement: | set |
---|
comment:8 by , 2 weeks ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|
Hello Simon, as always thank you for your detailed and thorough report.
I agree with your proposal, I think this would help reducing the mistakes and overall improve the contributing experience. I'm setting this version to
dev
since this new feature should target5.2
at this point.