bpo-16379: Expose sqlite error code #1108
Conversation
matrixise
changed the title
|
Hi @palaviv Would you be interested to upgrade your PR to the last master? Thank you |
palaviv
force-pushed
the
bpo-16379-expose-sqlite-error-code
branch
from
365ad2a to
c236045
Compare
|
Sure @matrixise. Do you think there is a chance for this to be merged? |
palaviv
force-pushed
the
bpo-16379-expose-sqlite-error-code
branch
from
b9dc556 to
31467e3
Compare
|
If I remember https://bugs.python.org/issue24139 correctly, the issue was rather about exposing the extended error codes http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/c_abort_rollback.html |
|
@dimaqq you are correct. This is a patch for https://bugs.python.org/issue16379. There is a different patch that depends on this change to solve https://bugs.python.org/issue24139. |
|
I'd really really like to have this feature... |
| {"PARSE_COLNAMES", PARSE_COLNAMES}, | ||
|
|
||
| {"SQLITE_OK", SQLITE_OK}, | ||
| /* enumerated return values for sqlite3_set_authorizer() callback */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like SQLITE_OK is used in the wild (https://github.com/search?l=Python&p=4&q=SQLITE_OK&type=Code) thus it cannot be removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SQLITE_OK is definitely in use. For example, it is used one of the valid return values in authoriser callbacks.
| #ifdef SQLITE_NOTADB | ||
| {"SQLITE_NOTADB", SQLITE_NOTADB}, | ||
| #endif | ||
| {"SQLITE_DONE", SQLITE_DONE}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @palaviv, thanks for picking this up. Should SQLITE_NOTICE and SQLITE_WARNING be added to this list?
|
@palaviv: Can you rebase onto master and update your code to PEP 7 standards? Also, the |
|
@palaviv, are you planning on landing this PR? If not, would you mind if I reopened a PR with your changes cherry-picked onto it? |
12 participants
This PR adds the sqlite error code and name to the exceptions raised by the sqlite3 module. Once this is merged my hope is to expose the sqlite extended error code as discussed in bpo-24139
https://bugs.python.org/issue16379