VSCode Logging

[mj023]

Changes

Add additional logging for the VSCode Extension.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.36066% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.61%. Comparing base (ad3680e) to head (2e28de7).
Report is 28 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/_pytask/vscode.py	97.56%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #506      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.80%   97.61%   -0.20%     
==========================================
  Files         106      110       +4     
  Lines        8710     9219     +509     
==========================================
+ Hits         8519     8999     +480     
- Misses        191      220      +29     

Flag	Coverage Δ
end_to_end	84.75% <98.36%> (+2.48%)	⬆️
integration	40.70% <49.18%> (+0.21%)	⬆️
unit	65.14% <52.45%> (-4.55%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[mj023]

I added the logging code for the task execution to the hook in live.py, but this seems a bit odd considering the project structure. I could move it to a new implementation of the hook in logging.py that uses tryfirst or implement the hook a second time in execute.py, also with tryfirst. What do you think, @tobiasraabe ?

[tobiasraabe]

Hi @mj023, thanks for your effort!

• Let us refactor the code related to the vscode extension to its own module. Could you create a new module called vscode.py and implement the two hooks there? To register the module, go to cli.py and see the hook implementation pytask_add_hooks. Play around with @hookimpl(tryfirst=True) if your hook specification is not called. As long as the function do not return anything, the following hook implementation will be executed.
• Can we guard the execution in the two hooks somehow? I do not want the code executed when the plugin is not installed. What options do we have here?
• It would be great if we wouldn't need another dependency. how about using urllib from the standard library?

[tobiasraabe]

Check out the daemon keyword for threads and see whether it might be helpful in our situation.

[tobiasraabe]

Check out render_to_string from console.py

[mj023]

• Okay, I'll add a new module then.
• The first solution to the guarding problem I can think of, would be to add this as an option in the pytask config that I can activate with a cli argument. But I will see if I can check whether the process that calls the script is VS Code or if I can maybe set some environment variable before running pytask.
• I'll try to change it to the standard urllib, requests was just easier to use.

[mj023]

I think everything should be ready now, but I'm having a little trouble writing the tests. I have moved the code to a new vscode.py module, replaced the requests library with the standard urllib and added a guard so the code is only executed if a specific environment variable is set. I then added two new tests, so that almost everything I added is covered, but I'm not sure if I did that correctly. Furthermore the tests on ubuntu 3.12 now failed and I can not figure out why.