Possible overlap between TRY400 and G201

[ericbn]

test.py

Minimal code snipped that reproduces the bug:

import logging

logger = logging.getLogger()
try:
    pass
except Exception:
    logger.error("Error", exc_info=True)

Ruff output

The command I've invoked: ruff --isolated --select G,TRY test.py

test.py:7:5: TRY400 Use `logging.exception` instead of `logging.error`
test.py:7:12: G201 Logging `.exception(...)` should be used instead of `.error(..., exc_info=True)`
Found 2 errors.

After changing the test.py file to:

-    logger.error("Error", exc_info=True)
+    logger.error("Error")

I get only:

test.py:7:5: TRY400 Use `logging.exception` instead of `logging.error`
Found 1 error.

Maybe the broader TRY400 rule is enough, in favor of G201. Not sure what's the rationale for overlapping/duplicate rules in ruff.

ruff --version

ruff 0.0.269

[zanieb]

Hm logger.exception has a different meaning than logger.error — logger.error does not include a traceback unless exc_info is set but logger.exception does. I think these rules cover different cases.

• G201: If you're going to log a traceback, use .exception instead of .error — this could be an automatic fix because the meaning is retained
• TRY400: If you're going to log an error, always log a traceback — this would only be a suggested fix because it changes behavior

[charliermarsh]

Thank you for the extremely clear issue, appreciated as always. I think these are slightly different, but what we could do is change TRY400 to avoid flagging logger.error calls with exc_info=True, since those will include a traceback anyway as per the intent of the rule. (Then, suggesting the use of logging.exception over exc_info=True would be covered separately by G201.) What do you think, @madkinsz?