Treat subprocess errors as exceptions

[minrk]

We do some things differently when an exception is met (e.g. abort queued tasks in the kernel). We should probably be treating subprocess errors (!fail, %%script magics) as exceptions in the same way, though we don't want to end up displaying a traceback.

[minrk]

I looked into this a bit, briefly, and the way the kernel notices that an exception happened is by hooking into the traceback-rendering, so anything we do that skips a traceback will also skip the kernel noticing that the exception occurred.

We need a clearer mechanism for the kernel to check "did this cell fail".

[LucianaMarques]

Hi there, is this issue still needing help? Has anyone opened any pull request mentioning it? I would like to work on it.

[adkein]

We do some things differently when an exception is met (e.g. abort queued tasks in the kernel).

Could you please link to a relevant example in the repository of what happens currently when an exception is met?

We should probably be treating subprocess errors (!fail, %%script magics) as exceptions in the same way

Could you link to somewhere in the code base having to do with a subprocess the treatment of whose errors would presumably be changed by a pull request for this issue?

[vikas2323]

I would love to be a part of this. Can someone please explain the what the issue is? Maybe, I could help.