The following sample code shows you how to catch and ignore an exception, using pass.
try:
do_something()
except RuntimeError:
pass # does nothing
else:
print("Message: ", line)
Answer from Jochen Ritzel on Stack OverflowMy understanding is that Else runs if Try succeeds without any exceptions. What are the uses for this where you couldn’t just put that code in the Try statement?
exception - What is the intended use of the optional "else" clause of the "try" statement in Python? - Stack Overflow
Replacement for `else` keyword in `try-else` (for ex. `noexcept` or `not except`) - Ideas - Discussions on Python.org
try except else
python - How to properly ignore exceptions - Stack Overflow
The following sample code shows you how to catch and ignore an exception, using pass.
try:
do_something()
except RuntimeError:
pass # does nothing
else:
print("Message: ", line)
While I agree that Jochen Ritzel's is a good answer, I think there may be a small oversight in it. By passing, the exception /is/ being handled, only nothing is done. So really, the exception is ignored.
If you really don't want to handle the exception, then the exception should be raised. The following code makes that change to Jochen's code.
try:
do_something()
except RuntimeError:
raise #raises the exact error that would have otherwise been raised.
else:
print("Message: ", line)
The statements in the else block are executed if execution falls off the bottom of the try - if there was no exception. Honestly, I've never found a need.
However, Handling Exceptions notes:
The use of the else clause is better than adding additional code to the try clause because it avoids accidentally catching an exception that wasn’t raised by the code being protected by the try ... except statement.
So, if you have a method that could, for example, throw an IOError, and you want to catch exceptions it raises, but there's something else you want to do if the first operation succeeds, and you don't want to catch an IOError from that operation, you might write something like this:
try:
operation_that_can_throw_ioerror()
except IOError:
handle_the_exception_somehow()
else:
# we don't want to catch the IOError if it's raised
another_operation_that_can_throw_ioerror()
finally:
something_we_always_need_to_do()
If you just put another_operation_that_can_throw_ioerror() after operation_that_can_throw_ioerror, the except would catch the second call's errors. And if you put it after the whole try block, it'll always be run, and not until after the finally. The else lets you make sure
- the second operation's only run if there's no exception,
- it's run before the
finallyblock, and - any
IOErrors it raises aren't caught here
There is one big reason to use else - style and readability. It's generally a good idea to keep code that can cause exceptions near the code that deals with them. For example, compare these:
try:
from EasyDialogs import AskPassword
# 20 other lines
getpass = AskPassword
except ImportError:
getpass = default_getpass
and
try:
from EasyDialogs import AskPassword
except ImportError:
getpass = default_getpass
else:
# 20 other lines
getpass = AskPassword
The second one is good when the except can't return early, or re-throw the exception. If possible, I would have written:
try:
from EasyDialogs import AskPassword
except ImportError:
getpass = default_getpass
return False # or throw Exception('something more descriptive')
# 20 other lines
getpass = AskPassword
Note: Answer copied from recently-posted duplicate here, hence all this "AskPassword" stuff.
try:
doSomething()
except Exception:
pass
or
try:
doSomething()
except:
pass
The difference is that the second one will also catch KeyboardInterrupt, SystemExit and stuff like that, which are derived directly from BaseException, not Exception.
See documentation for details:
trystatement- exceptions
However, it is generally bad practice to catch every error - see Why is "except: pass" a bad programming practice?
It's generally considered best-practice to only catch the errors you are interested in. In the case of shutil.rmtree it's probably OSError:
>>> shutil.rmtree("/fake/dir")
Traceback (most recent call last):
[...]
OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/fake/dir'
If you want to silently ignore that error, you would do:
try:
shutil.rmtree(path)
except OSError:
pass
Why? Say you (somehow) accidently pass the function an integer instead of a string, like:
shutil.rmtree(2)
It will give the error "TypeError: coercing to Unicode: need string or buffer, int found" - you probably don't want to ignore that, which can be difficult to debug.
If you definitely want to ignore all errors, catch Exception rather than a bare except: statement. Again, why?
Not specifying an exception catches every exception, including the SystemExit exception which for example sys.exit() uses:
>>> try:
... sys.exit(1)
... except:
... pass
...
>>>
Compare this to the following, which correctly exits:
>>> try:
... sys.exit(1)
... except Exception:
... pass
...
shell:~$
If you want to write ever better behaving code, the OSError exception can represent various errors, but in the example above we only want to ignore Errno 2, so we could be even more specific:
import errno
try:
shutil.rmtree(path)
except OSError as e:
if e.errno != errno.ENOENT:
# ignore "No such file or directory", but re-raise other errors
raise