xception module Exception base consistency about autotest-docker

[ldoktor]

Yep, that's actually what I was confused about, when I saw the xception module for the first time. I tried to fix the basic things a bit by adding AutotestError into couple of most commonly used. You can similarly solve the autotest vs. dockertest exceptions too, just make a DockertestError and AutotestError (which already exists) and add them into inheritance list.

On the other hand, how often you use them (I mean the DockerValueError, DockerAttributeError,DockerKeyError, DockerOSError, ...)? I saw couple of usages in framework, but usually people tend to catch the original ValueError/KeyError/... and then raise the DockerTestFail or similar exception with explanation.

Anyway having them won't break anything and it's the developer's choice to balance between Exceptions. About this question, yes. The change would have to be done atomically and we might break stuff easily. I know you prefer vim, but Eclipse with refactoring support is really great for this 😄. It's your choice... Anyway it might be a good time to do this + the CI/pep8 patch as it will also break the outstanding pull requests. So applying them together would piss people just once.

[cevich]

Yep this is exactly why the 'xceptions' module isn't used much and I take full-blame. Hehe, no need to piss anyone off. That's why we have a API-change version branch + milestone. This way we can plan and do disruptive stuff on that branch while keeping another one mostly stable-ish. In any case, while consistent & correct exception use would help a lot, I'm willing to just let it be a mess for now until we've got CI and other immediate needs met.