Skip to content

Conversation

@vdusek
Copy link
Contributor

@vdusek vdusek commented Feb 11, 2026

Summary

  • Errors in mark_request_as_handled and reclaim_request in both the single and shared request queue clients were logged at DEBUG level, making API failures (network timeouts, auth errors, rate limits) effectively invisible
  • Upgraded logger.debug to logger.exception in all 4 exception handlers so these errors are visible and include full tracebacks

Test plan

  • Verify existing tests pass
  • Confirm that API errors in _update_request now produce visible log output with tracebacks

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

@vdusek vdusek added adhoc Ad-hoc unplanned task added during the sprint. t-tooling Issues with this label are in the ownership of the tooling team. labels Feb 11, 2026
@vdusek vdusek self-assigned this Feb 11, 2026
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 134th sprint - Tooling team milestone Feb 11, 2026
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 11, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.06%. Comparing base (56aa42e) to head (b807c69).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...age_clients/_apify/_request_queue_shared_client.py 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
...age_clients/_apify/_request_queue_single_client.py 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (56aa42e) and HEAD (b807c69). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE
Flag BASE (56aa42e) HEAD (b807c69)
integration 1 0
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #777       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   81.91%   68.06%   -13.86%     
===========================================
  Files          46       46               
  Lines        2693     2693               
===========================================
- Hits         2206     1833      -373     
- Misses        487      860      +373     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration ?
unit 68.06% <0.00%> (ø)

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

…d and reclaim_request

Both the single and shared request queue clients caught all exceptions
in `mark_request_as_handled` and `reclaim_request`, logged them at
DEBUG level, and returned `None`. This made it impossible for callers
to distinguish between "request was not in progress" (legitimate None
per the base class contract) and "API call failed" (swallowed error).

Silently swallowing errors also meant metadata counters could drift
from platform state without any visible indication of the problem.

Remove the catch-all `except Exception` blocks and let exceptions
propagate naturally so callers can handle failures appropriately.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@vdusek vdusek force-pushed the fix/rq-clients-stop-swallowing-exceptions branch from 1f34f16 to b807c69 Compare February 11, 2026 09:08
@vdusek vdusek changed the title fix: stop silently swallowing exceptions in RQ mark_request_as_handled and reclaim_request fix: stop silently swallowing exceptions in request queue Feb 11, 2026
@vdusek vdusek added the bug Something isn't working. label Feb 11, 2026
@vdusek vdusek requested a review from janbuchar February 11, 2026 09:28
@vdusek vdusek merged commit 6358d66 into master Feb 11, 2026
26 of 29 checks passed
@vdusek vdusek deleted the fix/rq-clients-stop-swallowing-exceptions branch February 11, 2026 09:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

adhoc Ad-hoc unplanned task added during the sprint. bug Something isn't working. t-tooling Issues with this label are in the ownership of the tooling team.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants