Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

More detail desired for error messages #147

Open
jamiepb opened this issue Jan 22, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

More detail desired for error messages #147

jamiepb opened this issue Jan 22, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@jamiepb
Copy link

jamiepb commented Jan 22, 2021

Hello,

It appears to me that if an error is raised, it only contains details if it gets past the Payload-Oxum check - is that correct? If I have a bag that is missing a file, I get an error such as "Payload-Oxum validation failed. Expected 4 files and 2865126 bytes but found 3 files and 2864947 bytes". However I would also like to know which file is missing. I tried using a script to catch the BagValidationError and print the details for this example, as suggested in the documentation for using BagIt in programs, but the details list is empty so it doesn't look like the code to to the step of generating an instance of the FileMissing type. Bagger will tell you which file is missing from the bag, which I think is helpful information. That said I am a Python novice so I may be missing something. Thank you for clarifying.

Jamie

@kieranjol
Copy link
Contributor

I would also like this feature, it would help to figure out where the issue is.

@PhoebeDoyle
Copy link

I've had the same issue as the original poster - whenever I tried to make an intentional error with BagIt (i.e. editing text within bag, moving file outside of bag) in order to generate a "missing file error" and "fixity error", the only information I received was the expected file and byte size. There was no information provided on which files were missing/changed. I'm fairly new to BagIt and Python, but I believe I have followed all of the necessary steps for this information to appear, so I imagine this is an issue with the application itself.

@finoradin
Copy link

finoradin commented May 2, 2024

I might be wrong but I believe this is realted to #174 I found that the module was always defaulting to fast validation even when that option wasn't passed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants