Default Python Problem Matcher

[AllanDaemon]

Environment data

• VS Code version: 1.30.1 (Commit: dea8705087adb1b5e5ae1d9123278e178656186a)
• Extension version: 2018.12.1

Feature Request

According to https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/tasks#_defining-a-problem-matcher

"VS Code ships some of the most common problem matchers 'in-the-box'"

There a list of many built-in problem matchers but there isn't one for Python.

Because of this, every task created it's easier to ignore the scanning output. If it was provided a default Python problem matcher out of the box, it would be pretty easy to use.

For this purpose, scanning exceptions should be good enough, and probably there is already one of this written for the debugger.

I can try to do this myself later, as it seems just to find an already done implementation in this repo and figure it out how to provide a default problem matcher.

[hawkerm]

I thought a regex like this was going to work: ^Traceback.*\n.*File "([^"]|.*)", line (\d+).*\n.*\n(.*)$ but then I found out it needs to be split per line, so I'm not sure how that works...

[alexlatchford]

I had some success with something like this:

> Executing task: python docs/test2.py <

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "docs/test2.py", line 3, in <module>
    func()
  File "docs/test.py", line 2, in func
    raise Exception('Meow')
Exception: Meow
The terminal process terminated with exit code: 1

I've got it to match using:

...
"problemMatcher": {
                "owner": "python",
                "fileLocation": "autoDetect",
                "pattern": [
                    {
                        "regexp": "^.*File \\\"([^\\\"]|.*)\\\", line (\\d+).*",
                        "file": 1,
                        "line": 2
                    },
                    {
                        "regexp": "^.*raise.*$"
                    },
                    {
                        "regexp": "^\\s*(.*)\\s*$",
                        "message": 1
                    }
                ]
            }

Not the most elegant solution and I haven't tested it thoroughly yet but shows promise thus far 😄

Guessing it'll over report on errors that are re-raised but without allowing the loop feature to work across multiple lines I think we're stuck unfortunately.

[brettcannon]

We are going through old issues and we noticed that no one from the team had replied to this issue. I want to apologize for the oversight and to let you know that the issue was reviewed by the team and triaged (as shown by the labels applied to this issue).