chore: Remove the need for explicit bubble up of certain exceptions

[john-bodley]

SUMMARY

There are instances where we bubble up exceptions, however this is akin to simply not catching it, since any uncaught exception is propagated up the call stack.

BEFORE/AFTER SCREENSHOTS OR ANIMATED GIF

TESTING INSTRUCTIONS

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• Has associated issue:
• Required feature flags:
• Changes UI
• Includes DB Migration (follow approval process in SIP-59)
  • Migration is atomic, supports rollback & is backwards-compatible
  • Confirm DB migration upgrade and downgrade tested
  • Runtime estimates and downtime expectations provided
• Introduces new feature or API
• Removes existing feature or API

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.72%. Comparing base (76d897e) to head (be05ada).
Report is 1094 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #29235       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   60.48%   83.72%   +23.23%     
===========================================
  Files        1931      518     -1413     
  Lines       76236    37513    -38723     
  Branches     8568        0     -8568     
===========================================
- Hits        46114    31408    -14706     
+ Misses      28017     6105    -21912     
+ Partials     2105        0     -2105     

Flag	Coverage Δ
hive	48.95% <0.00%> (-0.22%)	⬇️
javascript	?
mysql	77.20% <100.00%> (?)
postgres	77.33% <100.00%> (?)
presto	53.57% <0.00%> (-0.24%)	⬇️
python	83.72% <100.00%> (+20.23%)	⬆️
sqlite	76.79% <0.00%> (?)
unit	59.21% <100.00%> (+1.59%)	⬆️

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.

[mistercrunch]

Right. I considered doing the same during #29166, but thought there might have some reason for the code to point out the "likely exception" in the code, maybe to allow future handling or something. I decided to leave them as they were since my goal was enabling the lint rule and minimizing the code changes.

[mistercrunch]

Approving as those lines effectively do nothing - except maybe for calling out semantically in the code the exceptions that are likely to happen during the try block.

[john-bodley]

@mistercrunch the catalyst for the change is I was rebasing #24969 (a longstanding PR I've been wrangling with failing tests for a while).

[michael-s-molina]

thought there might have some reason for the code to point out the "likely exception" in the code, maybe to allow future handling or something.

@mistercrunch I think for this case, the best approach is to document the exceptions in docstrings:

"""
    Perform some operation.

    Raises:
        ValueError: If the input is invalid.
        FileNotFoundError: If a required file is not found.
        CustomException: If a specific condition is not met.
"""

[john-bodley]

@michael-s-molina I addressed your comment.