fix(django): catch the right error when trying to close db connection

[Lotram]

Description

Fixes #9310
As explained in the issue, _maybe_close_db_fd tries to catch django's db-agnostic errors (such as django.db.InterfaceError), but _maybe_close_fd raises a db-specific error (eg. pyscog2.InterfaceError).

To fix that, we wrap the call to _maybe_close_fd with the c.wrap_database_errors context manager (cf here), made for this exact purpose. It prevents the worker to keep raising errors when initializing a process

This can easily be reproduced:

from django.db import connections
from celery import Celery
app = Celery("proj", broker="redis://localhost")
worker = app.Worker()

connection = connections.all()[0]
connection.connect()
connection.connection.close()  # for any reason, connection is closed

worker.start()

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.24%. Comparing base (49f8f71) to head (5ab931e).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
celery/fixups/django.py	75.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9392      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.23%   78.24%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         153      153              
  Lines       19039    19040       +1     
  Branches     2520     2520              
==========================================
+ Hits        14895    14898       +3     
+ Misses       3858     3854       -4     
- Partials      286      288       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	78.22% <75.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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.

[Lotram]

I don't really understand why Codecov is complaining, as the line I added is tested. And why are all the import lines considered as not tested ?

[auvipy]

can you please increase test coverage for the proposed change please?

[Lotram]

I'll try to improve the coverage, but I don't get why codecov is complaining, thz line I added is tested, and the only line it's highligting is the function definition

[Lotram]

@auvipy I honestly don't know how to improve the coverage, by looking at the report, only the function signatures are not covered. Isn't there a problem with the codecov configuration ?

[Lotram]

@auvipy it's seems related to this pytest-cov issue.

[Lotram]

Hey @auvipy do you have any news about this ? Are you waiting for the v5.5.0 to be released ?

[auvipy]

we need to check the smoke test failures. it should be good addition to v5.5

[Nusnus]

we need to check the smoke test failures.

Fixed!

[Nusnus]

LGTM, thanks!

[Nusnus]

@auvipy I’d like to merge this before the next RC, do you mind giving it a quick look please?
We need your approval to continue my friend.

[auvipy]

Sure