iritkatriel@Irits-MBP cpython % cat exc.py 

class A:
  class B:
    class E(Exception):
      pass

raise A.B.E()

iritkatriel@Irits-MBP cpython % cat test.py 

import exc


iritkatriel@Irits-MBP cpython % ./python.exe test.py 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/Users/iritkatriel/src/cpython/test.py", line 2, in <module>
    import exc
    ^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/Users/iritkatriel/src/cpython/exc.py", line 7, in <module>
    raise A.B.E()
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exc.E




==============
See the last line of the output: there is no such thing as exc.E. There is exc.A.B.E.

The traceback module doesn't have this issue:

iritkatriel@Irits-MBP cpython % cat test.py 

import traceback

try:
  import exc
except Exception as e:
  traceback.print_exception(e)


iritkatriel@Irits-MBP cpython % ./python.exe test.py 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/Users/iritkatriel/src/cpython/test.py", line 5, in <module>
    import exc
    ^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/Users/iritkatriel/src/cpython/exc.py", line 7, in <module>
    raise A.B.E()
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exc.A.B.E

I've reproduced this on 3.9 and 3.10 as well.

New changeset b4b6342848ec0459182a992151099252434cc619 by Irit Katriel in branch 'main':
bpo-45083: Include the exception class qualname when formatting an exception (GH-28119)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/b4b6342848ec0459182a992151099252434cc619

New changeset 41c23740243cc3a0699bc4d5dcfd47a0007ff039 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.9':
[3.9] bpo-45083: Include the exception class qualname when formatting an exception (GH-28119) (GH-28135)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/41c23740243cc3a0699bc4d5dcfd47a0007ff039

New changeset 6b996d61c96222d959d043b9424e8125c0efbb27 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.10':
[3.10] bpo-45083: Include the exception class qualname when formatting an exception (GH-28119) (GH-28134)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/6b996d61c96222d959d043b9424e8125c0efbb27

Thanks, Irit! ✨ 🍰 ✨

> New changeset 6b996d61c96222d959d043b9424e8125c0efbb27 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.10':

Pablo wrote that new changes in the 3.10 branch will only land in 3.10.1. It means that Python 3.10.0 and 3.10.1 will produce different exception messages. It is going to be an issue, no?

You should either ask for an exception to Pablo, or revert the change.

Pablo wanted to wait for 3.10.1, see https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/28134#issuecomment-912679271

I reopen the issue. I'm not comfortable with the backport.

For me, this change is not a bugfix, but a new feature. It can break applications which rely on the exact error message in their test suite. I'm not sure why it was backported to Python 3.9. Moreover, I'm not comfortable to backport it to 3.10.1 and not 3.10.0.

I would prefer to only change the behavior in Python 3.11. If you want to get it in 3.10, I suggest to convince Pablo to get in 3.10.0.

Otherwise, I suggest to revert it in 3.9 and 3.10.

Well, the qualified name is usually the same than the short name, so only few applications should be impacted. But it's annoying when the Python behavior changes in a minor version (3.x.y).

"{__module__}.{__name__}" is just incorrect reference if __name__ != __qualname__. Error messages should always use "{__module__}.{__qualname__}" or just "{__name__}". I see this as a bug. Fortunately very few code is affected.

I agree with Serhiy, I consider this a bugfix. Let's raise it to "release blocker" to let Pablo decide if this should wait for 3.10.1 or get bumped up to 3.10.0.

If the change is considered as a bugfix, it can wait for the next 3.9.x and 3.10.x release.

If it's considered as a feature (which is backward incompatible), it should only land in 3.10 if it's in 3.10.0, but be reverted in the 3.9 branch.

Honestly, I don't care about which option is taken, I'm just worried about the consistency of branches.

The bug is not a crash in the interpreter and this PR touches fundamental code in the interpreter, so I think the safest approach is waiting for 3.10.1