Replace Try::Tiny from remaining OpenQA modules

[b10n1k]

https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/176862

[okurz]

Due to the multiple comments I suggest to create a separate PR for just 979e2d1 which should be mergeable easily

[b10n1k]

Due to the multiple comments I suggest to create a separate PR for just 979e2d1 which should be mergeable easily

#6233
I thought I could resolve the problem with the CI faster and due to the fast reaction to the comments. but I had no luck

[okurz]

s/from/in/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.01%. Comparing base (99e9133) to head (998cdde).
Report is 9 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #6228   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.01%   99.01%           
=======================================
  Files         398      398           
  Lines       40013    40013           
=======================================
  Hits        39619    39619           
  Misses        394      394           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[perlpunk]

See #6238 for an alternative.
I think most of the return statements in the try are actually intended to return from the sub.

[b10n1k]

See #6238 for an alternative. I think most of the return statements in the try are actually intended to return from the sub.

is this as a reply to #6228 (comment)?
Maybe it better to close this PR first and proceed to close the task on the scope of the ticket and then improve those concerns.

[okurz]

I already approved #6238 so if you approve as well you can just rebase on top of it. However other files are not affected so you can go ahead and change all files and bring in the style check

[b10n1k]

I already approved #6238 so if you approve as well you can just rebase on top of it. However other files are not affected so you can go ahead and change all files and bring in the style check

Why? this is out of scope of the ticket and if I accept it feels another iterations of changes and reviews? When I comment Ionly wanted to bring it up to attention. Can you finish with one task before force further changes?

[perlpunk]

Maybe it better to close this PR first and proceed to close the task on the scope of the ticket and then improve those concerns.

Well, I see my PR in scope of the ticket.
The worker_status code is a bit complicated, and I am even not 100% sure myself if I didn't break anything with my PR.
Your suggestions for further changes seemed to go in the wrong direction.
Now you can concentrate on the try/catch only.

[okurz]

LGTM. There is at least one point that @perlpunk brought up and already requested changes on. Assuming that any related changes would be trivial we can keep my approval.

original issue resolved

[perlpunk]

I still think #6238 first would be easier for everyone, but ok

[mergify]

This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it? 🙏

[okurz]

#6238 is merged so please rebase on top. @b10n1k I am sure @perlpunk is happy to help to resolve any non-trivial conflicts