fix: parser exception catch

[ArslanSaleem]

Closes #1738

---

Important

Broadened exception handling in execute_with_retries() in base.py to catch all Exception types and updated versions structure in mint.json.

• Behavior:
  • In base.py, execute_with_retries() now catches Exception instead of CodeExecutionError, allowing broader error handling.
• Configuration:
  • Updated versions structure in mint.json to include default attribute for version v3.

^{This description was created by for 4c5f36a. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 4c5f36a in 1 minute and 14 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 42 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/mint.json:18

• Draft comment:
  Changed version config from a list of strings to objects (with name and default). Ensure that all consumers and documentation are updated to handle the new schema.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking the author to ensure that all consumers and documentation are updated to handle the new schema. This is a request for confirmation and not a specific code suggestion or issue identification. It violates the rule against asking the PR author to ensure something is updated or tested.

2. pandasai/agent/base.py:189

• Draft comment:
  Broadening the exception catch in execute_with_retries fixes issue #1738. Verify that catching all Exceptions here is acceptable and that error handling remains consistent.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 30% <= threshold 50% The comment asks the PR author to verify if catching all exceptions is acceptable, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation. However, it does mention a specific issue number, which could be useful context. The comment could be improved by suggesting a more specific action, such as reviewing the error handling strategy or considering more specific exception handling.

Workflow ID: wflow_mIwlPJaOSpxAonFS

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.17%. Comparing base (d54301a) to head (4c5f36a).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1762      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.13%   91.17%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          70       70              
  Lines        2696     2696              
==========================================
+ Hits         2457     2458       +1     
+ Misses        239      238       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	91.17% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.