Ints 334 adding ignore error support

[Vagoasdf]

Ticket INTS-334

Description Of Changes

Adding missing ignore_error support on send.
The task still would still be failing, but the error thrown is more detailed that the classic

Before

After

Code Changes

• Updating check on access request to get detailed error
• Adding check on erasure request
• Pairs with https://github.com/ethyca/fidesplus/pull/2743

Steps to Confirm

1. Run Bazaarvoice Access request for any email twice in a row. Error should be expanded

Pre-Merge Checklist

• Issue requirements met
• All CI pipelines succeeded
• CHANGELOG.md updated
  • Add a db-migration This indicates that a change includes a database migration label to the entry if your change includes a DB migration
  • Add a high-risk This issue suggests changes that have a high-probability of breaking existing code label to the entry if your change includes a high-risk change (i.e. potential for performance impact or unexpected regression) that should be flagged
  • Updates unreleased work already in Changelog, no new entry necessary
• UX feedback:
  • All UX related changes have been reviewed by a designer
  • No UX review needed
• Followup issues:
  • Followup issues created
  • No followup issues
• Database migrations:
  • Ensure that your downrev is up to date with the latest revision on main
  • Ensure that your downgrade() migration is correct and works
    • If a downgrade migration is not possible for this change, please call this out in the PR description!
  • No migrations
• Documentation:
  • Documentation complete, PR opened in fidesdocs
  • Documentation issue created in fidesdocs
  • If there are any new client scopes created as part of the pull request, remember to update public-facing documentation that references our scope registry
  • No documentation updates required

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
fides-plus-nightly	Ignored	Preview		Nov 10, 2025 7:59pm
fides-privacy-center	Ignored			Nov 10, 2025 7:59pm

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Overview

Greptile Summary

This PR adds ignore_errors parameter support to initial async DSR requests (both access and erasure operations) by passing it to client.send() calls. However, the implementation has critical logic errors.

Key Changes:

• Line 313: Added read_request.ignore_errors parameter to client.send() for access requests
• Line 366: Added request.ignore_errors parameter to client.send() for erasure requests
• Lines 368-371: Added error checking for erasure requests

Critical Issue:
The code passes ignore_errors to client.send() but then immediately raises an exception if response.ok is false. This defeats the purpose of ignore_errors - when errors are configured to be ignored, client.send() already handles them by returning the response without raising. The subsequent unconditional checks will raise exceptions even when errors should be ignored.

Impact:
This will cause requests to fail even when ignore_errors is configured, preventing the intended behavior described in the PR description.

Confidence Score: 1/5

• This PR contains critical logic errors that prevent it from working as intended
• The implementation contradicts itself by passing ignore_errors to client.send() then unconditionally raising exceptions on non-OK responses. This will cause requests to fail even when errors should be ignored, breaking the core functionality the PR aims to add.
• src/fides/api/service/async_dsr/strategies/async_dsr_strategy_polling.py requires immediate attention - both error handling blocks need to be fixed

Important Files Changed

File Analysis

Filename	Score	Overview
src/fides/api/service/async_dsr/strategies/async_dsr_strategy_polling.py	3/5	Added ignore_errors support to initial requests, but error handling logic conflicts with the intended behavior of ignore_errors

Additional Comments (1)

1. src/fides/api/service/async_dsr/strategies/async_dsr_strategy_polling.py, line 313-318 (link)

   logic: Contradictory logic: passing ignore_errors to client.send() then immediately raising exception if !response.ok defeats the purpose of ignore_errors. When ignore_errors=True or specific status codes are ignored, client.send() returns the response without raising, making the subsequent check incorrect.

   If ignore_errors is configured, the error should be logged/handled differently rather than always raising FidesopsException.

_{2 files reviewed, 2 comments}

_{Edit Code Review Agent Settings | Greptile}

[greptile-apps]

logic: Same contradictory logic as line 313: passing request.ignore_errors to client.send() then raising exception if !response.ok defeats the purpose. The ignore_errors flag should determine whether to raise here.

Consider:

if not response.ok and not request.ignore_errors:
    raise FidesopsException(...)

[Vagoasdf]

For future documentation: I Agree, however, directly ignoring the error like we do for other requests would just keep the polling going on. More work is required to gracefully handle errors here

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 87.31%. Comparing base (9672d8d) to head (fa4d7db).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...async_dsr/strategies/async_dsr_strategy_polling.py	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (33.33%) is below the target coverage (100.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6924   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.30%   87.31%           
=======================================
  Files         524      524           
  Lines       34382    34384    +2     
  Branches     3957     3958    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        30017    30022    +5     
+ Misses       3505     3500    -5     
- Partials      860      862    +2     

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Linker44]

looks good!