4 ms·
I guess you might have to if you need to use a library someone's written that doesn't implement the standard. Writing primarily applications, I couldn't tell y
by dwattttt 5mo ago
I guess you might have to if you need to use a library someone's written that doesn't implement the standard.
Writing primarily applications, I couldn't tell you what error handling frameworks my dependencies are using: I literally don't know, and haven't needed to know in order to display, fail, or succeed.
EDIT to add: I use anyhow for this, so I should also add "add context to an error when I fall" to the list of things I do.
- the__alchemist 5mo agoWhat's the standard? I'm not being snarky; I'm going down the thought process of how this would work in practice. I am on team Io Error [on std rust]", somewhat arbitrarily. If I call a lib that is on Team Anyhow, or Team Custom Error Enum, I will have to do some (Straightfoward, but a little clumsy) conversions if I want ? to work. This is complicated by being able to impl From<ErrorType1> for ErrorType2 only in one direction if you don't control the other crate. (due to the orphan rule)
- dwattttt 5mo agoBy standard I meant an error type that implements std::error::Error. EDIT: Which I assume all my dependencies have done, given that anyhow is able to consume all of them. I specifically called out writing applications as my use case: my only objection to tptacek's note is the somewhat universal "in practice". The burden for designing errors for a library that others will use is higher, but that's far from the default/universal experience. Many more people are going to consume libraries & not produce any of their own, and I think my experience is representative there.
- iknowstuff 5mo agoThere is no team io::Error. There is only one standard: https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/error/trait.Error.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/error/trait.Error.html
- awesome_dude 5mo agoNot rust specific, and most certainly not a criticism of you - but I hate when people call a lib that errors, then just bubble that error up. I mean the error is supposed to be tailored to the audience - I guess what you are saying is that you handle the error by saying "I called foo with X, Y, Z, and got this error back" in the logs - which your caller then also does - producing a log message of ERROR: I called Foo with X Y and Z and got error: Die MF die followed by ERROR: I called Bar with X Y Z and a and got error: ERROR: I called Foo with X Y and Z and got error: Die MF die mf (still fool) And so on and so forth. If the counter is - don't log, that's fine, but you have to know where in the call graph that error state was reported to the logs
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- what 5mo agoYou’re supposed to bubble errors up to the level that can appropriately deal with them? You don’t need to log them each step of the way.
- awesome_dude 5mo agoYeah - but that's the same as my final point - you have to know who is supposed to manage the error/log - all the way up (and down) the call graph edit: I've just finished debugging a multi system chain - FE -> SNS -> SQS -> Lambda -> DynamoDB -> Lambda -> Webhook -> My poor code My code has multiple layers - and I was trying to find where in the very long chain of calls the data was being mangled It turned out that there was an unlogged error, which was mismanaged by a caller - there's no shade here - the caller was handling the error how it was designed to, but by not logging that there was an error - it took a minute to understand.
- dwattttt 5mo agoI have tried to figure out some kind of unification between "collecting error state in a function", "logging error state", and "return error state to a parent". I haven't found any satisfying solution to it all; collecting information for logging vs information that a caller would want... I've been meaning to investigate tracing_error to see if it brings it all together.