-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 255
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor: better errors #1783
Merged
Merged
refactor: better errors #1783
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0178d36
refactor: better ApiError with context
chesedo 621c624
refactor: concrete type for resource type parsing errors
chesedo 0b634ed
refactor: remove unused method
chesedo 494259d
refactor: update r-r with InvalidResourceType
chesedo 6e27393
refactor: thiserror is no longer optional
chesedo dfb180f
refactor: lazy evaluation
chesedo bc58265
refactor: oops... missed something
chesedo File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you think of having a generic
context_error(self, message: &str, status_code: StatusCode)
(and the correspondingwith
variant) instead of dedicated method each time ?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nah, then each caller would have type out the status code each time. Not a fan of passing
booleans
as args to functions and this seems close to the same thing.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could also have the generic one, and implement the other one using it. This wouldn't constraint the users to use the select few status code implemented. And I'm not sure I see how passing boolean can be compared to passing a
StatusCode
enum variant 🤔There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's an idea, but I cannot abstract it more though. Ie I won't be able to make them use the generic one since they log different
warn!
anderror!
.I mean they are the same in that they use a dynamic control (the args) when we know which concrete type we want when we write the code. So their dynamic nature at runtime feels the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, make sense. Ok let's keep it that way for now then, we'll see when the need arise.