|
| 1 | +- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, 2014-07-17) |
| 2 | +- RFC PR #: (leave this empty) |
| 3 | +- Rust Issue #: (leave this empty) |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +# Summary |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +This RFC improves interoperation between APIs with different error |
| 8 | +types. It proposes to: |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +* Increase the flexibility of the `try!` macro for clients of multiple |
| 11 | + libraries with disparate error types. |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +* Standardize on basic functionality that any error type should have |
| 14 | + by introducing an `Error` trait. |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +* Support easy error chaining when crossing abstraction boundaries. |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +The proposed changes are all library changes; no language changes are |
| 19 | +needed -- except that this proposal depends on |
| 20 | +[multidispatch](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/195) happening. |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +# Motivation |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Typically, a module (or crate) will define a custom error type encompassing the |
| 25 | +possible error outcomes for the operations it provides, along with a custom |
| 26 | +`Result` instance baking in this type. For example, we have `io::IoError` and |
| 27 | +`io::IoResult<T> = Result<T, io::IoError>`, and similarly for other libraries. |
| 28 | +Together with the `try!` macro, the story for interacting with errors for a |
| 29 | +single library is reasonably good. |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +However, we lack infrastructure when consuming or building on errors from |
| 32 | +multiple APIs, or abstracting over errors. |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +## Consuming multiple error types |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +Our current infrastructure for error handling does not cope well with |
| 37 | +mixed notions of error. |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +Abstractly, as described by |
| 40 | +[this issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/14419), we |
| 41 | +cannot do the following: |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +``` |
| 44 | +fn func() -> Result<T, Error> { |
| 45 | + try!(may_return_error_type_A()); |
| 46 | + try!(may_return_error_type_B()); |
| 47 | +} |
| 48 | +``` |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +Concretely, imagine a CLI application that interacts both with files |
| 51 | +and HTTP servers, using `std::io` and an imaginary `http` crate: |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +``` |
| 54 | +fn download() -> Result<(), CLIError> { |
| 55 | + let contents = try!(http::get(some_url)); |
| 56 | + let file = try!(File::create(some_path)); |
| 57 | + try!(file.write_str(contents)); |
| 58 | + Ok(()) |
| 59 | +} |
| 60 | +``` |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +The `download` function can encounter both `io` and `http` errors, and |
| 63 | +wants to report them both under the common notion of `CLIError`. But |
| 64 | +the `try!` macro only works for a single error type at a time. |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +There are roughly two scenarios where multiple library error types |
| 67 | +need to be coalesced into a common type, each with different needs: |
| 68 | +application error reporting, and library error reporting |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +### Application error reporting: presenting errors to a user |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +An application is generally the "last stop" for error handling: it's |
| 73 | +the point at which remaining errors are presented to the user in some |
| 74 | +form, when they cannot be handled programmatically. |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +As such, the data needed for application-level errors is usually |
| 77 | +related to human interaction. For a CLI application, a short text |
| 78 | +description and longer verbose description are usually all that's |
| 79 | +needed. For GUI applications, richer data is sometimes required, but |
| 80 | +usually not a full `enum` describing the full range of errors. |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +Concretely, then, for something like the `download` function above, |
| 83 | +for a CLI application, one might want `CLIError` to roughly be: |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +```rust |
| 86 | +struct CLIError<'a> { |
| 87 | + description: &'a str, |
| 88 | + detail: Option<String>, |
| 89 | + ... // possibly more fields here; see detailed design |
| 90 | +} |
| 91 | +``` |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +Ideally, one could use the `try!` macro as in the `download` example |
| 94 | +to coalesce a variety of error types into this single, simple |
| 95 | +`struct`. |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +### Library error reporting: abstraction boundaries |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +When one library builds on others, it needs to translate from their |
| 100 | +error types to its own. For example, a web server framework may build |
| 101 | +on a library for accessing a SQL database, and needs some way to |
| 102 | +"lift" SQL errors to its own notion of error. |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +In general, a library may not want to reveal the upstream libraries it |
| 105 | +relies on -- these are implementation details which may change over |
| 106 | +time. Thus, it is critical that the error type of upstream libraries |
| 107 | +not leak, and "lifting" an error from one library to another is a way |
| 108 | +of imposing an abstraction boundaries. |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +In some cases, the right way to lift a given error will depend on the |
| 111 | +operation and context. In other cases, though, there will be a general |
| 112 | +way to embed one kind of error in another (usually via a |
| 113 | +["cause chain"](http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/exceptions/chained.html)). Both |
| 114 | +scenarios should be supported by Rust's error handling infrastructure. |
| 115 | + |
| 116 | +## Abstracting over errors |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +Finally, libraries sometimes need to work with errors in a generic |
| 119 | +way. For example, the `serialize::Encoder` type takes is generic over |
| 120 | +an arbitrary error type `E`. At the moment, such types are completely |
| 121 | +arbitrary: there is no `Error` trait giving common functionality |
| 122 | +expected of all errors. Consequently, error-generic code cannot |
| 123 | +meaningfully interact with errors. |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +(See [this issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15036) for |
| 126 | +a concrete case where a bound would be useful; note, however, that the |
| 127 | +design below does not cover this use-case, as explained in |
| 128 | +Alternatives.) |
| 129 | + |
| 130 | +Languages that provide exceptions often have standard exception |
| 131 | +classes or interfaces that guarantee some basic functionality, |
| 132 | +including short and detailed descriptions and "causes". We should |
| 133 | +begin developing similar functionality in `libstd` to ensure that we |
| 134 | +have an agreed-upon baseline error API. |
| 135 | + |
| 136 | +# Detailed design |
| 137 | + |
| 138 | +We can address all of the problems laid out in the Motivation section |
| 139 | +by adding some simple library code to `libstd`, so this RFC will |
| 140 | +actually give a full implementation. |
| 141 | + |
| 142 | +**Note**, however, that this implementation relies on the |
| 143 | +[multidispatch](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/195) proposal |
| 144 | +currently under consideration. |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | +The proposal consists of two pieces: a standardized `Error` trait and |
| 147 | +extensions to the `try!` macro. |
| 148 | + |
| 149 | +## The `Error` trait |
| 150 | + |
| 151 | +The standard `Error` trait follows very the widespread pattern found |
| 152 | +in `Exception` base classes in many languages: |
| 153 | + |
| 154 | +```rust |
| 155 | +pub trait Error: Send + Any { |
| 156 | + fn description(&self) -> &str; |
| 157 | + |
| 158 | + fn detail(&self) -> Option<&str> { None } |
| 159 | + fn cause(&self) -> Option<&Error> { None } |
| 160 | +} |
| 161 | +``` |
| 162 | + |
| 163 | +Every concrete error type should provide at least a description. By |
| 164 | +making this a slice-returning method, it is possible to define |
| 165 | +lightweight `enum` error types and then implement this method as |
| 166 | +returning static string slices depending on the variant. |
| 167 | + |
| 168 | +The `cause` method allows for cause-chaining when an error crosses |
| 169 | +abstraction boundaries. The cause is recorded as a trait object |
| 170 | +implementing `Error`, which makes it possible to read off a kind of |
| 171 | +abstract backtrace (often more immediately helpful than a full |
| 172 | +backtrace). |
| 173 | + |
| 174 | +It's worth comparing the `Error` trait to the most widespread error |
| 175 | +type in `libstd`, `IoError`: |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +```rust |
| 178 | +pub struct IoError { |
| 179 | + pub kind: IoErrorKind, |
| 180 | + pub desc: &'static str, |
| 181 | + pub detail: Option<String>, |
| 182 | +} |
| 183 | +``` |
| 184 | + |
| 185 | +Code that returns or asks for an `IoError` explicitly will be able to |
| 186 | +access the `kind` field and thus react differently to different kinds |
| 187 | +of errors. But code that works with a generic `Error` (e.g., |
| 188 | +application code) sees only the human-consumable parts of the error. |
| 189 | +In particular, application code will often employ `Box<Error>` as the |
| 190 | +error type when reporting errors to the user. The `try!` macro |
| 191 | +support, explained below, makes doing so ergonomic. |
| 192 | + |
| 193 | +## An extended `try!` macro |
| 194 | + |
| 195 | +The other piece to the proposal is a way for `try!` to automatically |
| 196 | +convert between different types of errors. |
| 197 | + |
| 198 | +The idea is to introduce a trait `FromError<E>` that says how to |
| 199 | +convert from some lower-level error type `E` to `Self`. The `try!` |
| 200 | +macro then passes the error it is given through this conversion before |
| 201 | +returning: |
| 202 | + |
| 203 | +```rust |
| 204 | +// E here is an "input" for dispatch, so conversions from multiple error |
| 205 | +// types can be provided |
| 206 | +pub trait FromError<E> { |
| 207 | + fn from_err(err: E) -> Self; |
| 208 | +} |
| 209 | + |
| 210 | +impl<E> FromError<E> for E { |
| 211 | + fn from_err(err: E) -> E { |
| 212 | + err |
| 213 | + } |
| 214 | +} |
| 215 | + |
| 216 | +impl<E: Error> FromError<E> for Box<Error> { |
| 217 | + fn from_err(err: E) -> Box<Error> { |
| 218 | + box err as Box<Error> |
| 219 | + } |
| 220 | +} |
| 221 | + |
| 222 | +macro_rules! try ( |
| 223 | + ($expr:expr) => ({ |
| 224 | + use error; |
| 225 | + match $expr { |
| 226 | + Ok(val) => val, |
| 227 | + Err(err) => return Err(error::FromError::from_err(err)) |
| 228 | + } |
| 229 | + }) |
| 230 | +) |
| 231 | +``` |
| 232 | + |
| 233 | +This code depends on |
| 234 | +[multidispatch](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/195), because |
| 235 | +the conversion depends on both the source and target error types. (In |
| 236 | +today's Rust, the two implementations of `FromError` given above would |
| 237 | +be considered overlapping.) |
| 238 | + |
| 239 | +Given the blanket `impl` of `FromError<E>` for `E`, all existing uses |
| 240 | +of `try!` would continue to work as-is. |
| 241 | + |
| 242 | +With this infrastructure in place, application code can generally use |
| 243 | +`Box<Error>` as its error type, and `try!` will take care of the rest: |
| 244 | + |
| 245 | +``` |
| 246 | +fn download() -> Result<(), Box<Error>> { |
| 247 | + let contents = try!(http::get(some_url)); |
| 248 | + let file = try!(File::create(some_path)); |
| 249 | + try!(file.write_str(contents)); |
| 250 | + Ok(()) |
| 251 | +} |
| 252 | +``` |
| 253 | + |
| 254 | +Library code that defines its own error type can define custom |
| 255 | +`FromError` implementations for lifting lower-level errors (where the |
| 256 | +lifting should also perform cause chaining) -- at least when the |
| 257 | +lifting is uniform across the library. The effect is that the mapping |
| 258 | +from one error type into another only has to be written one, rather |
| 259 | +than at every use of `try!`: |
| 260 | + |
| 261 | +``` |
| 262 | +impl FromError<ErrorA> MyError { ... } |
| 263 | +impl FromError<ErrorB> MyError { ... } |
| 264 | +
|
| 265 | +fn my_lib_func() -> Result<T, MyError> { |
| 266 | + try!(may_return_error_type_A()); |
| 267 | + try!(may_return_error_type_B()); |
| 268 | +} |
| 269 | +``` |
| 270 | + |
| 271 | +# Drawbacks |
| 272 | + |
| 273 | +The main drawback is that the `try!` macro is a bit more complicated. |
| 274 | + |
| 275 | +# Unresolved questions |
| 276 | + |
| 277 | +## Conventions |
| 278 | + |
| 279 | +This RFC does not define any particular conventions around cause |
| 280 | +chaining or concrete error types. It will likely take some time and |
| 281 | +experience using the proposed infrastructure before we can settle |
| 282 | +these conventions. |
| 283 | + |
| 284 | +## Extensions |
| 285 | + |
| 286 | +The functionality in the `Error` trait is quite minimal, and should |
| 287 | +probably grow over time. Some additional functionality might include: |
| 288 | + |
| 289 | +### Features on the `Error` trait |
| 290 | + |
| 291 | +* **Generic creation of `Error`s.** It might be useful for the `Error` |
| 292 | + trait to expose an associated constructor. See |
| 293 | + [this issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15036) for an |
| 294 | + example where this functionality would be useful. |
| 295 | + |
| 296 | +* **Mutation of `Error`s**. The `Error` trait could be expanded to |
| 297 | + provide setters as well as getters. |
| 298 | + |
| 299 | +The main reason not to include the above two features is so that |
| 300 | +`Error` can be used with extremely minimal data structures, |
| 301 | +e.g. simple `enum`s. For such data structures, it's possible to |
| 302 | +produce fixed descriptions, but not mutate descriptions or other error |
| 303 | +properties. Allowing generic creation of any `Error`-bounded type |
| 304 | +would also require these `enum`s to include something like a |
| 305 | +`GenericError` variant, which is unfortunate. So for now, the design |
| 306 | +sticks to the least common denominator. |
| 307 | + |
| 308 | +### Concrete error types |
| 309 | + |
| 310 | +On the other hand, for code that doesn't care about the footprint of |
| 311 | +its error types, it may be useful to provide something like the |
| 312 | +following generic error type: |
| 313 | + |
| 314 | +```rust |
| 315 | +pub struct WrappedError<E> { |
| 316 | + pub kind: E, |
| 317 | + pub description: String, |
| 318 | + pub detail: Option<String>, |
| 319 | + pub cause: Option<Box<Error>> |
| 320 | +} |
| 321 | + |
| 322 | +impl<E: Show> WrappedError<E> { |
| 323 | + pub fn new(err: E) { |
| 324 | + WrappedErr { |
| 325 | + kind: err, |
| 326 | + description: err.to_string(), |
| 327 | + detail: None, |
| 328 | + cause: None |
| 329 | + } |
| 330 | + } |
| 331 | +} |
| 332 | + |
| 333 | +impl<E> Error for WrappedError<E> { |
| 334 | + fn description(&self) -> &str { |
| 335 | + self.description.as_slice() |
| 336 | + } |
| 337 | + fn detail(&self) -> Option<&str> { |
| 338 | + self.detail.as_ref().map(|s| s.as_slice()) |
| 339 | + } |
| 340 | + fn cause(&self) -> Option<&Error> { |
| 341 | + self.cause.as_ref().map(|c| &**c) |
| 342 | + } |
| 343 | +} |
| 344 | +``` |
| 345 | + |
| 346 | +This type can easily be added later, so again this RFC sticks to the |
| 347 | +minimal functionality for now. |
0 commit comments