-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Fix the Error trait #2504
Fix the Error trait #2504
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,246 @@ | ||
- Feature Name: fix_error | ||
- Start Date: 2018-07-18 | ||
- RFC PR: (leave this empty) | ||
- Rust Issue: (leave this empty) | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
[summary]: #summary | ||
|
||
Change the `std::error::Error` trait to improve its usability. Introduce a | ||
backtrace module to the standard library to provide a standard interface for | ||
backtraces. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
[motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
||
The `Error` trait has long been known to be flawed in several respects. In | ||
particular: | ||
|
||
1. The required `description` method is limited, usually, to returning static | ||
strings, and has little utility that isn't adequately served by the required | ||
`Display` impl for the error type. | ||
2. The signature of the `cause` method does not allow the user to downcast the | ||
cause type, limiting the utility of that method unnecessarily. | ||
3. It provides no standard API for errors that contain backtraces (as some | ||
users' errors do) to expose their backtraces to end users. | ||
|
||
We propose to fix this by deprecating the existing methods of `Error` and adding | ||
two new, provided methods. As a result, the undeprecated portion of the `Error` | ||
trait would look like this: | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
trait Error: Display + Debug { | ||
fn backtrace(&self) -> Option<&Backtrace> { | ||
None | ||
} | ||
|
||
fn source(&self) -> Option<&dyn Error + 'static> { | ||
None | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
# Guide-level explanation | ||
[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation | ||
|
||
## The new API of the Error trait | ||
|
||
The new API provides three main components: | ||
|
||
1. The Display and Debug impls, for printing error messages. Ideally, the | ||
Display API would be focused on *end user* messages, whereas the Debug impl | ||
would contain information relevant to the programmer. | ||
2. The backtrace method. If the Error contains a backtrace, it should be exposed | ||
through this method. Errors are not required to contain a backtrace, and are | ||
not expected to. | ||
3. The `source` method. This returns another Error type, which is the underlying | ||
source of this error. If this error has no underlying source (that is, it is | ||
the "root source" of the error), this method should return none. | ||
|
||
## The backtrace API | ||
|
||
This RFC adds a new `backtrace` module to std, with one type, with this API: | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
pub struct Backtrace { | ||
// ... | ||
} | ||
|
||
impl Backtrace { | ||
pub fn new() -> Backtrace { | ||
// ... | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
impl Display for Backtrace { | ||
// ... | ||
} | ||
|
||
impl Debug for Backtrace { | ||
// ... | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
This minimal initial API is just intended for printing backtraces for end users. | ||
In time, this may grow the ability to visit individual frames of the backtrace. | ||
|
||
### Backtrace controlling environment variables | ||
|
||
Today, the `RUST_BACKTRACE` controls backtraces generated by panics. After this | ||
RFC, it also controls backtraces generated in the standard library: no backtrace | ||
will be generated when calling `Backtrace::new` unless this variable is set. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It seems kind of weird for it to be impossible to get a backtrace at all if the right environment variable isn't set. It seems reasonable to have a constructor that returns an There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I agree. I effectively have to force this envvar on all the time now on startup which seems like a weird way to control the system. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally, I feel like that policy should be decoupled from being able to get a From RFC
How will
And in |
||
|
||
Two additional variables will be added: `RUST_PANIC_BACKTRACE` and | ||
`RUST_STD_BACKTRACE`: these will independently override the behavior of | ||
`RUST_BACKTRACE` for backtraces generated for panics and from the std API. | ||
|
||
## The transition plan | ||
|
||
Deprecating both `cause` and `description` is a backward compatible change, and | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Shouldn't this document that |
||
adding provided methods `backtrace` and `source` is also backward compatible. | ||
We can make these changes unceremoniously, and the `Error` trait will be much | ||
more functional. | ||
|
||
We also change the default definition of `cause`, even though it is deprecated: | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
fn cause(&self) -> Option<&dyn Error> { | ||
self.source() | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
This way, if an error defines `source`, someone calling the deprecated `cause` | ||
API will still get the correct cause type, even though they can't downcast it. | ||
|
||
# Reference-level explanation | ||
[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation | ||
|
||
## Why `cause` -> `source` | ||
|
||
The problem with the existing `cause` API is that the error it returns is not | ||
`'static`. This means it is not possible to downcast the error trait object, | ||
because downcasting can only be done on `'static` trait objects (for soundness | ||
reasons). | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can you explain those soundness reasons, or at least link to an explanation? As I understand it, There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Lifetimes are erased so they aren't included in the typeid, so |
||
|
||
## Note on backtraces | ||
|
||
The behavior of backtraces is somewhat platform specific, and on certain | ||
platforms backtraces may contain strange and inaccurate information. The | ||
backtraces provided by the standard library are designed for user display | ||
purposes only, and not guaranteed to provide a perfect representation of the | ||
program state, depending on the capabilities of the platform. | ||
|
||
## How this impacts failure | ||
|
||
The failure crate defines a `Fail` trait with an API similar to (but not | ||
exactly like) the API proposed here. In a breaking change to failure, we would | ||
change that trait to be an extension trait to `Error`: | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
// Maybe rename to ErrorExt? | ||
trait Fail: Error + Send + Sync + 'static { | ||
// various provided helper methods | ||
} | ||
|
||
impl<E: Error + Send + Sync + 'static> Fail for E { | ||
|
||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Instead of providing a derive for Fail, failure would provide a derive for the | ||
std library Error trait, e.g.: | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
#[derive(Debug, Display, Error)] | ||
#[display = "My display message."] | ||
struct MyError { | ||
#[error(source)] | ||
underlying: io::Error, | ||
backtrace: Backtrace, | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
The exact nature of the new failure API would be determined by the maintainers | ||
of failure, it would not be proscribed by this RFC. This section is just to | ||
demonstrate that failure could still work using the std Error trait. | ||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks | ||
|
||
This causes some churn, as users who are already using one of the deprecated | ||
methods will be encouraged (by warnings) to change their code, and library | ||
authors will need to revisit whether they should override one of the new | ||
methods. | ||
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Under "Drawbacks", could you please explicitly document whether there's any functionality drawback to adding the |
||
# Rationale and alternatives | ||
[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Could you please include an alternative for "introduce the |
||
|
||
## Provide a new error trait | ||
|
||
The most obvious alternative to this RFC would be to provide an entirely new | ||
error trait. This could make deeper changes to the API of the trait than we are | ||
making here. For example, we could take an approach like `failure` has, and | ||
impose stricter bounds on all implementations of the trait: | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
trait Fail: Display + Debug + Send + Sync + 'static { | ||
fn cause(&self) -> Option<&dyn Fail> { | ||
None | ||
} | ||
|
||
fn backtrace(&self) -> Option<&Backtrace> { | ||
None | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Doing this would allow us to assemble a more perfect error trait, rather than | ||
limiting us to the changes we can make backwards compatibly to the existing | ||
trait. | ||
|
||
However, it would be much more disruptive to the ecosystem than changing the | ||
existing trait. We've already seen some friction with failure and other APIs | ||
(like serde's) that expect to receive something that implements `Error`. Right | ||
now, we reason that the churn is not worth slight improvements that wouldn't be | ||
compatible with the Error trait as it exists. | ||
|
||
In the future, if these changes are not enough to resolve the warts with the | ||
Error trait, we could follow this alternative: we would deprecate the Error | ||
trait and introduce a new trait then. That is, accepting this RFC now does not | ||
foreclose on this alternative later. | ||
|
||
## Bikeshedding the name of `source` | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. For the record, I think "source" is a perfectly reasonable name, and I think it's not worth heavily bikeshedding. |
||
|
||
The replacement for `cause` could have another name. The only one the RFC author | ||
came up with is `origin`. | ||
|
||
# Prior art | ||
[prior-art]: #prior-art | ||
|
||
This proposal is largely informed by our experience with the existing Error | ||
trait API, and from the experience of the `failure` experiment. The main | ||
conclusions we drew: | ||
|
||
1. The current Error trait has serious flaws. | ||
2. The `Fail` trait in failure has a better API. | ||
3. Having multiple error traits in the ecosystem (e.g. both `Error` and `Fail`) | ||
can be very disruptive. | ||
|
||
This RFC threads the needle between the problem with the Error trait and the | ||
problems caused by defining a new trait. | ||
|
||
# Unresolved questions | ||
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
||
This RFC intentionally proposes a most minimal API. There are a number of API | ||
extensions we could consider in the future. Prominent examples: | ||
|
||
1. Extending the backtrace API to allow programmatic iteration of backtrace | ||
frames and so on. | ||
2. Providing derives for traits like `Display` and `Error` in the standard | ||
libray. | ||
3. Providing helper methods on `Error` that have been experimented with in | ||
failure, such as the causes iterator. | ||
|
||
None of these are proposed as a part of *this* RFC, and would have a future RFC | ||
discussion. |
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.
Does this mean
Backtrace::new
should return an Option, or that it will simply not be called by any code inside std (and always produces a backtrace when called)?