GNU bug report logs -
#49196
[PATCH] "guix import go" Improve error handling
Previous Next
Reported by: Sarah Morgensen <iskarian <at> mgsn.dev>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:50:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #50 received at 49196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:
Hello,
Thanks for the v4.
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 06:46, Sarah Morgensen <iskarian <at> mgsn.dev> wrote:
>
>> A catch-all is fine, but we should at least report the actual error,
>> even if it's not pretty:
>>
>> (warning (G_ "Failed to import package ~s.~% reason: ~s")
>> package-name (exception-args c))
>
> Well, why not, even if I am not convinced the reason is meaningful
> because it is mostly an incorrect parsing which returns:
>
> reason: ("match" "no matching pattern" #f).
>
Yes, it is a less than ideal compromise... I could not quickly figure
out how to properly format it without a lot of complexity (like
guix/ui.scm does in 'call-with-error-handling'). I found it hard to read
the full exception object, but I would not object strongly to printing
the full exception object either. As you say, your patch will fix it
anyway ;)
> and I think it is better to display the complete 'args' instead of
> extract the URL (package-name) from 'args'.
You're not wrong; I was just trying to keep it somewhat consistent with
the other error message.
>> However, if we want to move in the direction of proper error handling
>> like guix/packages.scm and guix/ui.scm, we can do something like...
>
> Thanks for the idea. As explained patch#45984 [1], all the UI
> messages must be in guix/scripts/import and not in guix/import and
Yes, this was my secret trick: having separated out the error reporting,
it could be easily be moved to scripts/import later.
> therefore, indeed, error reporting needs to be unified between all the
> importers and raised accordingly; that's what we are working on with
> jeko (Jérémy Korwin-Zmijowski) as pair-programming exercise. :-)
I look forward to the results!
> Back to the initial patch, I think it is better to simply fix with the
> minor improvements of v3 your proposed and let this last proposal for
> #45984; feel free to comment there. ;-)
I agree. Your v4 looks good to me, except...
> #:repo->guix-package
> (lambda* (name #:key version repo)
I apologize for not being clear earlier; by "put [memoize] back in later
on" I meant "later on in the call chain," e.g.
#:repo->guix-package
+ (memoize
(lambda* (name #:key version repo)
That's my only nit this time! ;) Thanks for bearing with me.
Regards,
Sarah
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 262 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.