Hi Alexey, I like the idea. 1.
> TBL-0001 is a *string representation* of the error. It is built from 2 > byte scope id (mapped to name TBL) and 2 byte number (0001). Both > internally packed in int. No any kind of parsing will be necessary to read > scope/category. I think Alexey mean if it will be possible to make smth like that catch (IgniteException e) { if (e.getScope() == "TBL" && e.getCode() == 1234) continue; // E.g. retry my TX } It looks useful to me. 2. How you see a cross-module exception throwing? Assume, user call -> module A, which recursively call -> module B, which fails. So, module A component calls a module B component and got an Exception with "B-1234" exception. Module A do not expect any exception here and doesn't take care of "B-xxx" error codes, but only "A-yyyy. Should it rethrow exception with "A-unknown" (maybe "UNK-0001") code or reuse "B-xxxx" code with the own message, pointing original exception as a cause for both cases? The first approach may looks confusing, while the second one produces too many "UNK-" codes. What code should get the user in that case? On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:36 PM Alexei Scherbakov < alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > чт, 15 апр. 2021 г. в 14:26, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > Hello! > > > > > All public methods throw only unchecked > > org.apache.ignite.lang.IgniteException containing aforementioned fields. > > > Each public method must have a section in the javadoc with a list of > all > > possible error codes for this method. > > > > I don't think this is feasible at all. > > Imagine javadoc for cache.get() method featuring three pages of possible > > error codes thrown by this method. > > > > Of course there is no need to write 3 pages of error codes, this makes no > sense. > I think we can use error ranges here, or, probably, document most important > error scenarios. > The point here is to try to document errors as much as possible. > > > > Also, updated every two weeks to account for changes in > > underlying mechanisms. > > > > There is still a confusion between "error code for any error in logs" and > > "error code for any pair of method & exception". Which one are we > > discussing really? > > > > This is impossible to track or test, but is susceptible for common > > error-hiding antipattern where all exceptions are caught in cache.get() > and > > discarded, and instead a brand new CH-0001 "error in cache.get()" is > thrown > > to the user. > > > > Which is certainly not something that anybody wants. > > > > Certainly not. We are talking here about root cause - what is exactly the > reason for method call failure. > > > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > чт, 15 апр. 2021 г. в 13:03, Vladislav Pyatkov <vldpyat...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi Alexei, > > > > > > > Each public method *must *have a section in the javadoc with a list > of > > > all possible error codes for this method. > > > > > > I consider it is redundant, because any public exception can be thrown > > from > > > public API. > > > If it not happens today, it may change tomorrow: one will be removed, > > > another one will be added. > > > > > > >Nested exceptions are not forbidden to use. They can provide > additional > > > details on the error for debug purposes > > > > > > I see another issue, which is in the Ignite 2.x, but not attend here. > We > > > can have a deep nested exception and use it for handling. > > > In the result, all time when we are handling an exception we use > > > pattern like this: > > > try{ > > > ... > > > } > > > catch (Exception e) { > > > if (X.hasCause(e, TimeoutException.class)) > > > throw e; > > > > > > if (X.hasCause(e, ConnectException.class, EOFException.class)) > > > continue; > > > > > > if (X.hasCause(e, InterruptedException.class)) > > > return false; > > > } > > > > > > If we have a pant to make only one exception to the client side, we can > > > also do it for an internal exception. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:42 AM Alexei Scherbakov < > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Alexey, > > > > > > > > ср, 14 апр. 2021 г. в 01:52, Alexey Kukushkin < > > kukushkinale...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > Just some points looking questionable to me, although I realize the > > > error > > > > > handling style may be very opinionated: > > > > > > > > > > - Would it make sense splitting the proposed composite error > code > > > > > (TBL-0001) into separate numeric code (0001) and scope/category > > > > ("TBL") > > > > > to > > > > > avoid parsing the code when an error handler needs to analyze > only > > > the > > > > > category or the code? > > > > > > > > > > > > > TBL-0001 is a *string representation* of the error. It is built > from > > 2 > > > > byte scope id (mapped to name TBL) and 2 byte number (0001). Both > > > > internally packed in int. No any kind of parsing will be necessary to > > > read > > > > scope/category. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - "*The cause - short string description of an issue, readable > by > > > > > user.*". > > > > > This terminology sounds confusing to me since that "cause" > sounds > > > like > > > > > Java > > > > > Throwable's Message to me and the "Cause" is a lower level > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The string describes the cause of error, so the name. I'm ok to > rename > > it > > > > to a message. It will be stored in IgniteException.message field > > anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - "*The action - steps for a user to resolve error...*". The > > action > > > is > > > > > very important but do we want to make it part of the > > > IgniteException? > > > > I > > > > > do > > > > > not think the recovery action text should be part of the > > exception. > > > > > IgniteException may include a URL pointing to the corresponding > > > > > documentation - this is discussable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will not be the part of the exception. A user should visit the > > > > documentation page and read the action section by corresponding error > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - "*All public methods throw only unchecked IgniteException*" - > I > > > > assume > > > > > we still respect JCache specification and prefer using standard > > Java > > > > > exception to signal about invalid parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Using standard java exceptions whenever possible makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why we do not follow the "classic" structured exception > handling > > > > > practices in Ignite: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite 3 will be multi language, and other languages use other error > > > > processing models. SQL for example uses error codes. > > > > The single exception approach simplifies and unifies error handling > > > across > > > > platforms for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why do we not allow using checked exceptions? It seems to > me > > > > > sometimes forcing the user to handle an error serves as a > hint > > > and > > > > > thus > > > > > improves usability. For example, handling an > > > optimistic/pessimistic > > > > > transaction conflict/deadlock. Or handling a timeout for > > > operations > > > > > with > > > > > timeouts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A valid point. Checked exceptions must be used for whose methods, > where > > > > error handling is enforced, for example tx optimistic failure. > > > > Such errors will also have corresponding error codes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why single public IgniteException and no exception > hierarchy? > > > > Java > > > > > is optimized for structured exception handling instead of > using > > > > > IF-ELSE to > > > > > analyze the codes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exception hierarchy is not required when using error codes and > > applicable > > > > only to java API, so I would avoid spending efforts on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Why no nested exceptions? Sometimes an error handler is > > > > interested > > > > > only in high level exceptions (like Invalid Configuration) > and > > > > > sometimes > > > > > details are needed (like specific configuration parser > > > exceptions). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nested exceptions are not forbidden to use. They can provide > additional > > > > details on the error for debug purposes, but not strictly required, > > > because > > > > error code + message should provide enough information to the user. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - For async methods returning a Future we may have a universal > > rule > > > on > > > > > how to handle exceptions. For example, we may specify that any > > async > > > > > method > > > > > can throw only invalid argument exceptions. All other errors are > > > > > reported > > > > > via the exceptionally(IgniteException -> {}) callback even if > the > > > > async > > > > > method was executed synchronously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is ok to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 13 апр. 2021 г. в 12:08, Alexei Scherbakov < > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start the discussion about error handling in > > Ignite 3 > > > > and > > > > > > how we can improve it compared to Ignite 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > The error handling in Ignite 2 was not very good because of > generic > > > > > > CacheException thrown on almost any occasion, having deeply > nested > > > root > > > > > > cause and often containing no useful information on further steps > > to > > > > fix > > > > > > the issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > I aim to fix it by introducing some rules on error handling. > > > > > > > > > > > > *Public exception structure.* > > > > > > > > > > > > A public exception must have an error code, a cause, and an > action. > > > > > > > > > > > > * The code - the combination of 2 byte scope id and 2 byte error > > > number > > > > > > within the module. This allows up to 2^16 errors for each scope, > > > which > > > > > > should be enough. The error code string representation can look > > like > > > > > > RFT-0001 or TBL-0001 > > > > > > * The cause - short string description of an issue, readable by > > user. > > > > > This > > > > > > can have dynamic parameters depending on the error type for > better > > > user > > > > > > experience, like "Can't write a snapshot, no space left on device > > > {0}" > > > > > > * The action - steps for a user to resolve error situation > > described > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > documentation in the corresponding error section, for example > > "Clean > > > up > > > > > > disk space and retry the operation". > > > > > > > > > > > > Common errors should have their own scope, for example IGN-0001 > > > > > > > > > > > > All public methods throw only unchecked > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.lang.IgniteException containing aforementioned > > > > fields. > > > > > > Each public method must have a section in the javadoc with a list > > of > > > > all > > > > > > possible error codes for this method. > > > > > > > > > > > > A good example with similar structure can be found here [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > *Async timeouts.* > > > > > > > > > > > > Because almost all API methods in Ignite 3 are async, they all > will > > > > have > > > > > a > > > > > > configurable default timeout and can complete with timeout error > > if a > > > > > > computation is not finished in time, for example if a response > has > > > not > > > > > been > > > > > > yet received. > > > > > > I suggest to complete the async op future with TimeoutException > in > > > this > > > > > > case to make it on par with synchronous execution using > future.get, > > > > which > > > > > > will throw java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException on timeout. > > > > > > For reference, see > java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture#orTimeout > > > > > > No special error code should be used for this scenario. > > > > > > > > > > > > *Internal exceptions hierarchy.* > > > > > > > > > > > > All internal exceptions should extend > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.lang.IgniteInternalException for > checked > > > > > > exceptions and > > > > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.lang.IgniteInternalCheckedException > for > > > > > > unchecked exceptions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96525/preface.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Alexey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Vladislav Pyatkov > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Alexei Scherbakov > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov