On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 1:00:21 AM UTC-7 Vivek wrote: > As I mentioned the Trailer approach comes with some caveats. Hence, I > wanted to know if there is a better way to do this esp. Fault Contract > approach mentioned here: > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/grpc-for-wcf-developers/error-handling#grpc-richer-error-model
No, there is nothing built in to either gRPC or Protocol Buffers for _explicitly modeling faults_ à la SOAP. As you've found, there are caveats to the rich error model. Only you can determine whether this approach will work for your software or not. Whatever you decide, for the sake of your consumers, please explicitly document it. And test your error cases. :-) If you are consuming another gRPC API, you will have to consult its documentation to determine how it models faults. I've worked on projects that were able to use the rich error model, as we could handle the caveats. We controlled all the clients, proxies, and servers. We had two languages, and we wrote helpers to encode and extract the rich error information. We taught our custom HTTP monitoring components how to understand gRPC errors. &c. -- Christopher Warrington Microsoft Corp. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to grpc-io+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/3fc32f82-d887-4ae3-9437-dbb210ddabf4n%40googlegroups.com.
