Doug:
Thanks for indulging me so far, I think I’ve almost got it. Prior to
this, using NSError, I could just look at the relevant properties of the error
if I needed to see what type it was. Network errors had different codes from
CloudKit errors, POSIX errors were underlying FileManager errors. A bit complex
due to the undocumented nature of so many of these errors, but I could ignore
any aspect of the error I didn’t care about. Now, however, it seems I must
always care about what types of errors come out of various methods, as I’ll
need to cast to the appropriate types to get useful information. For example,
how would you handle the CloudKit errors I mentioned before? It seems to me
like I would need to, at the point where I need to extract useful information,
do a switch on various casts. First, try casting to CKError, then to CocoaError
(?), and then likely produce a fatalError if there’s an unexpected type. Or is
Error guaranteed to always cast to something useful? I’ve read the proposal a
few times now and it looks like a lot of casting is going to be required, I’m
mostly curious about the recommended patterns, especially for asynchronous
calls that don’t go through throw/catch.
Jon
> On Aug 2, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Jon Shier <j...@jonshier.com
>> <mailto:j...@jonshier.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Doug. I missed the rename, as earlier points still referred to
>> ErrorProtocol. In regards to the CloudKit errors, I appreciate the strongly
>> typed CKError, but why not have the methods return that type directly?
>
> Generally speaking, Cocoa only uses NSError—not specific subclasses or
> NSError or other error types—because errors can occur at many different
> places in the stack and be propagated up. A CloudKit operation could fail
> because of some problem detected in a different error domain—say, the general
> Cocoa error domain or URLError domain—and that non-CloudKit error would get
> passed through immediately. So, if you were assuming that every error you get
> here had to be in the CloudKit error domain, I believe your code was already
> incorrect. It is *possible* that CloudKit translates/wraps all other errors,
> but that would be odd for a Cocoa framework.
>
>> Every usage of these methods is going to require such a cast, so why require
>> it in the first place? I don’t understand what advantage erasing the
>> strongly type error that was just created has when the developer will just
>> have to bring it right back. Or is this just a first implementation?
>
> There was never a strongly-typed error, and in most Cocoa cases there
> shouldn’t be one because NSError covers all error domains, by design.
>
> - Doug
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com
>>> <mailto:dgre...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution
>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure where to put such feedback, but the ErrorProtocol to Error
>>>> rename that accompanied the implementation of this proposal is very, very
>>>> painful. It completely eliminates the very useful ability to embed an
>>>> associated Error type inside other types, as those types now conflict with
>>>> the protocol. Also, was this rename accompanied by an evolution proposal?
>>>> It seems like the change was just made when this proposal was implemented.
>>>
>>> The rename was part of the proposal, in bullet #5 of the proposed solution
>>> (which, amusing, pastes as bullet #1 below):
>>>
>>> Rename ErrorProtocol to Error: once we've completed the bridging story,
>>> Error becomes the primary way to work with error types in Swift, and the
>>> value type to which NSError is bridged:
>>>
>>> func handleError(_ error: Error, userInteractionPermitted: Bool)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also, the adoption of this proposal by the Cocoa(Touch) frameworks as
>>>> seen in Xcode 8 beta 4 has made asynchronous error handling quite a bit
>>>> more arduous. For example, the CKDatabase method fetch(withRecordID
>>>> recordID: CKRecordID, completionHandler: (CKRecord?, Error?) -> Void)
>>>> returns an `Error` now, meaning I have to cast to the specific `CKError`
>>>> type to get useful information out of it. Is this just an unfortunate
>>>> first effort that will be fixed, or is this the expected form of these
>>>> sorts of APIs after this proposal?
>>>
>>> Prior to this proposal, you would have had to check the domain against
>>> CKErrorDomain anyway to determine whether you’re looking at a CloudKit
>>> error (vs. some other error that is passing through CloudKit), so error
>>> bridging shouldn’t actually be adding any work here—although it might be
>>> making explicit work that was already done or should have been done. Once
>>> you have casted to CKError, you now have typed accessors for information in
>>> the error:
>>>
>>> extension CKError {
>>> /// Retrieve partial error results associated by item ID.
>>> public var partialErrorsByItemID: [NSObject : Error]? {
>>> return userInfo[CKPartialErrorsByItemIDKey] as? [NSObject : Error]
>>> }
>>>
>>> /// The original CKRecord object that you used as the basis for
>>> /// making your changes.
>>> public var ancestorRecord: CKRecord? {
>>> return userInfo[CKRecordChangedErrorAncestorRecordKey] as? CKRecord
>>> }
>>>
>>> /// The CKRecord object that was found on the server. Use this
>>> /// record as the basis for merging your changes.
>>> public var serverRecord: CKRecord? {
>>> return userInfo[CKRecordChangedErrorServerRecordKey] as? CKRecord
>>> }
>>>
>>> /// The CKRecord object that you tried to save. This record is based
>>> /// on the record in the CKRecordChangedErrorAncestorRecordKey key
>>> /// but contains the additional changes you made.
>>> public var clientRecord: CKRecord? {
>>> return userInfo[CKRecordChangedErrorClientRecordKey] as? CKRecord
>>> }
>>>
>>> /// The number of seconds after which you may retry a request. This
>>> /// key may be included in an error of type
>>> /// `CKErrorServiceUnavailable` or `CKErrorRequestRateLimited`.
>>> public var retryAfterSeconds: Double? {
>>> return userInfo[CKErrorRetryAfterKey] as? Double
>>> }
>>> }
>>> - Doug
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jon Shier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 12, 2016, at 8:44 AM, Shawn Erickson via swift-evolution
>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the effort on the proposal and discussion and thanks to those
>>>>> working in the implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Shawn
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:25 AM Charles Srstka via swift-evolution
>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Wow, thanks! I’m delighted that Apple found this improvement to be worth
>>>>> inclusion in Swift 3. This will truly make the language much nicer to use
>>>>> with the Cocoa frameworks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Jul 11, 2016, at 11:19 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
>>>>> > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Proposal Link:
>>>>> > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0112-nserror-bridging.md
>>>>> >
>>>>> > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0112-nserror-bridging.md>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The review of "SE-0112: Improved NSError Bridging" ran from June 30 ...
>>>>> > July 4, 2016. The proposal has been *accepted*:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The community and core team agree that this proposal is a huge step
>>>>> > forward that enriches the experience working with and extending the
>>>>> > Cocoa NSError model in Swift. The core team requests one minor
>>>>> > renaming of "attemptRecovery(optionIndex:andThen:)" to
>>>>> > "attemptRecovery(optionIndex:resultHandler:)”. It also discussed
>>>>> > renaming CustomNSError and RecoverableError, but decided to stay with
>>>>> > those names.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thank you to Doug Gregor and Charles Srstka for driving this discussion
>>>>> > forward, and for Doug Gregor taking the charge on the implementation
>>>>> > effort to make this happen for Swift 3!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Chris Lattner
>>>>> > Review Manager
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
>>>>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>> > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
