Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Implement Error Prone
ThrowError
to discourage throwing Errors in production code #957Implement Error Prone
ThrowError
to discourage throwing Errors in production code #957Changes from all commits
a3494b5
0dfcca6
df5a245
6386b56
027e340
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I'm a tiny bit worried this auto-fix is gonna funnel states which would previously crash-the-server into other existing error-handling flows (e.g. if a codebases catches RuntimeException further up), leading to a server limping along when it should really die quickly?
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.
None of our servers really do that -- when we throw error in a conjure service we allow the server to log it and return an empty 500 response. We should probably log it and return 500 instead, adding an errorId, but the server doesn't react differently otherwise.
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.
I do think we want developers to review these migration without mindlessly merging, but there are a lot of cases where error isn't handled properly (we had two p0s last week from this)
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.
should we use SafeIllegalStateException and maybe hand it a message of "assertion failure"?
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.
I matched semantics of the PreferSafeLoggablExceptions check which uses the non-logsafe exception type when there is no message. I don't have a strong preference, but I'm not sure using the safe type provides any additional information.
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.
😍
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.
I'm a little worried promoting this straight away may lead to unexpected/unintended code rewriting - could we do a trial run on a few repos first?