Action get_all return errors

[freezepl]

Add ability to return errors from get_all command.

To preserve compatibility with current approach errors are added to the class method.

[3] pry(main)> currency = NetSuite::Records::Currency
=> NetSuite::Records::Currency < Object
[5] pry(main)> currencies = currency.get_all(insufficient_perms.netsuite_credentials)
...
</soapenv:Envelope>

=> false
[6] pry(main)> currency.errors
=> [
    [0] #<NetSuite::Error:0x00007fd66e821d28 @type="ERROR", @code="INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSION", @message="Permission Violation: You need  the 'Lists -> Currency' permission to access this page. Please contact your account administrator.">
]
[7] pry(main)> currencies
=> false

My first approach was to return NetSuite::Response object which would look like this:

=> #<NetSuite::Response:0x00007f8d960c8548 @success=false, @header=nil, @body=nil, @errors=[#<NetSuite::Error:0x00007f8d960c8598 @type="ERROR", @code="INSUFFICIENT_PERMISSION", @message="Permission Violation: You need  the 'Lists -> Currency' permission to access this page. Please contact your account administrator.">]>

[freezepl]

I found #405 this PR which imo is better solution. We could add there support for invalid account creds there.
@iloveitaly what do you think?

[cgunther]

I think there's still value in this PR separately from #405 to handle any kind of error returned, not just insufficient permission. I also think this would be valuable to extend to any action using class methods (ie. delete_list, get_deleted, get_list, search, update_list, upsert_list), as they all return false on failure, but don't offer a way to dig into why it failed.

For example, I just hit a related issue using search where I was using the anyOf operator and passed more than 1,000 values, which NetSuite didn't like. It'd be great if there was access to the error after search, just like what you did for get_all.

For reference, here's the response XML from my search that includes the error:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <soapenv:Header>
    <platformMsgs:documentInfo xmlns:platformMsgs="urn:messages_2020_2.platform.webservices.netsuite.com">
      <platformMsgs:nsId><!-- SNIP --></platformMsgs:nsId>
    </platformMsgs:documentInfo>
  </soapenv:Header>
  <soapenv:Body>
    <searchResponse xmlns="urn:messages_2020_2.platform.webservices.netsuite.com">
      <platformCore:searchResult xmlns:platformCore="urn:core_2020_2.platform.webservices.netsuite.com">
        <platformCore:status isSuccess="false">
          <platformCore:statusDetail type="ERROR">
            <platformCore:code>MAX_VALUES_EXCEEDED</platformCore:code>
            <platformCore:message>Too many values specified for a multi-select field, the maximum is 1000</platformCore:message>
          </platformCore:statusDetail>
        </platformCore:status>
      </platformCore:searchResult>
    </searchResponse>
  </soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>

[iloveitaly]

We definitely need to improve how this is handled right now, but I don't like the idea of storing the results in global state. I've found that global state will nearly always come back to bite you in strange and hard-to-debug ways. In this PR, the error state is not cleared unless another call is made and would persist indefinitely. In multi-threaded environments this would be very problematic.

I'm fine with a breaking change here if it creates a better UX for the future. In addition to get_all we need to handle this same case for the search action as well.

https://github.com/NetSweet/netsuite/pull/405/files handles a different case, but I think a similar approach could be better here:

• Create a new exception type which includes an errors array
• Throw the new exception type when errors are encountered

This eliminates the risk of global state, although I don't like the idea of using exceptions to manage control flow. Returning completely different types of objects is worse though and would require ugly-looking code to handle a (hopefully) rare case where the NS call fails.

@cgunther @freezepl what do you think? Curious to hear about pros/cons I'm not thinking about here.

[cgunther]

Speaking mainly from the search scenario I provided above, exceptions would be fine. In my case, I'm throwing an exception anyway when the search returns false, so having the gem throw it itself, plus with details of the exact error, would save me a step of having to check for a false return value.

I think #405 could be a good basis, potentially having a generic error class, then on a case-by-case basis introduce more specific classes (ie. PermissionError) if they might be handled differently on the application side.

I also think #405 does a better job of addressing the problem at the response, rather than in the action class method, which might require repeating the handling for each action implementing a class method.

[iloveitaly]

@cgunther I agree. I really like the structure of #405 and think we should use that approach for improved error handling going forward.

@Timothyjb What do you think of the approach laid out in #405? Any further thoughts to add to this discussion?

@freezepl anything to add here?

[freezepl]

@iloveitaly I am fine with closing my PR, #405 is open since 2018 and mine is since 2019 and problem is causing a lot of problems for us and for newcomers .