Skip to content
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

Parse box.error errors wrapped in tarantool/errors #112

Closed
ArtDu opened this issue Jul 23, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Parse box.error errors wrapped in tarantool/errors #112

ArtDu opened this issue Jul 23, 2021 · 2 comments
Milestone

Comments

@ArtDu
Copy link
Contributor

ArtDu commented Jul 23, 2021

You can check all fields except stack, since only stack is optional in tarantool / errors. So it's worth investigating how to do a more powerful check in box.error

tarantool/errors - 2.2.0 structure of error:

local e = {
    err = err,
    str = str,
    line = line,
    file = file,
    stack = stack,
    class_name = self.name
}

But we check only str:

private Boolean isErrorsError(String errorMessage) {
    return errorMessage != null;
}
@sharonovd sharonovd added this to the wishlist milestone Sep 21, 2021
@vrogach2020
Copy link
Contributor

@ArtDu what problem can be solved by this checks ? Please give an example of code .
Or close if this is outdated.

@ArtDu
Copy link
Contributor Author

ArtDu commented Apr 15, 2022

It seems to be a ticket that we use regexp to recognize a box.error error wrapped in tarantool/errors, and the related ticket should be this tarantool/crud#186 and this tarantool/errors#36 , but for some reason I wrote a bad description for this ticket, which is not clear((

@vrogach2020 vrogach2020 changed the title Make more powerful error checking Parse box.error errors wrapped in tarantool/errors Apr 15, 2022
@dkasimovskiy dkasimovskiy closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Sep 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants