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

[VDG] Chat workflow better error handling #12391

Merged
merged 62 commits into from Feb 8, 2024

Conversation

ichthus1604
Copy link
Collaborator

Improves error handling on #12181

This will show the error dialog only the first time an error comes out for a non-interactive step (such as StartConversationStep). For interactive steps (which require user input), these are reset whenever an error occurs within their execution, which means the user will have to re-enter their input in order to retry the action, which is the expected UX:

Interactive:
user input -> try action -> error message -> user input -> retry action -> error message -> user input....

Non interactive:
try action -> error message -> retry action -> silently fail -> retry action....

{
OnStepError.SafeInvoke(this, ex);

// TODO: Roland, are we 100% sure we want to swallow errors and not log them?
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should store the Exception instead of counting the error. So if the same exception keeps happening then only log it once. Meanwhile if there is a new exception we need to log that too.

@soosr
Copy link
Collaborator

soosr commented Feb 8, 2024

Review:

  • I believe passing the cancel token to ExecuteStepAsync would make sense, and use the cancel token as the condition in the while loop.
  • We have to make sure the error dialog can only pop up if the BAB dialog is opened, otherwise, it would be a surprise.
  • [VDG] Chat workflow better error handling #12391 (comment)

@soosr soosr merged commit 75dba34 into zkSNACKs:master Feb 8, 2024
6 of 8 checks passed
@yahiheb
Copy link
Collaborator

yahiheb commented Feb 8, 2024

What is the point of merging this PR?

The same commits by Fede are in the other PR #12181 and they were even reverted there.

@soosr
Copy link
Collaborator

soosr commented Feb 9, 2024

What is the point of merging this PR?

The same commits by Fede are in the other PR #12181 and they were even reverted there.

I didn't merge this intentionally, it got automatically merged by git when I merged the other PR

@soosr
Copy link
Collaborator

soosr commented Feb 9, 2024

Changes from this PR are not even visible on master.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants