Drive-by, but this has been on my mind with pants as well: How about the current behavior but add a pill, ie: [ref:232e86a2d] Internal error executing command: 'str' object has no attribute 'err_msg'
The full backtrace goes off to a file in the user's home dir somewhere and then you can ask them to run a command passing the pill ref to get the full error report without worry of re-running some non-idempotent command, etc. On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 on dumping the stack for unhandled errors as long as they are not > caused by KeyboardInterrupt. That would definitely help > troubleshooting transient errors when --reveal-errors is not a good > option. > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM, David McLaughlin <da...@dmclaughlin.com> > wrote: > > Because we allow things like hooks, I think it's best to err on the side > of > > overly verbose logging by default rather than have to ask client users to > > rerun their command with an extra option just to get a stack trace. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Mark Chu-Carroll <mchucarr...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > >> Can someone explain to me why providing an option to show the stack > trace > >> is such a problem? > >> > >> Making our debugging easier shouldn't be an excuse for sloppy tooling. > >> Dumping stacks at users because we didn't get our debugging right > shouldn't > >> be acceptable. > >> > >> The specific error here, where we've got a user writing python code in a > >> config file is a special case: we're invoking a python interpretation > >> process for the user, and if that crashes, they expect what they'd get > by > >> running the python code manually. But in other places, allowing people > to > >> request extra information as an option seems like a reasonable > compromise. > >> > >> -Mark > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Kevin Sweeney > <kswee...@twitter.com.invalid > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > We can do both! I think we should dump a stack trace to the console > >> > whenever we have an unhandled error, as we're not going to be able to > >> debug > >> > it otherwise. > >> > > >> > We should also strive not to have *any* unhandled errors, but that > does > >> not > >> > mean putting a catch-all exception handler at root, rather it means > >> having > >> > *specific* error messages for expected error conditions. For example, > an > >> > IOError in a method to read a config file might translate to an error > >> > message "Unable to read config file: '%s': %s." % (e.filename, > >> e.strerror) > >> > and a specific exit code. So this might manifest as > >> > > >> > % aurora job create devcluster/web/test/webserver typo.aurora > >> > ERROR: Unable to read config file 'typo.aurora': No such file or > >> directory. > >> > % echo $? > >> > 3 > >> > > >> > If the client code (including the support classes) isn't factored to > >> allow > >> > exception handling like this, it needs to be refactored. > >> > > >> > Also given that the context of this is AURORA-779 I think it's totally > >> > reasonable to throw a stack trace to someone whose .aurora file > raised an > >> > exception (since they are writing python they should get the tools > needed > >> > to debug python). > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Mark Chu-Carroll < > >> mchucarr...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > As we promote clientv2 and deprecate v1, we've come across some > issues > >> > > involving error handling in the v2 client. > >> > > > >> > > When there's an unexpected error in clientv1, most of the time, it > >> > crashes > >> > > and dumps its stack. Dumping stack is a lousy user experience, but > it > >> > > proves the stack dump, which users can then include in a bug report. > >> > > > >> > > The default behavior in clientv2 doesn't dump stack. Instead, it > >> catches > >> > > the unknown error, and prints out a concise error message, like: > >> > > > >> > > Internal error executing command: 'str' object has no attribute > >> 'err_msg' > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > There's no stack dump, so when we get an error report, it's harder > for > >> us > >> > > to track down the cause of the error. > >> > > > >> > > Clientv2 does provide a command-line option, "--reveal-errors", > which > >> > > allows errors to be propagated and eventually result in a stack > trace. > >> > > > >> > > So: should we allow the client to dump stack on error? > >> > > > >> > > -Mark > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Kevin Sweeney > >> > @kts > >> > > >> >
