Came here to make the same suggestion John makes. What if we present friendly error messages to the user, but write stack traces to a log file that the user can upload in the event of unexpected/unhandled exceptions. IMO the reason for not wanting to rely on users re-running commands with a verbose flag to dump a stacktrace is that some errors will be transient and not easily repeatable, thus the chance to capture the stack will be lost.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:30 PM, John Sirois <john.sir...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >> > > > >> > > >
