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

Adding a better error message for download mode #1492

Open
wants to merge 25 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

arschles
Copy link
Member

@arschles arschles commented Dec 12, 2019

What is the problem I am trying to address?

There are a lot of configuration options and it's easy to forget something, misconfigure Athens, and get stuck when you make a configuration mistake.

DownloadMode is a good example because it cannot be empty, and when it is, we just say "it can't be empty" without any extra context.

See #1491 and #1336 for more discussion on DownloadMode

How is the fix applied?

I've added a nicer error message in cases where DownloadMode is empty, or it is set to an invalid value.

If this code is acceptable, I'd like to apply it to a few other config values (in a follow-up PR) that are easy to get wrong.

Mention the issue number it fixes or add the details of the changes if it doesn't have a specific issue.

ref #1491, since this checks existence and validates values for download mode, and also reports errors in a more human-friendly way.

cc/ @bluekeyes

When it's missing, we write a short message saying so, and when it's invalid, we do approximately the same thing. Athens has a lot of configuration options, so it's naturally easy to get them wrong or forget something. Nicer error messages should help.

If this code is acceptable, I'd like to apply it to a few other config values (in a follow-up PR) that are easy to get wrong.

ref gomods#1491, since this checks existence and validates values for download mode, and also reports errors in a more human-friendly way

cc/ @bluekeyes
@arschles arschles requested a review from a team as a code owner December 12, 2019 01:45
@arschles arschles changed the title Adding a better error message for download mode [WIP] Adding a better error message for download mode Dec 12, 2019
Copy link

@ghost ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I love it, i wish all error messages were like this

Copy link
Contributor

@marwan-at-work marwan-at-work left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

pretty cool ✌️ -- open for comments :)

// and it knows how to print out the actual configuration name and other helpful information.
type ConfigErrFn func(string) error

type configErr struct {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

do we need a new error type? I think we can leverage the existing one. And instead of making a new error type, we can just make a new error Kind like ConfigErrorKind or something.

// ConfigErrFn is a function that can create a new configuration error. You pass it a
// message specific to the error you found when you were validating configuration,
// and it knows how to print out the actual configuration name and other helpful information.
type ConfigErrFn func(string) error
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same here since this is specifically a ConfigErrFn, we can probably just put it in the Config package itself.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@marwan-at-work I wanted to but can't because the config package imports mode which needs all the config error stuff. Do you think it should be somewhere besides there?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, I meant the mode package...which makes me realize ConfigErrFn makes no sense here, since it's not a Config package error, it's a mode error :)

So that said, all of my suggestion are meant for keeping this functionality local to wherever the error is happening, in this case inside mode.go

Thanks @arschles ✌️

//
// downloadModeFn := ConfigError("DownloadMode (ATHENS_DOWNLOAD_MODE)")
// err := doThingsWithDownloadMode(configStruct, downloadModeFn)
func ConfigError(field string, url string) ConfigErrFn {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is pretty cool and functional :) but we can probably move this into the config package, because nobody else is leveraging it and so no need to increase the API surface of the errors package, we can just use the already exposed functionality.

if url != "" {
slc = append(slc, fmt.Sprintf("See %s for more information.", url))
}
return &configErr{str: strings.Join(slc, "\n")}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd just return errors.E(op, strings.Join(slc, "\n"), whateverKindIfNeedBe)

@@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ package errors
func IsNotFoundErr(err error) bool {
return Kind(err) == KindNotFound
}

// IsConfigErr returns true if the given err is a configuration error
func IsConfigErr(err error) bool {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we probably don't need this if we just do errors.Is(err, errors.ConfigErrorKind) or whatever kind name we'll eventually pick.

But furthermore, I don't think we need a new config error kind, because we don't programmatically do anything about it anyway, we just log the error and exit.

@@ -132,6 +133,9 @@ func App(conf *config.Config) (http.Handler, error) {
lggr,
conf,
); err != nil {
if errors.IsConfigErr(err) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so all that we're doing here is choosing not to wrap the error with "error adding proxy routes (message)". I think, instead of doing that, we can just pick a better wrapper-message and then we don't need this exposed API at all, we can just say: "error initializing Athens: %s" below.

@@ -98,7 +99,10 @@ func addProxyRoutes(
}
st := stash.New(mf, s, stash.WithPool(c.GoGetWorkers), withSingleFlight)

df, err := mode.NewFile(c.DownloadMode, c.DownloadURL)
df, err := mode.NewFile(c.DownloadMode, c.DownloadURL, errors.ConfigError(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

though this functional pattern is pretty awesome, it's a bit of an overkill just to add 2 lines of text to an error:

  1. We never have to customize this line
  2. We can just add those two lines into the errors themselves inside mod.NewFIle
  3. We can still keep it functional by keeping the mode.NewFile signature exactly the same, but having this functional pattern internal and private to the package itself so that you don't have to manually do it a few times

cc/ @marwan-at-work, I think I've addressed almost all of your comments here, but let me know if this overall design is what you had in mind. Tests are still failing, I'm fixing those shortly
@arschles
Copy link
Member Author

@marwan-at-work I made some changes to (hopefully) address your comments. let me know what you think ✌️

Copy link
Contributor

@marwan-at-work marwan-at-work left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

last few nits and good to go 👍

@@ -32,6 +33,9 @@ func main() {
if err != nil {
log.Fatalf("could not load config file: %v", err)
}
if err := conf.Validate(errors.Op("main")); err != nil {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We already have a validateConfig function here: https://github.com/gomods/athens/blob/master/pkg/config/config.go#L238

It gets automatically called when you call config.Load

So this is a bit confusing :)

In the same fashion, the mode.Validate function in this case is getting called twice, once here and once in mode.NewFile.

I think we can just:

  1. remove this line here
  2. remove config.Validate function
  3. make mode.Validate private

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@marwan-at-work I added a Validate function on config structs so that we can nest validations. I'll try to move all of the logic into validate struct tags though

)

// Validate ensures that m is a valid mode. If this function returns nil, you are
// guaranteed that m is valid
func (m Mode) Validate(op errors.Op) error {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Instead of it taking an op, just make a mode.Validate operation under this line and wrap the error with it. This way, people can get the entire call stack by the time the server fails to boot up.

// NewFile takes a mode and returns a DownloadFile.
// Mode can be one of the constants declared above
// or a custom HCL file. To pass a custom HCL file,
// you can either point to a file path by passing
// file:/path/to/file OR custom:<base64-encoded-hcl>
// directly.
func NewFile(m Mode, downloadURL string) (*DownloadFile, error) {
const downloadModeURL = "https://docs.gomods.io/configuration/download/"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would make this a package level constant (private) as it is being used 3 more times in the pr

@@ -127,12 +129,12 @@ func TestNewFile_err(t *testing.T) {
{
name: "empty mode",
mode: "",
expected: downloadModeErr,
expected: Mode("").Validate(op).Error(),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm, we probably shouldn't do string matching here: either

  1. change expected string to hasErr bool
  2. or, change expected string to expected errors.Kind

@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ const (
KindRateLimit = http.StatusTooManyRequests
KindNotImplemented = http.StatusNotImplemented
KindRedirect = http.StatusMovedPermanently
KindConfigError = -1
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe the HTTP protocol gives you some room for custom codes
In this case this is a client (user) error so maybe we can give it a code between 451 and 499: https://golang.org/pkg/net/http/#pkg-constants

It doesn't really matter but just being a bit more conventional :)

Copy link

@bluekeyes bluekeyes Dec 20, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

422 / http.StatusUnprocessableEntity is a common response when a client provides syntactically valid but semantically invalid objects to an API and could be appropriate here, if you want to stick with valid HTTP codes.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@marwan-at-work fair enough! I'll take @bluekeyes's suggestion and go with 422, just so we can use a constant.

@arschles
Copy link
Member Author

@marwan-at-work I made a few fixes in here. Regarding #1492 (comment), I put all the calls to Validate inside validateConfig. I think that the validate struct tags and custom validators are useful in some cases, but the nested Validate functions seem to be a lot more understandable than validator. Are you cool with leaving this pattern in?

Looks like validate tags don't have a prefix checker. This seems easier than building a custom validator
Copy link
Contributor

@marwan-at-work marwan-at-work left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice work so far, there's a potential regression for some people in this PR who use full addresses and a few comments/nits.

✌️

// Validate implements Validator
func (c *Config) Validate() error {
const op errors.Op = "Config.Validate"
if !strings.HasPrefix(c.Port, ":") {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this will break people who are binding 0.0.0.0:<port> -- plus our code in ensurePortFormat will always add the ":", so I think it's best we remove this validation and if the PORT configuration that the user put is wrong, Go will tell them when the server doesn't boot up.

// Validator can validate a config struct. If you implement this,
// validate all of the configuration in your struct. It will
// automatically be called when Athens starts
type Validator interface {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Definitely correct me if I'm wrong but:

Do we need a validator interface? I don't see any code actually dealing with the "interface" aspect of things. All the Validate functions are being called explicitly. AKA nothing is being abstracted here :)

I think we can make a type Validator func() error -- but even then it might be more for documentation than an actual use case.

Also the documentation here I think might be a little misleading:

If you implement this, validate all of the configuration in your struct. It will automatically be called when Athens starts

To the same point above, we need to explicitly call "Validate" and so there's nothing automatic happening right?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You're right, I got ahead of myself here. My intention was to have the config.Validate function look for Validators in each of its fields, calling validate on each of them. Right now, Validate is called as necessary on each field that implements it, in various other parts of the code.

I'll leave Validator out of this PR

//
// Generally these kinds of errors should make Athens crash because it was configured
// improperly
func Config(op Op, field, helpText, url string) error {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

will this ever be called from outside the config package? why not just define it there and define it locally to minimize the API surface of this package?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nope. I put it here just because I think it makes more sense to group a configuration error under the errors package. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise 😄

pkg/errors/config.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/download/mode/mode.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -53,8 +85,8 @@ type DownloadPath struct {
func NewFile(m Mode, downloadURL string) (*DownloadFile, error) {
const op errors.Op = "downloadMode.NewFile"

if m == "" {
return nil, errors.E(op, downloadModeErr)
if err := m.Validate(); err != nil {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this error is now less readable, because before it used to say download mode is not set but now it will say isn't a valid value (notice the space in the beginning because there's nothing)

I think in the Sprintf of the validate function we should pass a %q so it would say "" isn't a valid value or we should keep the old error here for better messaging.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about if we pass %q as you said, and also prefix the error with "Download mode ..."?
The result would then be Download mode "" isn't a valid value

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That sounds great

default:
return nil, errors.E(op, errors.KindBadRequest, fmt.Sprintf(invalidModeErr, m))
retFile := &DownloadFile{Mode: m, DownloadURL: downloadURL}
if err := retFile.Validate(); err != nil {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

The old code that was removed here no longer works because in the old code we are checking the top level Mode, but in this validate function only the internal d.Paths[n].Mode is checked.

However, since top level Mode is now already checked above, then this Validate function is not necessary because retFile has no Paths to begin with.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@marwan-at-work you're right. I left a few things out of this Validate and some tangential functions

  • DownloadFile.Validate needs to check DownloadURL for well-formedness
  • ^^ also needs to call DownloadPath.Validate for each d.Paths[n] - that does more than just validate its mode
  • Mode.Validate does not check for custom: and file: values

I've made changes to address all this

I've fixed all of that

@arschles
Copy link
Member Author

@marwan-at-work I think I changed code or responded to all your comments. Let me know what you think or if I missed something! 💚

@arschles arschles changed the title [WIP] Adding a better error message for download mode Adding a better error message for download mode Mar 10, 2020
@marwan-at-work
Copy link
Contributor

@arschles thank you for fixing all the comments 💯 💯 will take a look as soon as possible 🙏

@arschles
Copy link
Member Author

Take your time @marwan-at-work! This PR is a "slow burn" 😄

@arschles arschles changed the base branch from master to main June 15, 2020 19:21
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants