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

errors: add support for wrapping multiple errors #53435

Closed
neild opened this issue Jun 17, 2022 · 96 comments
Closed

errors: add support for wrapping multiple errors #53435

neild opened this issue Jun 17, 2022 · 96 comments

Comments

@neild
Copy link
Contributor

neild commented Jun 17, 2022

For the most recent version of this proposal, see: #53435 (comment) below.


This is a variation on the rejected proposal #47811 (and perhaps that proposal should just be reopened), and an expansion on a comment in it.

Background

Since Go 1.13, an error may wrap another by providing an Unwrap method returning the wrapped error. The errors.Is and errors.As functions operate on chains of wrapped errors.

A common request is for a way to combine a list of errors into a single error.

Proposal

An error wraps multiple errors if its type has the method

Unwrap() []error

Reusing the name Unwrap avoids ambiguity with the existing singular Unwrap method. Returning a 0-length list from Unwrap means the error doesn't wrap anything. Callers must not modify the list returned by Unwrap. The list returned by Unwrap must not contain any nil errors.

We replace the term "error chain" with "error tree".

The errors.Is and errors.As functions are updated to unwrap multiple errors. Is reports a match if any error in the tree matches. As finds the first matching error in a preorder traversal of the tree.

The errors.Join function provides a simple implementation of a multierr. It does not flatten errors.

// Join returns an error that wraps the given errors.
// Any nil error values are discarded.
// The error formats as the text of the given errors, separated by sep.
// Join returns nil if errs contains no non-nil values.
func Join(sep string, errs ...error) error

The fmt.Errorf function permits multiple instances of the %w formatting verb.

The errors.Split function retrieves the original errors from a combined error.

// Split returns the result of calling the Unwrap method on err,
// if err's type contains an Unwrap method returning []error.
// Otherwise, Split returns nil.
func Split(err error) []error

The errors.Unwrap function is unaffected: It returns nil when called on an error with an Unwrap() []error method.

Questions

Prior proposals have been declined on the grounds that this functionality can be implemented outside the standard library, and there was no good single answer to several important questions.

Why should this be in the standard library?

This proposal adds something which cannot be provided outside the standard library: Direct support for error trees in errors.Is and errors.As. Existing combining errors operate by providing Is and As methods which inspect the contained errors, requiring each implementation to duplicate this logic, possibly in incompatible ways. This is best handled in errors.Is and errors.As, for the same reason those functions handle singular unwrapping.

In addition, this proposal provides a common method for the ecosystem to use to represent combined errors, permitting interoperation between third-party implementations.

How are multiple errors formatted?

A principle of the errors package is that error formatting is up to the user. This proposal upholds that principle: The errors.Join function combines error text with a user-provided separator, and fmt.Errorf wraps multiple errors in a user-defined layout. If users have other formatting requirements, they can still create their own error implementations.

How do Is and As interact with combined errors?

Every major multierror package that I looked at (see "Prior art" below) implements the same behavior for Is and As: Is reports true if any error in the combined error matches, and As returns the first matching error. This proposal follows common practice.

Does creating a combined error flatten combined errors in the input?

The errors.Join function does not flatten errors. This is simple and comprehensible. Third-party packages can easily provide flattening if desired.

Should Split unwrap errors that wrap a single error?

The errors.Split function could call the single-wrapping Unwrap() error method when present, converting a non-nil result into a single-element slice. This would allow traversing an error tree with only calls to Split.

This might allow for a small improvement in the convenience of code which manually traverses an error tree, but it is rare for programs to manually traverse error chains today. Keeping Split as the inverse of Join is simpler.

Why does the name of the Split function not match the Unwrap method it calls?

Giving the single- and multiple-error wrapping methods the same name neatly avoids any questions of how to handle errors that implement both.

Split is a natural name for the function that undoes a Join.

While we could call the method Split, or the function UnwrapMultiple, or some variation on these options, the benefits of the above points outweigh the value in aligning the method name with the function name.

Prior art

There have been several previous proposals to add some form of combining error, including:

https://go.dev/issue/47811: add Errors as a standard way to represent multiple errors as a single error
https://go.dev/issue/48831: add NewJoinedErrors
https://go.dev/issue/20984: composite errors
https://go.dev/issue/52607: add With(err, other error) error
fmt.Errorf("%w: %w", err1, err2) is largely equivalent to With(err1, err2).

Credit to @jimmyfrasche for suggesting the method name Unwrap.

There are many implementations of combining errors in the world, including:

https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/hashicorp/go-multierror (8720 imports)
https://pkg.go.dev/go.uber.org/multierr (1513 imports)
https://pkg.go.dev/tailscale.com/util/multierr (2 imports)

@neild neild added the Proposal label Jun 17, 2022
@gopherbot gopherbot added this to the Proposal milestone Jun 17, 2022
@DeedleFake
Copy link

DeedleFake commented Jun 17, 2022

How does walking up the tree work in errors.Is() and errors.As()? Is it depth-first, i.e. Unwrap() to []error and then fully walk each resulting tree, or is it breadth-first, i.e. Unwrap() to []error and then do each of those before unwrapping them and doing the next set. I assume that it's depth-first, as that's simpler, but breadth-first could also make sense. It would also be possible to convert from a default of breadth-first to a depth-first by implementing custom unwrapping logic, but going the other way could be difficult.

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Jun 17, 2022

How does walking up the tree work in errors.Is() and errors.As()?

Depth-first. Unwrap to an []error and walk each error in the list in turn. This is what every existing multierr implementation I looked at does.

@earthboundkid
Copy link
Contributor

This would also subsume #50819 and I imagine any other similar proposals.

Maybe it should wait for a generic iteration standard, but should there be some errors.Each function that goes through each link in the chain? My suspicion is there’s not much to do besides As-ing and Is-ing, but it does seem like an absence, since there will be some internal function that works like that, which could potentially be exported.

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Jun 18, 2022

Is and As are separate implementations for efficiency reasons, so there's no internal Each function. This proposal does make the case for an exported Each or similar stronger, since iteration becomes more complicated.

We should probably wait and see what happens with generic iteration, however.

@balasanjay
Copy link
Contributor

Does Unwrap return a reference to the internal slice in the error?
If so, that would make the internal slice reference externally mutable, which seems unfortunate (but not a dealbreaker).

If not, and it returns a copy, then it would allocate, which also seems unfortunate (but probably not a dealbreaker).

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Jun 18, 2022

Does Unwrap return a reference to the internal slice in the error?

Unspecified, but the contract for it says that the caller must not modify the slice, so it may.

Perhaps Split should copy the result into a new slice. This would leave Is and As potentially allocation-free, while adding a layer of safety (and an allocation) to the relatively unusual case of manually inspecting the individual errors.

@josharian
Copy link
Contributor

This strikes me as a significant step forward in figuring out the multi-error question. Thank you!

The only part of this that doesn't seem entirely spot-on is errors.Split.

What is the use case for errors.Split?

Figuring errors.Split would be used like errors.Unwrap, I grepped through the code sitting around on my laptop and found only a single use of errors.Unwrap. It was used to check recursively whether any error in the chain satisfied a predicate. It would be interesting to analyze other uses in a larger corpus.

Walking an arbitrary error tree using errors.Split and errors.Unwrap will be annoying. I wonder whether a callback-based errors.Walk that walks the entire error tree would be a better API. There are a lot of details to specify for such an API, but with a bit of care, it could be more powerful and flexible than errors.Split. It could be used to implement errors.Is and errors.As. And it sidesteps questions about ownership and modification of returned error slices.

(The details about errors.Walk include things like: Does it call back for all errors, or only leaf errors? Does it use a single callback like io/fs.WalkDir or separate pre- and post- callbacks like golang.org/x/tools/ast/astutil.Apply? Does it support early stopping?)

On the topic of slice copies, a minor question. Does errors.Join make a copy of the variadic arg? I'd argue for yes, and ameliorate the pain a bit by adding a small default backing store to the struct. Aliasing bugs are miserable.

@earthboundkid
Copy link
Contributor

I find that the main reason I unwrap my own multierrors is so that I can report them separately to my logging service or display them as a list in a CLI. The original xerrors formatting proposal was dropped for being too complicated but I think that an easy to use error walking mechanism might make it easy to let users figure out how they want to display and format all the suberrors on their own.

@rsc rsc changed the title proposal: wrapping multiple errors proposal: errors: add support for wrapping multiple errors Jun 22, 2022
@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

rsc commented Jun 22, 2022

This proposal has been added to the active column of the proposals project
and will now be reviewed at the weekly proposal review meetings.
— rsc for the proposal review group

@hopehook
Copy link
Member

If I hadn't read the comments, I might have thought that after the "Join" error, I could use "Split" to parse it out.

"errors.Split" does the same thing as "errors.Unwrap", but deals with multiple errors. So instead of "Split" which is the opposite of "Join", it should be "UnwrapMultiple" or "Walk" which is more appropriate.

@hopehook
Copy link
Member

hopehook commented Jun 23, 2022

The errors.Unwrap function is unaffected: It returns nil when called on an error with an Unwrap() []error

Since there is no reaction to multiple error conditions, the naming should also be differentiated, such as ”UnwrapMultiple() []error “.

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Jun 23, 2022

What is the use case for errors.Split?

We need to provide some reasonably convenient way to get at the underlying errors of a multierr. Perhaps Split isn't the right API here (although I still feel pretty good about it), but we need something.

I wonder whether a callback-based errors.Walk that walks the entire error tree would be a better API.

Perhaps there's a case for such an API, but I think it's distinct from this proposal. Accessing the component errors of a multierr is different from a full tree walk.

Does errors.Join make a copy of the variadic arg?

Yes.

@jimmyfrasche
Copy link
Member

I'm 100% on

  • defining Unwrap() []error
  • changing Is/As to support the new Unwrap
  • updating fmt.Errorf to allow multiple %w

If those were the only things accepted I'd be happy and it would be more than enough to allow external multierrors to interoperate with each other and std.

I do think there 100% does need to be a tree walking API—but it's too early to decide what that looks like. Once the protocol above is enshrined in errors, it's simple enough to experiment with that outside std.

I'm not 100% sold on the name for Split but there should probably be such a func in std, regardless of name, to pair with Unwrap. I don't think it would be much of an impediment if this weren't included, however.

I'm not really sold on Join. I see the utility of including a basic multierror in std, but just gluing the errors together with a sep seems like it could get messy when multierrors get composed. I think, like a tree walking API, it should be left out and experimentation allowed to continue outside std for now.

@josharian
Copy link
Contributor

We need to provide some reasonably convenient way to get at the underlying errors of a multierr.

I'm not so sure that we do.

For uses (testing?) in which you really specifically want to unwrap from an error that has an Unwrap() [] method, you can use a type assertion. (errors.Unwrap is less than 10 LOC, and consists entirely of a type assertion.)

But I suspect that almost nobody wants specifically to unwrap a multi-error exactly one layer deep. Rather they want to ask the general question "what errors are in this tree?". So I think that's the right form of API to add. And I think it'll get created internally anyway to implement Is and As.

Maybe this proposal should simply omit Split?

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Jun 23, 2022

Rather they want to ask the general question "what errors are in this tree?".

The fact that errors.Unwrap is so seldom used indicates to me that people don't want to ask this question. They use Is and As to ask "is this error in the tree?" or "is there an error of this type in the tree?" instead.

I'm not certain how much of a use case there is for a tree walk that doesn't preserve the structure of the tree. It would be nice to see real-world examples of this in practice.

@josharian
Copy link
Contributor

josharian commented Jun 23, 2022

I grepping in my own dependencies and grabbed all the uses. I ignored the standard library, static analyzers, linters, and then pulled all the uses that were not in tests. Here they are:

x/tools uses errors.Unwrap to get to the innermost error, without regard for the structure of what is above it. I suspect that this could would be better served by being able to evaluate a predicate on every error in the tree.

aws-sdk-go uses errors.Unwrap to recursively evaluate a predicate on every error in the tree, with early stopping.

containerd uses errors.Unwrap in a way that I find confusing and might be buggy. It uses it to peel back exactly one layer of wrapping and then compares this to a particular error using string matching. This is fragile (if another wrapping layer gets introduced) and would probably be better served by a way to check every error in the tree.

containerd uses errors.Unwrap again to peel back exactly one layer of wrapping. It looks like errors.As would be a better fit here; I don't see any reason why exactly one layer is the right answer here.

jwt uses errors.Unwrap to implement Is. In this case, errors.Unwrap is unnecessary, because e is known to have a concrete type that implements Unwrap; the code could call e.Unwrap directly instead.

I then grabbed two uses in tests at random:

errwrap uses errors.Unwrap specifically to test that it is compatible with how the standard library defines errors.Unwrap. It has no actual use for errors.Unwrap or opinion about its behavior.

pgconn uses errors.Unwrap to test its own error's compability with package errors. It looks like it would be equally well served by errors.As.

So far, I see no evidence that anyone cares much about the structure of the error tree. It looks to me like they are all: misusing the API (evidence that the API is wrong); using the wrong API (evidence that the API is wrong); using the API pointlessly; or using the API to evaluate a predicate "anywhere along the error chain".

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Jun 23, 2022

That's useful data; thanks.

We don't have error trees right now; we have an error chain. We can't tell whether people will care about the structure of trees by looking at how they work with linear chains.

It'd be interesting to look at use of existing multierr packages to see how often multierrs are converted back to lists of errors.

@josharian
Copy link
Contributor

It'd be interesting to look at use of existing multierr packages to see how often multierrs are converted back to lists of errors.

I agree. Can I leave that for you to do? I've exceeded my time allotment for this for a while. :)

@hopehook
Copy link
Member

hopehook commented Jun 24, 2022

I'm 100% on

  • defining Unwrap() []error
  • changing Is/As to support the new Unwrap
  • updating fmt.Errorf to allow multiple %w

If those were the only things accepted I'd be happy and it would be more than enough to allow external multierrors to interoperate with each other and std.

I do think there 100% does need to be a tree walking API—but it's too early to decide what that looks like. Once the protocol above is enshrined in errors, it's simple enough to experiment with that outside std.

I agree with you very much, we should focus on the original core API supporting the multiple error model first, and then expose the complexity to the user. Before that, we can experiment with Join, Split, Walk, etc.

Most importantly, decide the definition of Unwrap() []error.

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Jun 24, 2022

I agree. Can I leave that for you to do? I've exceeded my time allotment for this for a while. :)

I'm going to go look, but probably not until next week. Had a few days of meetings, and I'm now exhausted and behind on everything. :)

@bn-jbowers
Copy link

Given the size of these error trees, where even "a dozen" would be huge, I would suggest the solution to iteration is simply to define that the traversal used by the rest of the library will be used to return a []error populated in the traversal order used by the rest of the code, or a simple tree struct. Such a small set of values doesn't rate having the iteration proposal placed as a blocker in front of it.

It's rarely used functionality (as observed above for Unwrap in general), on the error path (not the happy path where performance is generally a bigger deal), for a rarely-used use case where Is and As is not enough. Code that is generating millions or billions of complex error trees per second that it then somehow needs to deal with in a complicated manner is too broken to be saved by even zero-performance error tree iteration.

@BenjamenMeyer
Copy link

BenjamenMeyer commented Jun 28, 2022

I'd like to help encourage my team to use errors.Is (or evens errors.As) for testing instead of using text-based comparisons. While researching to provide best practices I created the following code for use in the Golang Playground:

https://gist.github.com/BenjamenMeyer/ef9926913dcc3b165da8f25a459442a9

I was quite surprised that errors.Unwrap would only extract the first layer (may be I'm doing something wrong?) but then came across this proposal. Honestly, IMHO most are looking to be able to use the errors.is and errors.As APIs to test a full error chain reliably instead of having to decode a string, which could be unreliable.

Love the proposal here but would certainly be happy with something that would allow errors.Is to detect any given error is part of the provided error when built up from several in a row - e.g returning an error up from a lower level in the code to a higher level several times and being able to see the lower error is there.

NOTE: The code in the gist is just a sample for this explicit behavior. Consider the list of errors representing the layers of the code with the singular error what the code actually sees in the tests; yet it fails to be able to detect the lower level errors.

HTH

Follow-up: This seems to be something that has gone back to 1.13-betas with properly wrapping and detecting the various layered errors: https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/SwKZ-qJmZl0?pli=1

@neild
Copy link
Contributor Author

neild commented Jul 18, 2022

I've compiled some data on use of splitting multierrors created with go.uber.org/multierr back inmto the original list of errors.

I started with a list of 1976 modules known to pkg.go.dev which import go.uber.org/multierr. I populated my local module cache with this set by running go get $MOD@latest for each one. I then used grep to build a list of .go files in my module cache that imported this package, and filtered this down to only files in the latest version of each module when there were duplicates. There's probably a more elegant way to do this, but it worked for me.

This gave me 5981 unique files that import go.uber.org/multierr.

Of those, 182 call multierr.Error to convert an error into a []error.

The following is a set of links to uses of multierr.Error calls, with a few deleted packages removed. Many of these look to be forks of the same original code; I haven't made any effort to deduplicate these.

expand

coadler pushed a commit to coder/tailscale that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2023
Errors in Go are no longer viewed as a linear chain, but a tree.
See golang/go#53435.

Add a Range function that iterates through an error
in a pre-order, depth-first order.
This matches the iteration order of errors.As in Go 1.20.

This adds the logic (but currently commented out) for having
Error implement the multi-error version of Unwrap in Go 1.20.
It is commented out currently since it causes "go vet"
to complain about having the "wrong" signature.

Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <[email protected]>
abhinav added a commit to abhinav/multierr that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2023
Go 1.20 includes native support for wrapping multiple errors.
Errors which wrap multiple other errors must implement,

    Unwrap() []error

If an error implements this method, `errors.Is` and `errors.As`
will descend into the list and continue matching.

Versions of Go prior to 1.20, however, still need the old
`Is` and `As` method implementations on the error object
to get a similar behavior.

This change adds the `Unwrap() []error` method
gated by a build constraint requiring Go 1.20 or higher.
It similarly moves the existing `Is` and `As` methods
to a file that is ignored on Go 1.20 or higher.

Once Go 1.21 is released and 1.19 is no longer supported,
the pre-go1.20 file may be deleted and the build constraints removed.

For details, see also the section,
"How should existing multierror types adopt the new interface?"
of the [multiple errors proposal][1].

  [1]: golang/go#53435
sywhang pushed a commit to uber-go/multierr that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2023
Go 1.20 includes native support for wrapping multiple errors.
Errors which wrap multiple other errors must implement,

    Unwrap() []error

If an error implements this method, `errors.Is` and `errors.As`
will descend into the list and continue matching.

Versions of Go prior to 1.20, however, still need the old
`Is` and `As` method implementations on the error object
to get a similar behavior.

This change adds the `Unwrap() []error` method
gated by a build constraint requiring Go 1.20 or higher.
It similarly moves the existing `Is` and `As` methods
to a file that is ignored on Go 1.20 or higher.

Once Go 1.21 is released and 1.19 is no longer supported,
the pre-go1.20 file may be deleted and the build constraints removed.

For details, see also the section,
"How should existing multierror types adopt the new interface?"
of the [multiple errors proposal][1].

  [1]: golang/go#53435

Refs #64
@Deng-Xian-Sheng
Copy link

Looks great and can't wait to apply it to engineering!

tmm1 pushed a commit to fancybits/go that referenced this issue May 14, 2023
An error which implements an "Unwrap() []error" method wraps all the
non-nil errors in the returned []error.

We replace the concept of the "error chain" inspected by errors.Is
and errors.As with the "error tree". Is and As perform a pre-order,
depth-first traversal of an error's tree. As returns the first
matching result, if any.

The new errors.Join function returns an error wrapping a list of errors.

The fmt.Errorf function now supports multiple instances of the %w verb.

For golang#53435.

Change-Id: Ib7402e70b68e28af8f201d2b66bd8e87ccfb5283
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/432898
Reviewed-by: Cherry Mui <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <[email protected]>
Run-TryBot: Damien Neil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Tsai <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 4a0a2b3)
@rsc rsc removed this from Proposals Dec 4, 2023
@dimandzhi
Copy link

Referring to bokwoon95 #53435 (comment)

interface{ Unwrap() []error } // <-- errors.Unwrap returns nil, potentially confusing.

and kortschak #53435 (comment)

I was sort of surprised looking at the errors.Join documentation that it is not mentioned that the returned error implements the Unwrap() []error method. In the absence of the errors.Split function, this method has significantly reduced discoverability.

This muliterror feature is incomplete, because I am required to make err.(interface{ Unwrap() []error }) checks myself to call Unwrap() []error explicitly to get and handle multiple errors. Split(error) []error func, that return a slice of errors for both regular single error and multierror cases would help here.

@earthboundkid
Copy link
Contributor

@dimandzhi This issue is closed. I created #65428 as a new issue for follow up. You can propose new ideas there.

@jub0bs
Copy link

jub0bs commented Sep 28, 2024

@ChristoWolf

I probably missed it simply, but is errors.Join concurrency-safe?

I'm late to the party, but see https://tip.golang.org/doc/comment#func:

By default, programmers can assume that a top-level function is safe to call from multiple goroutines; this fact need not be stated explicitly.

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

No branches or pull requests