From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org,
Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Cc: Kirill Shcherbatov <kshcherbatov@tarantool.org>, kostja@tarantool.org
Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] box: extend ffi error object API
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 21:27:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33171387-19ef-67d3-88c0-5ee237f7bb77@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190808233327.sjm76nwf2qhxd4io@tkn_work_nb>
On 09/08/2019 01:33, Alexander Turenko wrote:
>>> +box_error_unwrap(box_error_t *error)
>>> +{
>>> + struct error *reason = error->reason;
>>> + assert(reason != NULL);
>>> + diag_set_error(diag_get(), reason);
>>> + error_unref(reason);
>>> + error->reason = NULL;
>>> + return reason;
>>
>> 7. Unwrap does not allow to unwrap a leaf error.
>> But there is no API to determine if the error is
>> leaf. So a user can't determine when to stop calling
>> unwrap.
>>
>> I am talking about C public API which you have changed
>> here. A user can't check error->reason != NULL before
>> calling box_error_unwrap.
>>
>> Moreover, it is inconsistent with Lua version. Lets
>> better return the argument when error->reason == NULL
>> in box_error_unwrap. Then a user of the C API would
>> just unwrap the stack until box_error_unwrap(e) == e.
>> Also it simplifies Lua version implementation.
>
> Why not just return NULL when there is no a reason? It seems to be more
> logical for me.
>
Perhaps. I don't mind, NULL is good too. But assertion is
not good.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-09 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-01 11:13 [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 0/3] box: stacked diagnostics area in fiber Kirill Shcherbatov
2019-08-01 11:13 ` [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 1/3] box: rfc for stacked diagnostic area in Tarantool Kirill Shcherbatov
2019-08-05 21:16 ` [tarantool-patches] " Vladislav Shpilevoy
[not found] ` <06bd2140-3d2b-4bc3-7bc4-5f3d293bf891@tarantool.org>
2019-08-06 20:50 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2019-08-07 23:27 ` Alexander Turenko
2019-08-08 20:46 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2019-08-08 23:29 ` Alexander Turenko
2019-08-09 19:25 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2019-08-12 20:35 ` Konstantin Osipov
2019-08-01 11:13 ` [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 2/3] box: stacked diagnostics area in fiber Kirill Shcherbatov
2019-08-05 21:16 ` [tarantool-patches] " Vladislav Shpilevoy
2019-08-01 11:13 ` [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 3/3] box: extend ffi error object API Kirill Shcherbatov
2019-08-05 21:18 ` [tarantool-patches] " Vladislav Shpilevoy
2019-08-06 7:56 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
2019-08-06 20:50 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2019-08-08 23:33 ` Alexander Turenko
2019-08-09 19:27 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=33171387-19ef-67d3-88c0-5ee237f7bb77@tarantool.org \
--to=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
--cc=alexander.turenko@tarantool.org \
--cc=kostja@tarantool.org \
--cc=kshcherbatov@tarantool.org \
--cc=tarantool-patches@freelists.org \
--subject='[tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] box: extend ffi error object API' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox