Re: RFC: error codes on exit

From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: May 21, 2021, 01:33 UTC
Message-ID: <YKcOA7iVstB7LtZH@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <795fd316-2bb5-e382-b104-85d1aaa09a1c@jeffhostetler.com>

On 2021-05-20 at 15:09:44, Jeff Hostetler wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> For the error event that `error()` and `die()` and friends generate,
> I emit both the fully formatted error message and the format string.
> 
> The latter, if used as a dictionary key, would let you group like
> events from different processes without worrying about the filename
> or blob id or remote name or etc. in any one particular instance.
> 
> Would that be sufficient as an error classification and something
> that you can key off of in your post-processing ?

I don't think that's going to be sufficient. Many calls to die() contain a translated string. I am a native Anglophone and work in a company where English is the sole language of communication, but I have my computer configured in French, and I have had it configured in Spanish as well.

It's totally possible that one of my colleagues who has a non-English native language might be using a different language as well, so it would be difficult to reliably map the format string into a fixed error case in a typical corporate setting, since many languages might be in use.

> Granted the same format message might be used in multiple places in
> the source, but I also provide the source filename and line number.

The source filename and line number would be more helpful, but inconveniently, people frequently change the code of Git, so the line numbers aren't always stable over time. So I think an error code would be helpful nevertheless.

-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US