pmjoe

pmjoe

In a with case, with many operations, how can i individually handle errors?

Showing Posts 1 to 10

NobbZ

NobbZ

Match on the reason. If though all of them simply return the same reason, you can only wrap your stuff in extra tuples, eg (but untested as on mobile):

with {:fetch_data, {:ok, data}} <- {:fetch_data, fetch_data(stuff)} do
  data
else
  {:fetch_data, :error} -> {:error, :fetch_data_failed}
end
pmjoe

pmjoe OP

Damm, i was thinking in this exactly solution, but it just seems so verbose. Take this example:

with {:parse_limit, {:ok, limit}} <- {:parse_limit, parse_limit(request)},
     {:parse_offset, {:ok, offset}} <- {:parse_offset, parse_offset(request)},
     {:parse_filters, {:ok, filters}} <- {:parse_filters, parse_filters(request)} do
      # send the content back to user
else
  {:parse_limit, :error} -> ...
  {:parse_offset, :error} -> ...
  {:parse_filters, :error} -> ...
end

It’s seems very verbose, and other thing, how can i handle the middle pre values? Imagine that the error happens on parse_filters, from the parse_filters error, how can i access the limit and offset?

NobbZ

NobbZ

By adding them to the tuple.

josevalim

josevalim

Creator of Elixir

I would suggest for you change each individual parse_ function to already return the error in the format you desire. Your code should look like this:

with {:ok, limit} <- parse_limit(request),
     {:ok, offset} <- parse_offset(request, offset),
     {:ok, filters} <- parse_filters(request, limit, offset) do
  # send the content back
else
  {:error, message} -> # send error message back to the user
end

If each parse function already returns the error in the format desired, it gets much simpler, as you no longer need to tag everything just to untag it right after.

pmjoe

pmjoe OP

But the thing is, maybe, each error can have a individual treatment. Parsing limit, offset and filters, always will return a 4XX HTTP error to the client, as the request is invalid. A repository error, on the other side, will return a 5XX.

In this case, the only way is to tag the errors like @NobbZ was talking about, right?

peerreynders

peerreynders

Scott Wlaschin: Use Functions!

...
  with {:ok, limit} <- parse_limit(request),
       {:ok, offset} <- parse_offset(request, limit),
       {:ok, filters} <- parse_filters(request, limit, offset) do
     # send the content back
  else
    error -> handle_parse_error(error)
  end
end

def handle_parse_error({:error, {:parse_limit, message}}) do
  # handle parse_limit error
  ...
end
def handle_parse_error({:error, {:parse_offset, message, limit}}) do
  # handle parse_offset error
  ...
end
def handle_parse_error({:error, {:parse_filters, message, limit, offset}}) do
  # handle parse_filters error
  ...
end

12
Post #6
pmjoe

pmjoe OP

Yep, this is it, you nailed it. I’m still grasping with Elixir, but this looks very good.

ConnorRigby

ConnorRigby

Nerves Core Team

A+ for that talk link

mischov

mischov

A further step you can take is to create an error struct, which might implement the Exception behavior.

One big benefit of using structs over tuples for the error is you can add or remove data from a struct easier than you can a tuple (it won’t change the shape for pattern matching).

I generally tend towards creating a generic struct type for my app that looks like:

%YourApp.Error{type: :x, reason: :y, data: %{...}}

Using this, I would create instances of the error struct when parsing and @peerreynders’s handle error function might then look like this:

def handle_parse_error({:error, %YourApp.Error{type: :parse_limit} = error}) do
  do_some_thing_with(error.data.message)
end

def handle_parse_error({:error, %YourApp.Error{type: :parse_offset} = error}) do
  do_something_with(error.data.message, error.data.offset)
end

A further refinement I’ve been working on, particularly for Phoenix apps, is to limit the number of types for those generic errors. For example, the parse errors might be:

%YourApp.Error{
  type: :invalid_input,
  reason: :could_not_parse_limit,
  data: %{message: "..."}
}

%YourApp.Error{
  type: :invalid_input,
  reason: :could_not_parse_offset,
  data: %{message: "...", limit: ...}
}

%YourApp.Error{
  type: :invalid_input,
  reason: :could_not_parse_filters,
  data: %{message: "...", offset: ..., limit: ...}
}

Then you can define handlers for these generic errors in a action_fallback controller, in this case to render a 400 response for :invalid_input errors. Then your with clause in a controller just looks like:

with {:ok, limit} <- parse_limit(request),
     {:ok, offset} <- parse_offset(request, limit),
     {:ok, filters} <- parse_filters(request, limit, offset) do
  # send the content back
end # No need to handle errors, let them fall through and the action_fallback will render
peerreynders

peerreynders

If it is decoupling you’re after, the reason in {:error, reason} should be entirely opaque to the client of the module (which issued the error) - i.e.:

  • only the module that issued the error tuple should know the actual structure of reason
  • and the module should offer functions that allow the client to intelligently interrogate the relevant aspects of reason. For example:
MyModule.error_message(reason)

could retrieve the core message of the error regardless whether reason is just a plain string or whether it needs to be assembled from various labyrinthically nested maps that are part of reason.

Similarly the module can offer higher level assessments like MyModule.error_timeout?(reason) or MyModule.error_temporary?(reason) while remaining in complete control of the actual structure and content of the reason information - never disclosing any details to the client other than through the module’s reason interrogation functions.

Where Next? Top

Trending in Questions Top

RSP87
I’m working on a project that simulates the bumbl example in the programming phoenix book. It acts almost like an email client. We have a...
New
nseaSeb
Hello, I know there is an approach for handling lists that allows for optimized traversal, but I can’t recall the specific method (somet...
New
kpanic
Hi everyone, I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding. I sta...
New
brecabral
Documentation While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
velrest
So my question is quite simple and i have found no conclusive answer on forum, google or AI. Should we use :erlang.float for Integer to ...
New
asweet-confluent
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
apz
I’m new to elixir and just tried to install the elixirLS extension for VScode(ium) and it is throwing some errors that I would like help ...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

GenericJam
Edit: 2026 May 15 - This post is archived. Mob is alive!! Main docs: mob v0.7.11 — Documentation A bit of explanation for the slightly c...
New
JesseHerrick
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
mudasobwa
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM. Welcome Cure. It has literally three kille...
New
marciok
Hi there! We created Gust: A task orchestrator inspired by Airflow. For those who have never heard about Aiflow, it’s a Python-based wor...
New
mhanberg
Hi everyone! The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available! We’ve published a press release detai...
New
georgeguimaraes
Just published claude-code-elixir, a plugin marketplace for Claude Code with Elixir support. These are the plugins I’ve been using for my...
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement

Options

Thread Display Mode




Thread Preview

Skip Thread Previews