generated from amazon-archives/__template_Apache-2.0
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
add source locations to evaluation errors #582
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems error-prone to me. Maybe create an issue to fix it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Happy to create an issue, curious what you find to be error-prone about this?
Are you concerned that the source location in this field might disagree with the source location embedded in
error_kind
? If it makes you feel better, the vast majority of theEvaluationErrorKind
s do not have a source loc field -- the only cases that do have a source loc areInvalidRestrictedExpression
andNonValue
, and those just because they store anExpr
as part of the error. We could make an issue to remove these somehow, so thaterror_kind
never contains a source loc; is that what you're suggesting?Going the other way -- having all the source locs in
error_kind
so that we never need this field -- is backwards; we established recently that we prefer the convention to use the*Kind
pattern to have a single place the source loc field is defined, rather than adding a source loc field in N places, once for each enum variant. The struct here conforms to that practice.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, it's just a general concern about "code smell," not anything concrete. Even if we always remember to keep them in sync, I'd worry about that complexity hiding other bugs. E.g., I think the bug we had where it was possible to add a link and a template with colliding names wouldn't have happened if we didn't have duplicate information in our lists of policies+templates and links+templates. Even though it wasn't caused by forgetting to keep data in sync, the added complexity (e.g., rolling back changes to one representation if modifying the other failed) distracts code reviewers from the obvious "you forgot to check that no link with this ID exists."