[Commented On] D9167: errors: introduce UserError and use it from commands and cmdutil

martinvonz (Martin von Zweigbergk) phabricator at mercurial-scm.org
Wed Oct 7 15:12:26 UTC 2020


martinvonz added a comment.


  In D9167#137680 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9167#137680>, @pulkit wrote:
  
  > The plan page mentions `InputError` instead of `UserError` which I think is more fine-grained and better suited in some cases.
  
  I felt like `InputError` made it sounds like it was specifically for errors in input when `hg` was asking for input, not including inputs given on the command line. I'm fine with using the proposed `InputError`, though. I'll wait a bit to hear other people's opinions first.
  
  > Reading the relevant email thread titled `Proposal for cleaning up error reporting`, it seems that we have not finalized these names.
  
  Sorry, I clearly should have reviewed that thread first. I thought the thread ended with Augie's message about forcing opinions from non-Googlers by sending a patch. I also remember saying that I was skeptical about changing error statuses. Apparently both those memories were incorrect :) However, the thread I reviewed just now doesn't seem to talk about the names at all. Were there several threads?

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9167/new/

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9167

To: martinvonz, #hg-reviewers
Cc: pulkit, mercurial-patches
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-patches/attachments/20201007/86d7a505/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Mercurial-patches mailing list