rust/book
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/book.git synced 2026-09-15 03:08:53 -04:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #942 from rust-lang/ch9-ce

Browse Source 
Ch9 after copy editing
This commit is contained in:
Steve Klabnik
2017-10-02 10:20:18 -04:00
committed by GitHub
parent 3a0e4a0522 2ff49abac4
commit 08e79609ce
6 changed files with 738 additions and 681 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

798
second-edition/nostarch/chapter09.md
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

BIN
second-edition/nostarch/odt/chapter09.docx
View File

Binary file not shown.

27
second-edition/src/ch09-00-error-handling.md
View File

@@ -2,22 +2,23 @@
Rust’s commitment to reliability extends to error handling. Errors are a fact
of life in software, so Rust has a number of features for handling situations
in which something goes wrong. In many cases, Rust will require you to
acknowledge the possibility of an error occurring and take some action before
your code will compile. This makes your program more robust by ensuring that
you won’t only discover errors after you’ve deployed your code to production.
in which something goes wrong. In many cases, Rust requires you to acknowledge
the possibility of an error occurring and take some action before your code
will compile. This requirement makes your program more robust by ensuring that
you’ll discover errors and handle them appropriately before you’ve deployed
your code to production!
Rust groups errors into two major categories: *recoverable* and *unrecoverable*
errors. Recoverable errors are situations when it’s usually reasonable to
report the problem to the user and retry the operation, like a file not being
found. Unrecoverable errors are always symptoms of bugs, like trying to access
a location beyond the end of an array.
errors. Recoverable errors are situations in which it’s reasonable to report
the problem to the user and retry the operation, like a file not found error.
Unrecoverable errors are always symptoms of bugs, like trying to access a
location beyond the end of an array.
Most languages don’t distinguish between the two kinds of errors, and handle
Most languages don’t distinguish between these two kinds of errors and handle
both in the same way using mechanisms like exceptions. Rust doesn’t have
exceptions. Instead, it has the value `Result<T, E>` for recoverable errors and
the `panic!` macro that stops execution when it encounters unrecoverable
errors. This chapter will cover calling `panic!` first, then talk about
returning `Result<T, E>` values. Finally, we’ll discuss considerations to take
into account when deciding whether to try to recover from an error or to stop
execution.
errors. This chapter covers calling `panic!` first and then talks about
returning `Result<T, E>` values. Additionally, we’ll explore considerations to
take into account when deciding whether to try to recover from an error or to
stop execution.

143
second-edition/src/ch09-01-unrecoverable-errors-with-panic.md
View File

@@ -1,30 +1,31 @@
## Unrecoverable Errors with `panic!`
Sometimes, bad things happen, and there’s nothing that you can do about it. For
these cases, Rust has the `panic!` macro. When this macro executes, your
program will print a failure message, unwind and clean up the stack, and then
quit. The most common situation this occurs in is when a bug of some kind has
been detected and it’s not clear to the programmer how to handle the error.
Sometimes, bad things happen in your code, and there’s nothing you can do about
it. In these cases, Rust has the `panic!` macro. When the `panic!` macro
executes, your program will print a failure message, unwind and clean up the
stack, and then quit. The most common situation this occurs in is when a bug of
some kind has been detected, and it’s not clear to the programmer how to handle
the error.
> ### Unwinding the Stack Versus Aborting on Panic
> ### Unwinding the Stack or Aborting in Response to a `panic!`
>
> By default, when a `panic!` occurs, the program starts
> *unwinding*, which means Rust walks back up the stack and cleans up the data
> from each function it encounters, but this walking and cleanup is a lot of
> work. The alternative is to immediately *abort*, which ends the program
> without cleaning up. Memory that the program was using will then need to be
> cleaned up by the operating system. If in your project you need to make the
> resulting binary as small as possible, you can switch from unwinding to
> aborting on panic by adding `panic = 'abort'` to the appropriate `[profile]`
> sections in your *Cargo.toml*. For example, if you want to abort on panic in
> release mode:
> By default, when a `panic!` occurs, the program starts *unwinding*, which
> means Rust walks back up the stack and cleans up the data from each function
> it encounters. But this walking back and cleanup is a lot of work. The
> alternative is to immediately *abort*, which ends the program without
> cleaning up. Memory that the program was using will then need to be cleaned
> up by the operating system. If in your project you need to make the resulting
> binary as small as possible, you can switch from unwinding to aborting on
> panic by adding `panic = 'abort'` to the appropriate `[profile]` sections in
> your *Cargo.toml* file. For example, if you want to abort on panic in release
> mode, add this:
>
> ```toml
> [profile.release]
> panic = 'abort'
> ```
Let’s try calling `panic!` with a simple program:
Let’s try calling `panic!` in a simple program:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
@@ -34,7 +35,7 @@ fn main() {
}
```
If you run it, you’ll see something like this:
When you run the program, you’ll see something like this:
```text
$ cargo run
@@ -46,23 +47,26 @@ note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
error: Process didn't exit successfully: `target/debug/panic` (exit code: 101)
```
The last three lines contain the error message caused by the call to `panic!`.
The first line shows our panic message and the place in our source code where
the panic occurred: *src/main.rs:2* indicates that it’s the second line of our
*src/main.rs* file.
The call to `panic!` causes the error message contained in the last three
lines. The first line shows our panic message and the place in our source code
where the panic occurred: *src/main.rs:2* indicates that it’s the second line
of our *src/main.rs* file.
In this case, the line indicated is part of our code, and if we go to that line
we see the `panic!` macro call. In other cases, the `panic!` call might be in
code that our code calls. The filename and line number reported by the error
message will be someone else’s code where the `panic!` macro is called, not the
line of our code that eventually led to the `panic!`. We can use the backtrace
of the functions the `panic!` call came from to figure this out.
In this case, the line indicated is part of our code, and if we go to that
line, we see the `panic!` macro call. In other cases, the `panic!` call might
be in code that our code calls. The filename and line number reported by the
error message will be someone else’s code where the `panic!` macro is called,
not the line of our code that eventually led to the `panic!` call. We can use
the backtrace of the functions the `panic!` call came from to figure out the
part of our code that is causing the problem. We’ll discuss what a backtrace is
in more detail next.
### Using a `panic!` Backtrace
Let’s look at another example to see what it’s like when a `panic!` call comes
from a library because of a bug in our code instead of from our code calling
the macro directly:
the macro directly. Listing 9-1 has some code that attempts to access an
element by index in a vector:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
@@ -74,22 +78,25 @@ fn main() {
}
```
We’re attempting to access the hundredth element of our vector, but it only has
three elements. In this situation, Rust will panic. Using `[]` is supposed to
return an element, but if you pass an invalid index, there’s no element that
Rust could return here that would be correct.
<span class="caption">Listing 9-1: Attempting to access an element beyond the
end of a vector, which will cause a `panic!`</span>
Other languages like C will attempt to give you exactly what you asked for in
Here, we’re attempting to access the hundredth element of our vector, but it
has only three elements. In this situation, Rust will panic. Using `[]` is
supposed to return an element, but if you pass an invalid index, there’s no
element that Rust could return here that would be correct.
Other languages, like C, will attempt to give you exactly what you asked for in
this situation, even though it isn’t what you want: you’ll get whatever is at
the location in memory that would correspond to that element in the vector,
even though the memory doesn’t belong to the vector. This is called a *buffer
overread*, and can lead to security vulnerabilities if an attacker can
overread* and can lead to security vulnerabilities if an attacker is able to
manipulate the index in such a way as to read data they shouldn’t be allowed to
that is stored after the array.
In order to protect your program from this sort of vulnerability, if you try to
read an element at an index that doesn’t exist, Rust will stop execution and
refuse to continue. Let’s try it and see:
To protect your program from this sort of vulnerability, if you try to read an
element at an index that doesn’t exist, Rust will stop execution and refuse to
continue. Let’s try it and see:
```text
$ cargo run
@@ -102,14 +109,21 @@ note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
error: Process didn't exit successfully: `target/debug/panic` (exit code: 101)
```
This points at a file we didn’t write, *libcollections/vec.rs*. That’s the
implementation of `Vec<T>` in the standard library. The code that gets run when
we use `[]` on our vector `v` is in *libcollections/vec.rs*, and that is where
the `panic!` is actually happening.
This error points at a file we didn’t write, *libcollections/vec.rs*. That’s
the implementation of `Vec<T>` in the standard library. The code that gets run
when we use `[]` on our vector `v` is in *libcollections/vec.rs*, and that is
where the `panic!` is actually happening.
The next note line tells us that we can set the `RUST_BACKTRACE` environment
variable to get a backtrace of exactly what happened to cause the error. Let’s
try that. Listing 9-1 shows the output:
variable to get a backtrace of exactly what happened to cause the error. A
*backtrace* is a list of all the functions that have been called to get to this
point. Backtraces in Rust work like they do in other languages: the key to
reading the backtrace is to start from the top and read until you see files you
wrote. That’s the spot where the problem originated. The lines above the lines
mentioning your files are code that your code called; the lines below are code
that called your code. These lines might include core Rust code, standard
library code, or crates that you’re using. Let’s try getting a backtrace:
Listing 9-2 shows output similar to what you’ll see:
```text
$ RUST_BACKTRACE=1 cargo run
@@ -151,29 +165,26 @@ stack backtrace:
17: 0x0 - <unknown>
```
<span class="caption">Listing 9-1: The backtrace generated by a call to
<span class="caption">Listing 9-2: The backtrace generated by a call to
`panic!` displayed when the environment variable `RUST_BACKTRACE` is set</span>
That’s a lot of output! Line 11 of the backtrace points to the line in our
project causing the problem: *src/main.rs*, line four. A backtrace is a list of
all the functions that have been called to get to this point. Backtraces in
Rust work like they do in other languages: the key to reading the backtrace is
to start from the top and read until you see files you wrote. That’s the spot
where the problem originated. The lines above the lines mentioning your files
are code that your code called; the lines below are code that called your code.
These lines might include core Rust code, standard library code, or crates that
you’re using.
That’s a lot of output! The exact output you see might be different depending
on your operating system and Rust version. In order to get backtraces with this
information, debug symbols must be enabled. Debug symbols are enabled by
default when using cargo build or cargo run without the --release flag, as we
have here.
If we don’t want our program to panic, the location pointed to by the first
line mentioning a file we wrote is where we should start investigating in order
to figure out how we got to this location with values that caused the panic. In
our example where we deliberately wrote code that would panic in order to
demonstrate how to use backtraces, the way to fix the panic is to not try to
request an element at index 100 from a vector that only contains three items.
When your code panics in the future, you’ll need to figure out for your
particular case what action the code is taking with what values that causes the
panic and what the code should do instead.
In the output in Listing 9-2, line 11 of the backtrace points to the line in
our project that’s causing the problem: *src/main.rs* in line 4. If we don’t
want our program to panic, the location pointed to by the first line mentioning
a file we wrote is where we should start investigating to figure out how we got
to this location with values that caused the panic. In Listing 9-1 where we
deliberately wrote code that would panic in order to demonstrate how to use
backtraces, the way to fix the panic is to not request an element at index 100
from a vector that only contains three items. When your code panics in the
future, you’ll need to figure out what action the code is taking with what
values that causes the panic and what the code should do instead.
We’ll come back to `panic!` and when we should and should not use these methods
later in the chapter. Next, we’ll now look at how to recover from an error with
`Result`.
We’ll come back to `panic!` and when we should and should not use `panic!` to
handle error conditions later in the chapter. Next, we’ll look at how to
recover from an error using `Result`.

267
second-edition/src/ch09-02-recoverable-errors-with-result.md
View File

@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ interpret and respond to. For example, if we try to open a file and that
operation fails because the file doesn’t exist, we might want to create the
file instead of terminating the process.
Recall from Chapter 2 the section on “[Handling Potential Failure with the
`Result` Type][handle_failure]<!-- ignore -->” that the `Result` enum is defined
Recall in Chapter 2 in the on “[Handling Potential Failure with the `Result`
Type][handle_failure]<!-- ignore -->” section that the `Result` enum is defined
as having two variants, `Ok` and `Err`, as follows:
[handle_failure]: ch02-00-guessing-game-tutorial.html#handling-potential-failure-with-the-result-type
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ enum Result<T, E> {
}
```
The `T` and `E` are generic type parameters; we’ll go into generics in more
The `T` and `E` are generic type parameters: we’ll discuss generics in more
detail in Chapter 10. What you need to know right now is that `T` represents
the type of the value that will be returned in a success case within the `Ok`
variant, and `E` represents the type of the error that will be returned in a
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ library has defined on it in many different situations where the successful
value and error value we want to return may differ.
Let’s call a function that returns a `Result` value because the function could
fail: opening a file, shown in Listing 9-2.
fail: in Listing 9-3 we try to open a file:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
@@ -41,21 +41,21 @@ fn main() {
}
```
<span class="caption">Listing 9-2: Opening a file</span>
<span class="caption">Listing 9-3: Opening a file</span>
How do we know `File::open` returns a `Result`? We could look at the standard
library API documentation, or we could ask the compiler! If we give `f` a type
annotation of some type that we know the return type of the function is *not*,
annotation of a type that we know the return type of the function is *not* and
then we try to compile the code, the compiler will tell us that the types don’t
match. The error message will then tell us what the type of `f` *is*! Let’s try
match. The error message will then tell us what the type of `f` *is*. Let’s try
it: we know that the return type of `File::open` isn’t of type `u32`, so let’s
change the `let f` statement to:
change the `let f` statement to this:
```rust,ignore
let f: u32 = File::open("hello.txt");
```
Attempting to compile now gives us:
Attempting to compile now gives us the following output:
```text
error[E0308]: mismatched types
@@ -76,9 +76,9 @@ error value is `std::io::Error`.
This return type means the call to `File::open` might succeed and return to us
a file handle that we can read from or write to. The function call also might
fail: for example, the file might not exist, or we might not have permission to
fail: for example, the file might not exist or we might not have permission to
access the file. The `File::open` function needs to have a way to tell us
whether it succeeded or failed, and at the same time give us either the file
whether it succeeded or failed and at the same time give us either the file
handle or error information. This information is exactly what the `Result` enum
conveys.
@@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ In the case where `File::open` succeeds, the value we will have in the variable
it fails, the value in `f` will be an instance of `Err` that contains more
information about the kind of error that happened.
We need to add to the code from Listing 9-2 to take different actions depending
on the value `File::open` returned. Listing 9-3 shows one way to handle the
`Result` with a basic tool: the `match` expression that we learned about in
We need to add to the code in Listing 9-3 to take different actions depending
on the value `File::open` returned. Listing 9-4 shows one way to handle the
`Result` using a basic tool: the `match` expression that we discussed in
Chapter 6.
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ fn main() {
}
```
<span class="caption">Listing 9-3: Using a `match` expression to handle the
<span class="caption">Listing 9-4: Using a `match` expression to handle the
`Result` variants we might have</span>
Note that, like the `Option` enum, the `Result` enum and its variants have been
@@ -131,19 +131,23 @@ thread 'main' panicked at 'There was a problem opening the file: Error { repr:
Os { code: 2, message: "No such file or directory" } }', src/main.rs:8
```
As usual, this output tells us exactly what has gone wrong.
### Matching on Different Errors
The code in Listing 9-3 will `panic!` no matter the reason that `File::open`
failed. What we’d really like to do instead is take different actions for
different failure reasons: if `File::open` failed because the file doesn’t
exist, we want to create the file and return the handle to the new file. If
`File::open` failed for any other reason, for example because we didn’t have
permission to open the file, we still want to `panic!` in the same way as we
did in Listing 9-3. Let’s look at Listing 9-4, which adds another arm to the
`match`:
The code in Listing 9-4 will `panic!` no matter the reason that `File::open`
failed. What we want to do instead is take different actions for different
failure reasons: if `File::open` failed because the file doesn’t exist, we want
to create the file and return the handle to the new file. If `File::open`
failed for any other reason, for example because we didn’t have permission to
open the file, we still want the code to `panic!` in the same way as it did in
Listing 9-4. Look at Listing 9-5, which adds another arm to the `match`:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
<!-- ignore this test because otherwise it creates hello.txt which causes other
tests to fail lol -->
```rust,ignore
use std::fs::File;
use std::io::ErrorKind;
@@ -174,7 +178,7 @@ fn main() {
}
```
<span class="caption">Listing 9-4: Handling different kinds of errors in
<span class="caption">Listing 9-5: Handling different kinds of errors in
different ways</span>
The type of the value that `File::open` returns inside the `Err` variant is
@@ -182,36 +186,38 @@ The type of the value that `File::open` returns inside the `Err` variant is
has a method `kind` that we can call to get an `io::ErrorKind` value.
`io::ErrorKind` is an enum provided by the standard library that has variants
representing the different kinds of errors that might result from an `io`
operation. The variant we’re interested in is `ErrorKind::NotFound`, which
indicates the file we’re trying to open doesn’t exist yet.
operation. The variant we want to use is `ErrorKind::NotFound`, which indicates
the file we’re trying to open doesn’t exist yet.
The condition `if error.kind() == ErrorKind::NotFound` is called a *match
guard*: it’s an extra condition on a `match` arm that further refines the arm’s
pattern. This condition must be true in order for that arm’s code to get run;
otherwise, the pattern matching will move on to consider the next arm in the
`match`. The `ref` in the pattern is needed so that `error` is not moved into
the guard condition but is merely referenced by it. The reason `ref` is used to
take a reference in a pattern instead of `&` will be covered in detail in
Chapter 18. In short, in the context of a pattern, `&` matches a reference and
gives us its value, but `ref` matches a value and gives us a reference to it.
pattern. This condition must be true for that arm’s code to be run; otherwise,
the pattern matching will move on to consider the next arm in the `match`. The
`ref` in the pattern is needed so `error` is not moved into the guard condition
but is merely referenced by it. The reason `ref` is used to take a reference in
a pattern instead of `&` will be covered in detail in Chapter 18. In short, in
the context of a pattern, `&` matches a reference and gives us its value, but
`ref` matches a value and gives us a reference to it.
The condition we want to check in the match guard is whether the value returned
by `error.kind()` is the `NotFound` variant of the `ErrorKind` enum. If it is,
we try to create the file with `File::create`. However, since `File::create`
could also fail, we need to add an inner `match` statement as well! When the
we try to create the file with `File::create`. However, because `File::create`
could also fail, we need to add an inner `match` statement as well. When the
file can’t be opened, a different error message will be printed. The last arm
of the outer `match` stays the same so that the program panics on any error
besides the missing file error.
of the outer `match` stays the same so the program panics on any error besides
the missing file error.
### Shortcuts for Panic on Error: `unwrap` and `expect`
Using `match` works well enough, but it can be a bit verbose and doesn’t always
communicate intent well. The `Result<T, E>` type has many helper methods
defined on it to do various things. One of those methods, called `unwrap`, is a
defined on it to do various tasks. One of those methods, called `unwrap`, is a
shortcut method that is implemented just like the `match` statement we wrote in
Listing 9-3. If the `Result` value is the `Ok` variant, `unwrap` will return
Listing 9-4. If the `Result` value is the `Ok` variant, `unwrap` will return
the value inside the `Ok`. If the `Result` is the `Err` variant, `unwrap` will
call the `panic!` macro for us.
call the `panic!` macro for us. Here is an example of `unwrap` in action:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
```rust,should_panic
use std::fs::File;
@@ -230,10 +236,12 @@ repr: Os { code: 2, message: "No such file or directory" } }',
/stable-dist-rustc/build/src/libcore/result.rs:868
```
There’s another method similar to `unwrap` that lets us also choose the
`panic!` error message: `expect`. Using `expect` instead of `unwrap` and
providing good error messages can convey your intent and make tracking down the
source of a panic easier. The syntax of `expect` looks like this:
Another method, `expect`, which is similar to `unwrap`, lets us also choose the
`panic!` error message. Using `expect` instead of `unwrap` and providing good
error messages can convey your intent and make tracking down the source of a
panic easier. The syntax of `expect` looks like this:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
```rust,should_panic
use std::fs::File;
@@ -244,8 +252,8 @@ fn main() {
```
We use `expect` in the same way as `unwrap`: to return the file handle or call
the `panic!` macro. The error message that `expect` uses in its call to
`panic!` will be the parameter that we pass to `expect` instead of the default
the `panic!` macro. The error message used by `expect` in its call to `panic!`
will be the parameter that we pass to `expect`, rather than the default
`panic!` message that `unwrap` uses. Here’s what it looks like:
```text
@@ -254,19 +262,27 @@ thread 'main' panicked at 'Failed to open hello.txt: Error { repr: Os { code:
/stable-dist-rustc/build/src/libcore/result.rs:868
```
Because this error message starts with the text we specified, `Failed to open
hello.txt`, it will be easier to find where in the code this error message is
coming from. If we use `unwrap` in multiple places, it can take more time to
figure out exactly which `unwrap` is causing the panic because all `unwrap`
calls that panic print the same message.
### Propagating Errors
When writing a function whose implementation calls something that might fail,
instead of handling the error within this function, you can choose to let your
caller know about the error so they can decide what to do. This is known as
*propagating* the error, and gives more control to the calling code where there
When you’re writing a function whose implementation calls something that might
fail, instead of handling the error within this function, you can return the
error to the calling code so that it can decide what to do. This is known as
*propagating* the error and gives more control to the calling code where there
might be more information or logic that dictates how the error should be
handled than what you have available in the context of your code.
For example, Listing 9-5 shows a function that reads a username from a file. If
For example, Listing 9-6 shows a function that reads a username from a file. If
the file doesn’t exist or can’t be read, this function will return those errors
to the code that called this function:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
```rust
use std::io;
use std::io::Read;
@@ -289,59 +305,61 @@ fn read_username_from_file() -> Result<String, io::Error> {
}
```
<span class="caption">Listing 9-5: A function that returns errors to the
<span class="caption">Listing 9-6: A function that returns errors to the
calling code using `match`</span>
Let’s look at the return type of the function first: `Result<String,
io::Error>`. This means that the function is returning a value of the type
io::Error>`. This means the function is returning a value of the type
`Result<T, E>` where the generic parameter `T` has been filled in with the
concrete type `String`, and the generic type `E` has been filled in with the
concrete type `io::Error`. If this function succeeds without any problems, the
caller of this function will receive an `Ok` value that holds a `String` — the
username that this function read from the file. If this function encounters any
problems, the caller of this function will receive an `Err` value that holds an
instance of `io::Error` that contains more information about what the problems
were. We chose `io::Error` as the return type of this function because that
happens to be the type of the error value returned from both of the operations
we’re calling in this function’s body that might fail: the `File::open`
function and the `read_to_string` method.
code that calls this function will receive an `Ok` value that holds a
`String`—the username that this function read from the file. If this function
encounters any problems, the code that calls this function will receive an
`Err` value that holds an instance of `io::Error` that contains more
information about what the problems were. We chose `io::Error` as the return
type of this function because that happens to be the type of the error value
returned from both of the operations we’re calling in this function’s body that
might fail: the `File::open` function and the `read_to_string` method.
The body of the function starts by calling the `File::open` function. Then we
handle the `Result` value returned with a `match` similar to the `match` in
Listing 9-3, only instead of calling `panic!` in the `Err` case, we return
Listing 9-4, only instead of calling `panic!` in the `Err` case, we return
early from this function and pass the error value from `File::open` back to the
caller as this function’s error value. If `File::open` succeeds, we store the
file handle in the variable `f` and continue.
calling code as this function’s error value. If `File::open` succeeds, we store
the file handle in the variable `f` and continue.
Then we create a new `String` in variable `s` and call the `read_to_string`
method on the file handle in `f` in order to read the contents of the file into
`s`. The `read_to_string` method also returns a `Result` because it might fail,
even though `File::open` succeeded. So we need another `match` to handle that
method on the file handle in `f` to read the contents of the file into `s`. The
`read_to_string` method also returns a `Result` because it might fail, even
though `File::open` succeeded. So we need another `match` to handle that
`Result`: if `read_to_string` succeeds, then our function has succeeded, and we
return the username from the file that’s now in `s` wrapped in an `Ok`. If
`read_to_string` fails, we return the error value in the same way that we
returned the error value in the `match` that handled the return value of
`File::open`. We don’t need to explicitly say `return`, however, since this is
the last expression in the function.
`File::open`. However, we don’t need to explicitly say `return`, because this
is the last expression in the function.
The code that calls this code will then handle getting either an `Ok` value
that contains a username or an `Err` value that contains an `io::Error`. We
don’t know what the caller will do with those values. If they get an `Err`
value, they could choose to call `panic!` and crash their program, use a
don’t know what the calling code will do with those values. If the calling code
gets an `Err` value, it could call `panic!` and crash the program, use a
default username, or look up the username from somewhere other than a file, for
example. We don’t have enough information on what the caller is actually trying
to do, so we propagate all the success or error information upwards for them to
handle as they see fit.
example. We don’t have enough information on what the calling code is actually
trying to do, so we propagate all the success or error information upwards for
it to handle appropriately.
This pattern of propagating errors is so common in Rust that there is dedicated
syntax to make this easier: `?`.
This pattern of propagating errors is so common in Rust that Rust provides the
question mark operator `?` to make this easier.
### A Shortcut for Propagating Errors: `?`
#### A Shortcut for Propagating Errors: `?`
Listing 9-6 shows an implementation of `read_username_from_file` that has the
same functionality as it had in Listing 9-5, but this implementation uses the
Listing 9-7 shows an implementation of `read_username_from_file` that has the
same functionality as it had in Listing 9-6, but this implementation uses the
question mark operator:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
```rust
use std::io;
use std::io::Read;
@@ -355,26 +373,42 @@ fn read_username_from_file() -> Result<String, io::Error> {
}
```
<span class="caption">Listing 9-6: A function that returns errors to the
<span class="caption">Listing 9-7: A function that returns errors to the
calling code using `?`</span>
The `?` placed after a `Result` value is defined to work the exact same way as
the `match` expressions we defined to handle the `Result` values in Listing
9-5. If the value of the `Result` is an `Ok`, the value inside the `Ok` will
The `?` placed after a `Result` value is defined to work in almost the same way
as the `match` expressions we defined to handle the `Result` values in Listing
9-6. If the value of the `Result` is an `Ok`, the value inside the `Ok` will
get returned from this expression and the program will continue. If the value
is an `Err`, the value inside the `Err` will be returned from the whole
function as if we had used the `return` keyword so that the error value gets
propagated to the caller.
function as if we had used the `return` keyword so the error value gets
propagated to the calling code.
In the context of Listing 9-6, the `?` at the end of the `File::open` call will
The one difference between the `match` expression from Listing 9-6 and what the
question mark operator does is that when using the question mark operator,
error values go through the `from` function defined in the `From` trait in the
standard library. Many error types implement the `from` function to convert an
error of one type into an error of another type. When used by the question mark
operator, the call to the `from` function converts the error type that the
question mark operator gets into the error type defined in the return type of
the current function that we’re using `?` in. This is useful when parts of a
function might fail for many different reasons, but the function returns one
error type that represents all the ways the function might fail. As long as
each error type implements the `from` function to define how to convert itself
to the returned error type, the question mark operator takes care of the
conversion automatically.
In the context of Listing 9-7, the `?` at the end of the `File::open` call will
return the value inside an `Ok` to the variable `f`. If an error occurs, `?`
will return early out of the whole function and give any `Err` value to our
caller. The same thing applies to the `?` at the end of the `read_to_string`
call.
will return early out of the whole function and give any `Err` value to the
calling code. The same thing applies to the `?` at the end of the
`read_to_string` call.
The `?` eliminates a lot of boilerplate and makes this function’s
implementation simpler. We could even shorten this code further by chaining
method calls immediately after the `?`:
method calls immediately after the `?` as shown in Listing 9-8:
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
```rust
use std::io;
@@ -390,21 +424,24 @@ fn read_username_from_file() -> Result<String, io::Error> {
}
```
<span class="caption">Listing 9-8: Chaining method calls after the question
mark operator</span>
We’ve moved the creation of the new `String` in `s` to the beginning of the
function; that part hasn’t changed. Instead of creating a variable `f`, we’ve
chained the call to `read_to_string` directly onto the result of
`File::open("hello.txt")?`. We still have a `?` at the end of the
`read_to_string` call, and we still return an `Ok` value containing the
username in `s` when both `File::open` and `read_to_string` succeed rather than
returning errors. The functionality is again the same as in Listing 9-5 and
Listing 9-6, this is just a different, more ergonomic way to write it.
returning errors. The functionality is again the same as in Listing 9-6 and
Listing 9-7; this is just a different, more ergonomic way to write it.
### `?` Can Only Be Used in Functions That Return `Result`
#### `?` Can Only Be Used in Functions That Return Result
The `?` can only be used in functions that have a return type of `Result`,
since it is defined to work in exactly the same way as the `match` expression
we defined in Listing 9-5. The part of the `match` that requires a return type
of `Result` is `return Err(e)`, so the return type of the function must be a
because it is defined to work in the same way as the `match` expression we
defined in Listing 9-6. The part of the `match` that requires a return type of
`Result` is `return Err(e)`, so the return type of the function must be a
`Result` to be compatible with this `return`.
Let’s look at what happens if we use `?` in the `main` function, which you’ll
@@ -418,34 +455,28 @@ fn main() {
}
```
<!-- NOTE: as of 2016-12-21, the error message when calling `?` in a function
that doesn't return a result is STILL confusing. Since we want to only explain
`?` now, I've changed the example, but if you try running this code you WON'T
get the error message below.
I'm bugging people to try and get
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35946 fixed soon, hopefully before this
chapter gets through copy editing-- at that point I'll make sure to update this
error message. /Carol -->
When we compile this, we get the following error message:
When we compile this code, we get the following error message:
```text
error[E0308]: mismatched types
-->
error[E0277]: the `?` operator can only be used in a function that returns
`Result` (or another type that implements `std::ops::Try`)
--> src/main.rs:4:13
|
3 | let f = File::open("hello.txt")?;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected (), found enum
`std::result::Result`
4 | let f = File::open("hello.txt")?;
| ------------------------
| |
| cannot use the `?` operator in a function that returns `()`
| in this macro invocation
|
= note: expected type `()`
= note: found type `std::result::Result<_, _>`
= help: the trait `std::ops::Try` is not implemented for `()`
= note: required by `std::ops::Try::from_error`
```
This error is pointing out that we have mismatched types: the `main` function
has a return type of `()`, but the `?` might return a `Result`. In functions
that don’t return `Result`, when you call other functions that return `Result`,
you’ll need to use a `match` or one of the `Result` methods to handle it,
instead of using `?` to potentially propagate the error to the caller.
This error points out that we’re only allowed to use the question mark operator
in a function that returns `Result`. In functions that don’t return `Result`,
when you call other functions that return `Result`, you’ll need to use a
`match` or one of the `Result` methods to handle it instead of using `?` to
potentially propagate the error to the calling code.
Now that we’ve discussed the details of calling `panic!` or returning `Result`,
let’s return to the topic of how to decide which is appropriate to use in which

184
second-edition/src/ch09-03-to-panic-or-not-to-panic.md
View File

@@ -1,32 +1,31 @@
## To `panic!` or Not To `panic!`
## To `panic!` or Not to `panic!`
So how do you decide when you should `panic!` and when you should return
`Result`? When code panics, there’s no way to recover. You could choose to call
`panic!` for any error situation, whether there’s a possible way to recover or
not, but then you’re making the decision for your callers that a situation is
unrecoverable. When you choose to return a `Result` value, you give your caller
options, rather than making the decision for them. They could choose to attempt
to recover in a way that’s appropriate for their situation, or they could
decide that actually, an `Err` value in this case is unrecoverable, so they can
call `panic!` and turn your recoverable error into an unrecoverable one.
Therefore, returning `Result` is a good default choice when you’re defining a
function that might fail.
`Result`? When code panics, there’s no way to recover. You could call `panic!`
for any error situation, whether there’s a possible way to recover or not, but
then you’re making the decision on behalf of the code calling your code that a
situation is unrecoverable. When you choose to return a `Result` value, you
give the calling code options rather than making the decision for it. The
calling code could choose to attempt to recover in a way that’s appropriate for
its situation, or it could decide that an `Err` value in this case is
unrecoverable, so it can call `panic!` and turn your recoverable error into an
unrecoverable one. Therefore, returning `Result` is a good default choice when
you’re defining a function that might fail.
There are a few situations in which it’s more appropriate to write code that
panics instead of returning a `Result`, but they are less common. Let’s discuss
why it’s appropriate to panic in examples, prototype code, and tests, then
situations where you as a human can know a method won’t fail that the compiler
can’t reason about, and conclude with some general guidelines on how to decide
In a few situations it’s more appropriate to write code that panics instead of
returning a `Result`, but they are less common. Let’s explore why it’s
appropriate to panic in examples, prototype code, and tests; then in situations
where you as a human can know a method won’t fail that the compiler can’t
reason about; and conclude with some general guidelines on how to decide
whether to panic in library code.
### Examples, Prototype Code, and Tests: Perfectly Fine to Panic
### Examples, Prototype Code, and Tests Are All Places it’s Perfectly Fine to Panic
When you’re writing an example to illustrate some concept, having robust error
handling code in the example as well can make the example less clear. In
examples, it’s understood that a call to a method like `unwrap` that could
`panic!` is meant as a placeholder for the way that you’d actually like your
application to handle errors, which can differ based on what the rest of your
code is doing.
`panic!` is meant as a placeholder for the way that you’d want your application
to handle errors, which can differ based on what the rest of your code is doing.
Similarly, the `unwrap` and `expect` methods are very handy when prototyping,
before you’re ready to decide how to handle errors. They leave clear markers in
@@ -34,10 +33,10 @@ your code for when you’re ready to make your program more robust.
If a method call fails in a test, we’d want the whole test to fail, even if
that method isn’t the functionality under test. Because `panic!` is how a test
gets marked as a failure, calling `unwrap` or `expect` is exactly what makes
sense to do.
is marked as a failure, calling `unwrap` or `expect` is exactly what should
happen.
### Cases When You Have More Information Than The Compiler
### Cases When You Have More Information Than the Compiler
It would also be appropriate to call `unwrap` when you have some other logic
that ensures the `Result` will have an `Ok` value, but the logic isn’t
@@ -45,7 +44,7 @@ something the compiler understands. You’ll still have a `Result` value that yo
need to handle: whatever operation you’re calling still has the possibility of
failing in general, even though it’s logically impossible in your particular
situation. If you can ensure by manually inspecting the code that you’ll never
have an `Err` variant, it is perfectly acceptable to call `unwrap`. Here’s an
have an `Err` variant, it’s perfectly acceptable to call `unwrap`. Here’s an
example:
```rust
@@ -59,62 +58,62 @@ that `127.0.0.1` is a valid IP address, so it’s acceptable to use `unwrap`
here. However, having a hardcoded, valid string doesn’t change the return type
of the `parse` method: we still get a `Result` value, and the compiler will
still make us handle the `Result` as if the `Err` variant is still a
possibility since the compiler isn’t smart enough to see that this string is
always a valid IP address. If the IP address string came from a user instead of
being hardcoded into the program, and therefore *did* have a possibility of
failure, we’d definitely want to handle the `Result` in a more robust way
possibility because the compiler isn’t smart enough to see that this string is
always a valid IP address. If the IP address string came from a user rather
than being hardcoded into the program, and therefore *did* have a possibility
of failure, we’d definitely want to handle the `Result` in a more robust way
instead.
### Guidelines for Error Handling
It’s advisable to have your code `panic!` when it’s possible that you could end
up in a bad state—in this context, bad state is when some assumption,
guarantee, contract, or invariant has been broken, such as when invalid values,
contradictory values, or missing values are passed to your code—plus one or
more of the following:
It’s advisable to have your code `panic!` when it’s possible that your code
could end up in a bad state. In this context, bad state is when some
assumption, guarantee, contract, or invariant has been broken, such as when
invalid values, contradictory values, or missing values are passed to your
code—plus one or more of the following:
* The bad state is not something that’s *expected* to happen occasionally
* Your code after this point needs to rely on not being in this bad state
* There’s not a good way to encode this information in the types you use
* The bad state is not something that’s *expected* to happen occasionally.
* Your code after this point needs to rely on not being in this bad state.
* There’s not a good way to encode this information in the types you use.
If someone calls your code and passes in values that don’t make sense, the best
thing might be to `panic!` and alert the person using your library to the bug
in their code so that they can fix it during development. Similarly, `panic!`
is often appropriate if you’re calling external code that is out of your
control, and it returns an invalid state that you have no way of fixing.
choice might be to `panic!` and alert the person using your library to the bug
in their code so they can fix it during development. Similarly, `panic!` is
often appropriate if you’re calling external code that is out of your control,
and it returns an invalid state that you have no way of fixing.
When a bad state is reached, but it’s expected to happen no matter how well you
write your code, it’s still more appropriate to return a `Result` rather than
calling `panic!`. Examples of this include a parser being given malformed data,
or an HTTP request returning a status that indicates you have hit a rate limit.
In these cases, you should indicate that failure is an expected possibility by
returning a `Result` in order to propagate these bad states upwards so that the
caller can decide how they would like to handle the problem. To `panic!`
wouldn’t be the best way to handle these cases.
making a `panic!` call. Examples of this include a parser being given malformed
data or an HTTP request returning a status that indicates you have hit a rate
limit. In these cases, you should indicate that failure is an expected
possibility by returning a `Result` to propagate these bad states upwards so
the calling code can decide how to handle the problem. To `panic!` wouldn’t be
the best way to handle these cases.
When your code performs operations on values, your code should verify the
values are valid first, and `panic!` if the values aren’t valid. This is mostly
for safety reasons: attempting to operate on invalid data can expose your code
to vulnerabilities. This is the main reason that the standard library will
`panic!` if you attempt an out-of-bounds array access: trying to access memory
that doesn’t belong to the current data structure is a common security problem.
to vulnerabilities. This is the main reason the standard library will `panic!`
if you attempt an out-of-bounds memory access: trying to access memory that
doesn’t belong to the current data structure is a common security problem.
Functions often have *contracts*: their behavior is only guaranteed if the
inputs meet particular requirements. Panicking when the contract is violated
makes sense because a contract violation always indicates a caller-side bug,
and it is not a kind of error you want callers to have to explicitly handle. In
fact, there’s no reasonable way for calling code to recover: the calling
*programmers* need to fix the code. Contracts for a function, especially when a
violation will cause a panic, should be explained in the API documentation for
the function.
and it’s not a kind of error you want the calling code to have to explicitly
handle. In fact, there’s no reasonable way for calling code to recover: the
calling *programmers* need to fix the code. Contracts for a function,
especially when a violation will cause a panic, should be explained in the API
documentation for the function.
Having lots of error checks in all of your functions would be verbose and
annoying, though. Luckily, you can use Rust’s type system (and thus the type
checking the compiler does) to do a lot of the checks for you. If your function
However, having lots of error checks in all of your functions would be verbose
and annoying. Fortunately, you can use Rust’s type system (and thus the type
checking the compiler does) to do many of the checks for you. If your function
has a particular type as a parameter, you can proceed with your code’s logic
knowing that the compiler has already ensured you have a valid value. For
example, if you have a type rather than an `Option`, your program expects to
have *something* rather than *nothing*. Your code then doesn’t have to handle
two cases for the `Some` and `None` variants, it will only have one case for
two cases for the `Some` and `None` variants: it will only have one case for
definitely having a value. Code trying to pass nothing to your function won’t
even compile, so your function doesn’t have to check for that case at runtime.
Another example is using an unsigned integer type like `u32`, which ensures the
@@ -123,19 +122,19 @@ parameter is never negative.
### Creating Custom Types for Validation
Let’s take the idea of using Rust’s type system to ensure we have a valid value
one step further, and look at creating a custom type for validation. Recall the
guessing game in Chapter 2, where our code asked the user to guess a number
between 1 and 100. We actually never validated that the user’s guess was
between those numbers before checking it against our secret number, only that
it was positive. In this case, the consequences were not very dire: our output
of “Too high” or “Too low” would still be correct. It would be a useful
enhancement to guide the user towards valid guesses, though, and have different
behavior when a user guesses a number that’s out of range versus when a user
types, for example, letters instead.
one step further and look at creating a custom type for validation. Recall the
guessing game in Chapter 2 where our code asked the user to guess a number
between 1 and 100. We never validated that the user’s guess was between those
numbers before checking it against our secret number; we only validated that
the guess was positive. In this case, the consequences were not very dire: our
output of “Too high” or “Too low” would still be correct. It would be a useful
enhancement to guide the user toward valid guesses and have different behavior
when a user guesses a number that’s out of range versus when a user types, for
example, letters instead.
One way to do this would be to parse the guess as an `i32` instead of only a
`u32`, to allow potentially negative numbers, then add a check for the number
being in range:
`u32` to allow potentially negative numbers, and then add a check for the
number being in range, like so:
```rust,ignore
loop {
@@ -156,7 +155,7 @@ loop {
}
```
The `if` expression checks to see if our value is out of range, tells the user
The `if` expression checks whether our value is out of range, tells the user
about the problem, and calls `continue` to start the next iteration of the loop
and ask for another guess. After the `if` expression, we can proceed with the
comparisons between `guess` and the secret number knowing that `guess` is
@@ -170,7 +169,7 @@ to have a check like this in every function.
Instead, we can make a new type and put the validations in a function to create
an instance of the type rather than repeating the validations everywhere. That
way, it’s safe for functions to use the new type in their signatures and
confidently use the values they receive. Listing 9-8 shows one way to define a
confidently use the values they receive. Listing 9-9 shows one way to define a
`Guess` type that will only create an instance of `Guess` if the `new` function
receives a value between 1 and 100:
@@ -196,7 +195,7 @@ impl Guess {
}
```
<span class="caption">Listing 9-8: A `Guess` type that will only continue with
<span class="caption">Listing 9-9: A `Guess` type that will only continue with
values between 1 and 100</span>
First, we define a struct named `Guess` that has a field named `value` that
@@ -205,35 +204,35 @@ holds a `u32`. This is where the number will be stored.
Then we implement an associated function named `new` on `Guess` that creates
instances of `Guess` values. The `new` function is defined to have one
parameter named `value` of type `u32` and to return a `Guess`. The code in the
body of the `new` function tests `value` to make sure it is between 1 and 100.
If `value` doesn’t pass this test, we call `panic!`, which will alert the
programmer who is calling this code that they have a bug they need to fix,
since creating a `Guess` with a `value` outside this range would violate the
contract that `Guess::new` is relying on. The conditions in which `Guess::new`
might panic should be discussed in its public-facing API documentation; we’ll
cover documentation conventions around indicating the possibility of a `panic!`
in the API documentation that you create in Chapter 14. If `value` does pass
the test, we create a new `Guess` with its `value` field set to the `value`
parameter and return the `Guess`.
body of the `new` function tests `value` to make sure it’s between 1 and 100.
If `value` doesn’t pass this test, we make a `panic!` call, which will alert
the programmer who is writing the calling code that they have a bug they need
to fix, because creating a `Guess` with a `value` outside this range would
violate the contract that `Guess::new` is relying on. The conditions in which
`Guess::new` might panic should be discussed in its public-facing API
documentation; we’ll cover documentation conventions indicating the possibility
of a `panic!` in the API documentation that you create in Chapter 14. If
`value` does pass the test, we create a new `Guess` with its `value` field set
to the `value` parameter and return the `Guess`.
Next, we implement a method named `value` that borrows `self`, doesn’t have any
other parameters, and returns a `u32`. This is a kind of method sometimes
called a *getter*, since its purpose is to get some data from its fields and
called a *getter*, because its purpose is to get some data from its fields and
return it. This public method is necessary because the `value` field of the
`Guess` struct is private. It’s important that the `value` field is private so
that code using the `Guess` struct is not allowed to set `value` directly:
callers outside the module *must* use the `Guess::new` function to create an
instance of `Guess`, which ensures there’s no way for a `Guess` to have a
`value` that hasn’t been checked by the conditions in the `Guess::new` function.
code using the `Guess` struct is not allowed to set `value` directly: code
outside the module *must* use the `Guess::new` function to create an instance
of `Guess`, which ensures there’s no way for a `Guess` to have a `value` that
hasn’t been checked by the conditions in the `Guess::new` function.
A function that has a parameter or returns only numbers between 1 and 100 could
then declare in its signature that it takes or returns a `Guess` rather than a
`u32`, and wouldn’t need to do any additional checks in its body.
`u32` and wouldn’t need to do any additional checks in its body.
## Summary
Rust’s error handling features are designed to help you write more robust code.
The `panic!` macro signals that your program is in a state it can’t handle, and
The `panic!` macro signals that your program is in a state it can’t handle and
lets you tell the process to stop instead of trying to proceed with invalid or
incorrect values. The `Result` enum uses Rust’s type system to indicate that
operations might fail in a way that your code could recover from. You can use
@@ -241,6 +240,7 @@ operations might fail in a way that your code could recover from. You can use
success or failure as well. Using `panic!` and `Result` in the appropriate
situations will make your code more reliable in the face of inevitable problems.
Now that we’ve seen useful ways that the standard library uses generics with
the `Option` and `Result` enums, let’s talk about how generics work and how you
can make use of them in your code.
Now that you’ve seen useful ways that the standard library uses generics with
the `Option` and `Result` enums, we’ll talk about how generics work and how you
can use them in your code in the next chapter.