See a typo? Have a suggestion? Edit this page on Github

Better exception messages

Let's write a really silly, highly inefficient (my favorite kind!) program that connects to multiple HTTP servers and sends a very simple request. Using the network package, this is really straightforward:

#!/usr/bin/env stack -- stack --install-ghc --resolver lts-8.0 runghc --package network -- -Wall -Werror import Control.Monad (forM, forM_) import Network (PortID (PortNumber), PortNumber, connectTo) import System.IO (hClose, hPutStrLn) dests :: [(String, PortNumber)] dests = [ ("localhost", 80) , ("localhost", 8080) , ("10.0.0.138", 80) ] main :: IO () main = do handles <- forM dests $ \(host, port) -> connectTo host (PortNumber port) forM_ handles $ \h -> hPutStrLn h "GET / HTTP/1.1\r

\r

" forM_ handles hClose

We have our destinations. We open a connection to each of them, send our data, and then close the connection. You may have plenty of objections to how I've written this: we shouldn't be using String , shouldn't we flush the Handle , etc. Just ignore that for now. I'm going to run this on my local system, and get the following output:

$ ./foo.hs foo.hs: connect: does not exist (Connection refused)

Riddle me this: which of the destinations above did the connection fail for? Answer: without changing our program, we have no idea. And that's the point of this blog post: all too often in the Haskell world, we get error messages from a program without nearly enough information to debug it. Prelude.undefined , Prelude.read: no parse , and Prelude.head: empty list are all infamous examples where a nice stack trace would save lots of pain. I'm talking about something slightly different.

When you throw an exception in your code, whether it be via throwIO , returning Left , using fail , or using error , please give us some context. During development, it's a pain to have to dive into the code, add some trace statements, figure out what the actual problem is, and then remove the trace statements. When running in production, that extra information can be the difference between a two-minutes operations level fix (like opening a port in the firewall) versus a multi-hour debugging excursion.

Concretely, here's an example of how I'd recommend collecting more information from connectTo :

#!/usr/bin/env stack -- stack --install-ghc --resolver lts-5.10 runghc --package network -- -Wall -Werror {-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-} import Control.Exception (Exception, IOException, catch, throwIO) import Control.Monad (forM, forM_) import Data.Typeable (Typeable) import Network (HostName, PortID (PortNumber), PortNumber, connectTo) import System.IO (Handle, hClose, hPutStrLn) data ConnectException = ConnectException HostName PortID IOException deriving (Show, Typeable) instance Exception ConnectException connectTo' :: HostName -> PortID -> IO Handle connectTo' host port = connectTo host port `catch` \e -> throwIO (ConnectException host port e) dests :: [(String, PortNumber)] dests = [ ("localhost", 80) , ("localhost", 8080) , ("10.0.0.138", 80) ] main :: IO () main = do handles <- forM dests $ \(host, port) -> connectTo' host (PortNumber port) forM_ handles $ \h -> hPutStrLn h "GET / HTTP/1.1\r

\r

" forM_ handles hClose

Notice how the ConnectException datatype provides plenty of information about the context that connectTo' was called from (in fact, all available information). If I run this program, the problem is immediately obvious:

$ ./bar.hs bar.hs: ConnectException "localhost" (PortNumber 80) connect: does not exist (Connection refused)

My web server isn't running locally on port 80. My ops team can now go kick the nginx/Warp process or do whatever other magic they need to do to get things running. All without bothering me at 2am :)

You may be thinking that this extra data type declaration is a lot of boilerplate overhead. While it does add some tedium, the benefit of being able to not only catch the exact exception we care about, but also easily extract the relevant context information, can pay off in completely unexpected ways in the future. I highly recommend it.

Since no Haskell blog post about exceptions is complete without it, let me cover some controversy:

I know some people absolutely hate runtime exceptions. This point is orthogonal: however you decide to report exceptions to your users ( Left , ExceptT , impure exceptions, etc), be kind to them and provide this extra context information.

, , impure exceptions, etc), be kind to them and provide this extra context information. There are some problems with the approach I gave above regarding hierarchical exceptions. I'm specifically not diving into the details of hierarchical exceptions right now, since it's a complex topic that deserves its own dedicated post.

diving into the details of hierarchical exceptions right now, since it's a complex topic that deserves its own dedicated post. Similar to the above point, it's a fair question whether you should group all exceptions together in one type with lots of data constructors for a package/module, or create lots of separate datatypes. Again, proper design of an exception type really deserves its own post. FWIW, in http-client, I elected to have an HttpException type with lots of data constructors.

Also, I left it out for brevity, but including a displayException method in your Exception instance can allow programs to display much more user-friendly error messages to end users.

While nothing I've said here is revolutionary, it's a small tweak to a library author's development style that can have a profound impact on users of the library, both at the dev level and those running the executable itself.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.