←back to thread

257 points pmig | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bryancoxwell ◴[] No.43096481[source]
> But there are obviously work around solutions in the Go ecosystem. It uses the Context ctx, which we pass around functions in order to juggle data around in the application.

Man. This works. The context API allows/enables it. But I’d really recommend against passing data to functions via context. The biggest selling point of Go to me is that I can usually just look at anyone’s code and know what it’s doing, but this breaks down when data is hidden inside a context. Dependency injection is entirely possible without using the context package at all, interfaces are great for it.

replies(8): >>43096604 #>>43096796 #>>43096956 #>>43097757 #>>43098179 #>>43098205 #>>43099616 #>>43099625 #
MrDarcy ◴[] No.43096604[source]
I hit this point in tfa and had the same comment. Please don’t pass things around in a Comtext. Maybe stash a slog logger in there, but that’s about it.

I made the switch to Go a few years ago. For those who are on a similar journey as the author, or the author himself, I suggest spending time with the Go standard library and tools written by Rob Pike and Russ Cox to get a handle on idiomatic Go.

It’s clear the author still thinks in Java, not go. Saying Context ctx for example instead of ctx context.Context. Also DI, which is arguably not necessary at all in Go given how elegantly interfaces work.

I spent quite a lot of time using wire for DI in go only to really study the code it was generating and realizing it truly is code I would normally just write myself.

Edit:

Regarding stack traces, it turns out you don’t need them. I strongly suggest a top level error handler in Go combined with a custom error struct that records the file and line the error was first seen in your code. Then wrap the error as many times as you want to annotate additional lines as the error is handled up to the top level, but only that first point in our own code is what actually matters nearly all of the time.

replies(14): >>43096842 #>>43098162 #>>43098528 #>>43099235 #>>43099768 #>>43099821 #>>43100046 #>>43100754 #>>43100817 #>>43101015 #>>43101030 #>>43101721 #>>43101893 #>>43103377 #
1. Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.43101721[source]
> Then wrap the error as many times as you want to annotate additional lines as the error is handled up to the top level

I'd add that this is a last resort; errors should be handled and resolved as close to where they occur as possible. Having them bubble up to a central error handler implies you don't really want to do anything with it.

replies(1): >>43102360 #
2. gf000 ◴[] No.43102360[source]
I would argue that in the majority of the cases that's the only reasonable behavior. I do agree that errors should be handled as close as possible to where they occured, but not any closer -- e.g. there is not much you can do within a library's functions if an unexpected error occured inside. It should be handled at whatever business code happens to call it. And in the worst case, they should bubble up to a central handler, that either outputs an 500 error, or an error dialog.

Exceptions pretty much make this the sane/default behavior, with rust-like ADTs with syntax sugar being close.