«

Errors as Part of Interface

I was writing this code the other day. It’s a very small program – a POP3 client that downloads messages. And I just couldn’t come up with an easy and consistent way to report errors. I wanted something lightweight, but what actually makes sense. I was looking through some code hoping, that someone else has a good strategy I could rip. From what I saw, the most common is none whatsoever. Well, I didn’t like that one bit …

But worry no longer! Steve McConnell came to aid a coder in distress once again. I looked into my new copy of Code Complete and here’s what I found:

Throw exceptions at the right level of abstraction.

This statement has a very interesting point. The errors that can occur in your code, regardless of whether it’s a exception thrown or a status code returned, should be at the same level of abstraction of the unit, class or even routine that they happen in. For example if function called downloadAndPrintReport() exits with MALLOC_FAILED . You see, this just isn’t right. The malloc failure is the cause of the problem, it’s not the problem itself and you (or the user) cannot react appropriately. I mean, which malloc() call failed? Does it mean the report wasn’t even downloaded or it was but wasn’t printed? What the hell is malloc anyway? User doesn’t know!

Conclusion

Your error reports should be informative and useful to the receiver (which can be either a user or some parent code that deals with the error). By sticking to the current abstraction, your chances of delivering a good report rapidly grow. When downloadAndPrintReport() returns with UNABLE_TO_DOWNLOAD_REPORT , you can try to reopen the connection and try again later. In case of UNABLE_TO_PRINT_REPORT you can store it somewhere in a file instead of printing it.