Un enfoque práctico hacia la gestión de errores

class: middle

#A Practical Approach to Error Handling

---

#Introduction

- Errors can happen everywhere
- Want reliable program
- No time to write error handling

What do we do?

---

#Options for Error Handling

```cpp
file f("file.txt");
```

What happens if the file does not exist?

--- return value
```cpp
file f;
bool bOk=f.open("file.txt");
if( !bOk ) {...}
```
  * not for ctor
--- out parameter
```cpp
bool bOk;
file f("text.txt",bOk);
if( !bOk ) {...}
```

* both clutter code with checks
  * user can forget to check
  
---
#Options for Error Handling: Status Flag, Monad

- status: bad flag on first failure

* single control path
  * good if checking at the very end is good enough
	  * writing a file - ok
      * reading a file - maybe not
      * otherwise like out parameter

* default for C++ iostreams
--- monad
  * goal: same code path for success and error case
  * like `std::variant<result, error>` + utilities
  * P0323R7 `std::expected`
  
---
#Options for Error Handling: Exception

- exception

* Catch exception objects always by reference
	  * Slicing
      * Copying of exception may throw -> `std::terminate`

```cpp
struct A {...};
struct B : A {...};

try {
	throw B();
} catch( A a ) { // B gets sliced and copied into a
	...
	throw; // throws original B
};
```

---

#Options for Error Handling: Exception (2)

- work like multi-level return/goto
- add invisible code paths
  * one reason some code bases do not allow exceptions

```cpp
auto inc(int i)->int { // throw(char const*)
	if(3==i) throw "Hello";
	return i+1;
}

auto main()->int {
	try {
		int n=3;
		inc(n); // throw(char const*)
		n=42;
	} catch( char const* psz ) {
		std::cout << psz;
	}
	return 0;
}
```

---

#Options for Error Handling: Exception (2)

- work like multi-level return/goto
- add invisible code paths
  * one reason some code bases do not allow exceptions

```cpp
auto inc(int i)->int { // throw(char const*)
*   if(3==i) throw "Hello";
	return i+1;
}

auto main()->int {
	try {
		int n=3;
*       inc(n); // throw(char const*)
		n=42;
	} catch( char const* psz ) {
		std::cout << psz;
	}
	return 0;
}
```

---

#Options for Error Handling: Exception (3)

```cpp
auto inc(int i, char const* & pszException )->int {
	{
		if(3==i) {
			pszException="Hello";
*           goto exception;
		}
		return i+1;
	}
exception:
	return 0;
}
```

---

#Options for Error Handling: Exception (4)

```cpp
auto main()->int {
	char const* pszException=nullptr;
	{
		int n=3;
		inc(n,pszException);
*       if( pszException ) goto exception;
		n=42;
		return 0;
	}
exception:
	{
		std::cout << pszException;
		return 0;
	}
}
```

Stop whining! Of course must write exception-safe code!

---

#Exception Safety Guarantees
(not really exception-specific)

Part of function interface

- Never Fails

--- Strong Exception Guarantee:
    * may fail (throw), but will restore program state to what it was before: transactional
	   * possible and desirable in library functions
	   * very hard in application code
			* usually too many state changes

--
			
- Basic Exception Guarantee:
	* may fail (throw), but will restore program to some valid state
		
---

#Basic Exception Safety Guarantee

Customer: "Hello, is this Microsoft Word support?
  I was writing a book. Suddenly, Word deleted
  everything."

Microsoft: "Oh, that's ok. Word only provides a basic
  exception guarantee."

Customer: "Oh, alright then, thank you very much and
  have a good day!"

---

#The Challenge

- Error handling is a lot of effort
  * in development
       * must be paranoid
	   * create a lot of extra code
  * in testing
       * many codepaths to test
	   * if you don't test them, they won't work
--- Little customer gain
--- So what do we do?

---

#So what do we do?

- Check everything
  * check every API call
       * one wrapper per error reporting method
	     * Windows: `GetLastError()`, `HRESULT`
		 * Unix: `errno`
  * `assert` aggressively
       * asserts stay in Release 
  * `noexcept` if caller does not handle exception
       * `std::terminate`, but unexpected exceptions will terminate anyway
	   * install handler with `std::set_terminate` for checking
--- Assume everything works
--- Goal:
  * keep set of code paths small
  * keep set of program states small

---

#If checks fail
- prio 1: collect as much information as possible
  * client: send core dump home
  * server: halt thread and notify operator
--- prio 2: carry on somehow
  * if check was critical, program behavior now undefined: no further reports
  * never terminate!
      * asserts can be wrong, too!
  * if you need safety (nuclear powerplant, etc.), add at higher level
      * example: server stops processing request categories with too many pending requests

---

#Next: Homework

- Reproduce the error in the lab

- Add handling code only for errors that are reproducible
    * Otherwise you write
	    * error handlers that are never used
        * error handlers that are never tested, do the wrong thing

5% of handlers handle 95% of errors

---

#Categories of errors

```
immediate crash likely?      yes-->  Level 6
ex: imminent                         
    nullptr                          Client:
    access                           - error dialog
no                                     (false alarm unlikely,
|                                      increase chance of getting more info)  
|                                      
|                                      
|																	 			 
v                                    and

program behavior             no--->  Level 5
well-defined?                        
ex: assert failed                    Client:
                                     - disable future reports
yes                                    (future behavior is ill-defined)  
|                                      
|                                    Server:
|                                    - infinite loop
|                                      (wait for debugger)
|
v                                    and

```
---
```
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BORDER TO UNDEFINED BEHAVIOR LAND
vvv Programmer may have expectations of how program behaves vvv	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
situation has been           no--->  Level 4
tested?                              
ex: condition found                  Client or Server:
    that has never been              - send report
    reproduced                       
yes                                  Debug Build:
|                                    - error dialog (repro found!)
|
v                                    and

user experience is good      no--->  Level 3
ex: 3rd party                        
    bug we did                       Client or Server:
    not completely                   - log (explains behavior if we get complaints)  
    work around                        
yes                                    
|                                      
|                                      
|
v                                    and
```

---

```
situation may be indication  yes-->  Level 2
of broken program                    
environment                          Client during remote support session:
                                     - error dialog (get attention of support eng)
no                                   
|                                      
|                                      
|
v                                    and

situation occurs             no--->  Level 1
in every run/code path               
                                     Client during remote support session:
yes                                  - or -
|                                    Debug:
|                                    - log (analyze to learn about path to failure)
|                                      
v                                      
                                       
All good                               
```

---

#Error Analysis
- Reports with core dumps sent to server
  * automatically
  * if user opted out, user can send prepared email
--- Error database
  * core dumps opened in debugger
  * errors automatically categorized by file/line
  * details and core dump accessible to devs
--- Devs can mark errors as fixed
  * trigger automatic update
  * or send automatic email - magic!

---

#C++20 Contracts

- `assert` on steroids
- declarative function pre- and postconditions

```cpp
void push(int x, queue& q)
[[expects: !q.full()]]
[[ensures: !q.empty()]]
{
...
[[assert: q.is_valid()]]
...
}
```

---

#Contract Levels and Build Levels

```cpp
[[assert axiom: ...]]
[[assert audit: ...]]
[[assert default: ...]]
```

- programmer can categorize assertions by cost of checking
  * `axiom`: never checked, for documentation
  * `audit`: checked at build level `audit`
  * `default`: checked at build levels `default` and `audit`
  
- build level set at by compiler, not by program

---
#Violation Handler

- when contract violated, handler is invoked

```cpp
struct contract_violation {
  uint_least_32 line_number() const noexcept;
  string_view file_name() const noexcept;
  string_view function_name() const noexcept;
  string_view comment() const noexcept;
  string_view assertion_level() const noexcept;Critic
};

void handler(contract_violation const&);
```

- may throw exception or return
- BUT: compiler "violation continuation mode" determines if
  * program actually continues or
  * `std::terminate`

---

#Contracts Critique

- not enough information collected
  * highest priority when assert violated!
--- single critical level
  * must distinguish assertions and API calls
--- no control by programmer if program continues
  * definitely do not want to terminate on all assertions
--- still work in progress
  * Berne and Lakos, Contracts That Work

---
#THANK YOU!

for attending.

And yes, we are recruiting:

`hr@think-cell.com`

![](banner.jpg)

---

#A Very Special Class of Errors

```cpp
std::int32_t a=2 000 000 000;
std::int32_t b=a+a;
```

What is `b`?

Uuh, may overflow.
- Let's check for it!
```cpp
if( b<a ) {
	... treat overflow ...
}
```

Ok?

---

#Undefined Behavior (UB)

Example: int arithmetic overflow

If program contains undefined behavior, compiler
can do anything _with the whole program_!

- In particular, compiler may assume that UB never happens

```cpp
int i=...;
int j=i;
++i;
// code for overflow may be thrown out by compiler!
// if( i<j ) {
//		... treat overflow ...
// }
```

- This is not just theory, it happens _in practice_!
- `unsigned` types are different: modulo arithmetic