-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 118
Replace some of the unwrap() calls #308
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
Vinegret43
wants to merge
5
commits into
softprops:master
Choose a base branch
from
Vinegret43:master
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ffe7a9a
Replace some of the unwrap() calls
Vinegret43 1311ce2
Remove an unnecessary TODO
Vinegret43 c7f964d
Add ability to return source of 2 Error variants
Vinegret43 f1e58cc
Change error messages for 2 new Error variants
Vinegret43 f681d70
Delete Mime error type
Vinegret43 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of the generic Ssl error, we could map to a variant
Error::InvalidCertificate
. That would give us something meaningful to say in ourDisplay
impl without having to print the inner error.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SSL error can be returned not just here, it will be generated, for example in docker.rs at line 54:
let mut connector = SslConnector::builder(SslMethod::tls())?;
, and on line 59:connector.set_private_key_file(&Path::new(key), SslFiletype::PEM)?;
(And there are more). So we can't really guarantee that all of these errors will be caused by an invalid certificate, and in my opinion, it's better to make just a general SSL error, containing an inner errorThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, we would need more than one variant, not just
InvalidCertificate
but alsoInvalidPrivateKey
etc.Which is why I said "feel free to ignore if you think it becomes too verbose" :)
A general Ssl error is certainly more concise but the error messages will be less helpful because it is not as clear where the error originated.