[bug#49671] [PATCH] guix: records: Improve error reporting.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> skribis:

> Here are the cases that are handled and the associated message:
>
> (operating-system
>   services)
> guix system: error: services: invalid field specifier. The format of a
> field is `(services value)'
>
> (operating-system
>   (services))
> test.scm:2:2: error: (services): Value missing in field specifier. The
> format of a field is `(services value)'.
>
> (operating-system
>   (services 1 2 3))
> test.scm:2:2: error: (services 1 2 3): multiple values in field
> specifier. Got 3 values associated with key services. Values are:
> 1
> 2
> 3
>
> (operating-system
>   ())
> guix system: error: (): invalid field specifier. The format of a field
> is `(field value)'
>
> (operating-system
>   ((services %desktop-services)))
> test.scm:2:2: error: ((services %desktop-services)): invalid field
> specifier. (services %desktop-services) is not a valid field name.
>
>
> Of course, we can improve these error messages, and internationalize
> them.

I like the idea!

I would prefer for error messages to be plain errors, without hints, so:

  test.scm:2:2: error: (services 1 2 3): multiple values in field specifier

(Not a sentence, no period.)

But I’d also like to have hints, and ideally all hints should be
reported consistently, via ‘&fix-hint’ or similar.

Thankfully, we can do that via (guix diagnostics) + SRFI-35/34:

  (raise (condition
           (&syntax (form 'x) (subform 'y))
           (&fix-hint (hint "Consider fixing this."))))

‘call-with-error-handling’ in (guix ui) might need to be adjusted.

The only downside is that (guix records) would now depend on another
Guix modules, which I tried to avoid so far so it could be more easily
reused elsewhere.  But that’s the price to pay to get consistent error
reports, and I think it’s okay.

Note that ‘tests/guix-system.sh’ and a couple of other files test exact
error reports, so we’ll have to make sure it still works and possibly
augment the tests.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.