Trying to override a trait cast problem, described here. Stuck at implementing the trait function which returns the enum instance with own implementation inside:
//the "trait matcher" enum
enum Side<'a> {
Good(&'a GoodDude),
Bad(&'a BadDude),
}
//very general trait
trait Dude {
fn who_am_i(&self) -> Side;
fn do_useful_stuff(&self);
}
//specific trait #1
trait GoodDude: Dude {
fn who_am_i_inner(&self) -> Side {
Side::Good(&self)
}
fn save_the_world(&self);
}
//specific trait #2
trait BadDude: Dude {
fn who_am_i_inner(&self) -> Side {
Side::Bad(&self)
}
fn do_evil(&self);
}
But for some reason the compilation of this part fails with E0277:
trait GoodDude: Dude {
fn who_am_i_inner(&self) -> Side {
Side::Good(&self) //&self should be &GoodDude, but compiler says it is not...
}
fn save_the_world(&self);
}
And results in:
<anon>:16:20: 16:25 error: the trait `GoodDude` is not implemented for the type `&Self` [E0277]
<anon>:16 Side::Good(&self)
^~~~~
<anon>:16:20: 16:25 help: see the detailed explanation for E0277
<anon>:16:20: 16:25 note: required for the cast to the object type `GoodDude`
Can this be worked out?
Full sample: https://play.rust-lang.org/?gist=8ae2384e401da76c16214c4a642ce8b4&version=stable&backtrace=0
Firstly, the type of self in fn who_am_i_inner is already a reference, so you don't need to &.
fn who_am_i_inner(&self) -> Side {
Side::Good(self)
}
But then rustc complains...
<anon>:13:20: 13:24 error: the trait `core::marker::Sized` is not implemented for the type `Self` [E0277]
<anon>:13 Side::Good(self)
^~~~
<anon>:13:20: 13:24 help: see the detailed explanation for E0277
<anon>:13:20: 13:24 note: `Self` does not have a constant size known at compile-time
<anon>:13:20: 13:24 note: required for the cast to the object type `GoodDude`
Admittedly the error message is very unclear and E0277 is about something totally different. Let's try the nightly compiler instead, which gives better error messages:
error: the trait bound `Self: std::marker::Sized` is not satisfied [--explain E0277]
--> <anon>:13:20
13 |> Side::Good(self)
|> ^^^^
help: consider adding a `where Self: std::marker::Sized` bound
note: required for the cast to the object type `GoodDude`
OK let's try to add the where Self: Sized:
fn who_am_i_inner(&self) -> Side where Self: Sized {
Side::Good(self)
}
and now it works.
World saved. Press any key to continue
May the 4th be with you
Pew Pew Pew
Luke I am yr father
The where Self: Sized is Rust's way to signify that the method cannot be used from trait objects. We say the method ignored from "object-safety", or "cannot be virtual" if you like C++.
The effect is that if all you have got is luke: &GoodDude, then you cannot call luke.who_am_i_inner() since *luke has an unknown size.
The reason we need to make the method not object-safe is due to the cast &Self → &GoodDude. In Rust a trait object reference like &GoodDude is a fat pointer, internally it is represented as a 2-tuple (pointer, method_table). However, in a trait the self is a thin-pointer.
We cannot convert a thin-pointer to a fat-pointer, since there is a missing information, the method_table. This can be filled in if we knew the concrete type. That's why we add the where Self: Sized.
If you want to make who_am_i_inner object-safe, then you cannot provide a default implementation.
Related
I want to use multiple libraries that each have their own error types. I don't really care about each specific crate's error type and I want to use the ? idiom to use the methods of those crates that return a Result type.
I don't want to unwrap the values either, that would cause a panic if it hits an error. I might just want to propagate the different errors using ? to the top and perhaps choose to deal with them or ignore them if I want.
I cannot do that with a std::result::Result<T, E> because I don't know the type of error returned (like I said, each crate could return its own errors).
I am aware that in Rust there is no "object-oriented" polymorphism, but there are trait objects. Since a trait object's size cannot be known at compile time, we must hide them behind some kind of pointer like & or Box<_>.
The base trait implemented by errors seems to be std::error::Error.
One thing I've seen is the fn foo() -> Result<Blah, Box<dyn Error>> strategy, which utilizes the concept of trait objects.
The problem with this strategy is none of the crates return a boxed error, which leads to the compiler complaining about the same.
An example use-case:
use native_tls::TlsConnector; // 0.2.3
use std::io::{Read, Write};
use std::net::TcpStream;
fn main() {
match do_stuff() {
Ok(string) => {
println!("{}", string);
}
_ => {
println!("Failed!");
}
}
}
fn do_stuff() -> Result<String, Box<(dyn std::error::Error + 'static)>> {
let connector = TlsConnector::new()?;
let stream = TcpStream::connect("jsonplaceholder.typicode.com:443")?;
let mut stream = connector.connect("jsonplaceholder.typicode.com", stream)?;
stream.write_all(b"GET /todos/1 HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n")?;
let mut res = vec![];
stream.read_to_end(&mut res)?;
String::from_utf8(res)
}
playground
Is there an easy way around this problem? Can I easily abstract away all the different errors and return a Result so I can use the ? idiom?
Can you return a Result that works with any possible error type?
No, you cannot. On the surface, this cannot make sense. Generic types are chosen by the caller of the function, so how would a function create an error that was chosen by someone else, without being told how to construct it?
That said, your problem is easily solved. You said:
so I can use the ? idiom
If you do that consistently, your program compiles:
let s = String::from_utf8(res)?;
Ok(s)
You could also convert the error type directly:
String::from_utf8(res).map_err(Into::into)
none of the crates return a boxed error, which leads to the compiler complaining about the same
It does not for the 5 other cases where you've used ?, so it's unclear why you make this statement.
Specifically, Box<dyn Error> can be created from any type that implements Error:
impl<'a, E: Error + 'a> From<E> for Box<dyn Error + 'a> {
fn from(err: E) -> Box<dyn Error + 'a> {
Box::new(err)
}
}
The ? operator calls From::from for you under the hood.
See also:
What is this question mark operator about?
How to manually return a Result<(), Box<dyn Error>>?
Rust proper error handling (auto convert from one error type to another with question mark)
Say I have the following:
use std::fs::File;
impl From<i32> for Blah {
fn from(b:i32) -> Blah {
Blah {}
}
}
fn main() {}
enum MyError {
ParseError,
}
impl From<std::io::Error> for MyError {
fn from(_:std::io::Error) -> Self {
MyError::ParseError
}
}
fn get_result() -> Result<Blah, MyError> {
let mut file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
}
This compiles fine. I don't understand how.
File::create throws an std::io::error, which we're trying to wrap in a MyError. But we never explicitly call from anywhere!? How does it compile?
As the comments from this answer Rust understanding From trait indicate, you do have to explicitly call from.
So, how is the above snippet compiling?
The difference is stated in The Rust Programming Language, chapter 9, section 2, when talking about the ? operator:
Error values that have the ? operator called on them go through the from function, defined in the From trait in the standard library, which is used to convert errors from one type into another. When the ? operator calls the from function, the error type received is converted into the error type defined in the return type of the current function. This is useful when a function returns one error type to represent all the ways a function might fail, even if parts might fail for many different reasons. As long as each error type implements the from function to define how to convert itself to the returned error type, the ? operator takes care of the conversion automatically.
You have provided this implementation of From<std::io::Error> for that error type, therefore the code will work and convert values of this type automatically.
The magic is in the ? operator.
let mut file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
expands to something like (source)
let mut file = match File::create("foo.txt") {
Ok(t) => t,
Err(e) => return Err(e.into()),
};
This uses the Into trait, which is the counterpart to the From trait: e.into() is equivalent to T::from(e). Here you have the explicit conversion.
(There is an automatic impl<T, U> Into<U> for T for every impl<T, U> From<T> for U, which is why implementing From is enough.)
This question already has answers here:
Is there any way to return a reference to a variable created in a function?
(5 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I am pretty confused on the ? operator in functions that return Result<T, E>.
I have the following snippet of code:
use std::error;
use std::fs;
fn foo(s: &str) -> Result<&str, Box<error::Error>> {
let result = fs::read_to_string(s)?;
return Ok(&result);
}
fn bar(s: &str) -> Result<&str, &dyn error::Error> {
// the trait `std::convert::From<std::io::Error>` is not implemented for `&dyn std::error::Error` (1)
let result = fs::read_to_string(s)?;
return Ok(&result);
}
fn main() {
println!("{}", foo("foo.txt").unwrap());
println!("{}", bar("bar.txt").unwrap());
}
As you might see from the above snippet, the ? operator works pretty well with the returned boxed error, but not with dynamic error references (error at (1)).
Is there any specific reason why it does not work? In my limited knowledge of Rust, it is more natural to return an error reference, rather than a boxed object: in the end, after returning rom the foo function, I expect deref coercion to work with it, so why not returning the error reference itself?
Look at this function signature:
fn bar(s: &str) -> Result<&str, &dyn error::Error> {
The error type is a reference, but a reference to what? Who owns the value being referenced? The value cannot be owned by the function itself because it would go out of scope and Rust, quite rightly, won't allow you to return the dangling reference. So the only alternative is that the error is the input string slice s, or some sub-slice of it. This is definitely not what you wanted.
Now, the error:
the trait `std::convert::From<std::io::Error>` is not implemented for `&dyn std::error::Error`
The trait isn't implemented, and it can't be. To see why, try to implement it by hand:
impl<'a> From<io::Error> for &'a dyn error::Error {
fn from(e: io::Error) -> &'a dyn error::Error {
// what can go here?
}
}
This method is impossible to implement, for exactly the same reason.
Why does it work for Box<dyn Error>? A Box allocates its data on the heap, but also owns that data and deallocates it when the box goes out of scope. This is completely different from references, where the owner is separate, and the reference is prevented from outliving the data by lifetime parameters in the types.
See also:
Is there any way to return a reference to a variable created in a function?
Although it is possible to cast the concrete type std::io::Error into dyn Error, it is not possible to return it as a reference because the "owned" value is being dropped/erased/removed at the end of the function, same goes to your String -> &str. The Box<error::Error> example works because an owned Error is created in the heap (Box<std::io::Error>) and the std has an implementation of Error for Box<T> (impl<T: Error> Error for Box<T>).
If you want to erase the concrete type and only work with the available methods of a trait, it is possible to use impl Trait.
use std::{error, fs};
fn foo(s: &str) -> Result<String, Box<dyn error::Error>> {
let result = fs::read_to_string(s)?;
Ok(result)
}
fn bar(s: &str) -> Result<String, impl error::Error> {
let result = match fs::read_to_string(s) {
Ok(x) => x,
Err(x) => return Err(x),
};
Ok(result)
}
fn main() {
println!("{}", foo("foo.txt").unwrap());
println!("{}", bar("bar.txt").unwrap());
}
I'm writing a function that could return several one of several different errors.
fn foo(...) -> Result<..., MyError> {}
I'll probably need to define my own error type to represent such errors. I'm presuming it would be an enum of possible errors, with some of the enum variants having diagnostic data attached to them:
enum MyError {
GizmoError,
WidgetNotFoundError(widget_name: String)
}
Is that the most idiomatic way to go about it? And how do I implement the Error trait?
You implement Error exactly like you would any other trait; there's nothing extremely special about it:
pub trait Error: Debug + Display {
fn description(&self) -> &str { /* ... */ }
fn cause(&self) -> Option<&Error> { /* ... */ }
fn source(&self) -> Option<&(Error + 'static)> { /* ... */ }
}
description, cause, and source all have default implementations1, and your type must also implement Debug and Display, as they are supertraits.
use std::{error::Error, fmt};
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Thing;
impl Error for Thing {}
impl fmt::Display for Thing {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "Oh no, something bad went down")
}
}
Of course, what Thing contains, and thus the implementations of the methods, is highly dependent on what kind of errors you wish to have. Perhaps you want to include a filename in there, or maybe an integer of some kind. Perhaps you want to have an enum instead of a struct to represent multiple types of errors.
If you end up wrapping existing errors, then I'd recommend implementing From to convert between those errors and your error. That allows you to use try! and ? and have a pretty ergonomic solution.
Is that the most idiomatic way to go about it?
Idiomatically, I'd say that a library will have a small (maybe 1-3) number of primary error types that are exposed. These are likely to be enumerations of other error types. This allows consumers of your crate to not deal with an explosion of types. Of course, this depends on your API and whether it makes sense to lump some errors together or not.
Another thing to note is that when you choose to embed data in the error, that can have wide-reaching consequences. For example, the standard library doesn't include a filename in file-related errors. Doing so would add overhead to every file error. The caller of the method usually has the relevant context and can decide if that context needs to be added to the error or not.
I'd recommend doing this by hand a few times to see how all the pieces go together. Once you have that, you will grow tired of doing it manually. Then you can check out crates which provide macros to reduce the boilerplate:
error-chain
failure
quick-error
Anyhow
SNAFU
My preferred library is SNAFU (because I wrote it), so here's an example of using that with your original error type:
use snafu::prelude::*; // 0.7.0
#[derive(Debug, Snafu)]
enum MyError {
#[snafu(display("Refrob the Gizmo"))]
Gizmo,
#[snafu(display("The widget '{widget_name}' could not be found"))]
WidgetNotFound { widget_name: String },
}
fn foo() -> Result<(), MyError> {
WidgetNotFoundSnafu {
widget_name: "Quux",
}
.fail()
}
fn main() {
if let Err(e) = foo() {
println!("{}", e);
// The widget 'Quux' could not be found
}
}
Note I've removed the redundant Error suffix on each enum variant. It's also common to just call the type Error and allow the consumer to prefix the type (mycrate::Error) or rename it on import (use mycrate::Error as FooError).
1 Before RFC 2504 was implemented, description was a required method.
The crate custom_error allows the definition of custom error types with less boilerplate than what was proposed above:
custom_error!{MyError
Io{source: io::Error} = "input/output error",
WidgetNotFoundError{name: String} = "could not find widget '{name}'",
GizmoError = "A gizmo error occurred!"
}
Disclaimer: I am the author of this crate.
Is that the most idiomatic way to go about it? And how do I implement the Error trait?
It's a common way, yes. "idiomatic" depends on how strongly typed you want your errors to be, and how you want this to interoperate with other things.
And how do I implement the Error trait?
Strictly speaking, you don't need to here. You might for interoperability with other things that require Error, but since you've defined your return type as this enum directly, your code should work without it.
The pattern of having an object-safe trait Foo and a (potentially unsafe) extension trait FooExt implemented for all instances of Foo seems to become standard now.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/445
This is a problem for me in the case of Iterator<A>, as I have a library that overrides the default method IteratorExt#last() of the old iterator trait (the underlying library has an efficient implementation of last()). This in now impossible, because for any A, there will always be a conflicting trait implementation of IteratorExt, the one that libcore already provides for all Iterator<A>.
iterator.rs:301:1: 306:2 error: conflicting implementations for trait `core::iter::IteratorExt` [E0119]
iterator.rs:301 impl<'a, K: Key> iter::IteratorExt<Vec<u8>> for ValueIterator<'a,K,Vec<u8>> {
iterator.rs:302 fn last(&mut self) -> Option<Vec<u8>> {
iterator.rs:303 self.seek_last();
iterator.rs:304 Some(self.value())
iterator.rs:305 }
iterator.rs:306 }
...
Now, as far as I see, I have two options:
have my own trait and my own last() implementation. That would mean it conflicts if IteratorExt is imported unless carefully used. This also has the danger accidentally using an inefficient version of last() if the version from IteratorExt is used. I'd loose convenient access to IteratorExt.
have my own trait and name the method differently (seek_last()). Disadvantage: I ask the user to learn vocabulary and to always favor my method over that provided by IteratorExt. Same problem: I'd like to avoid accidental usage of last().
Is there any other, better, solution I am missing?
As of rustc 0.13.0-nightly (8bca470c5 2014-12-08 00:12:30 +0000) defining last() as an inherent method on your type should work.
#[deriving(Copy)]
struct Foo<T> {t: T}
impl<T> Iterator<T> for Foo<T> {
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<T> { None }
}
// this does not work
// error: conflicting implementations for trait `core::iter::IteratorExt` [E0119]
// impl<T> IteratorExt<T> for Foo<T> {
// fn last(mut self) -> Option<T> { None }
//}
// but this currently does
impl<T> Foo<T> {
fn last(mut self) -> Option<T> { Some(self.t) }
}
fn main() {
let mut t = Foo{ t: 3u };
println!("{}", t.next())
println!("{}", t.last()) // last has been "shadowed" by our impl
println!("{}", t.nth(3)) // other IteratorExt methods are still available
}
Since you're not supposed to use Extension traits as generic bounds (but just to provide additional methods), this should theoretically work for your scenario, as you can have your own type and its impl in the same crate.
Users of your type will use the inherent last method instead of the one on IteratorExt but still be able to use the other methods on IteratorExt.
last should be moved to Iterator, rather than IteratorExt.
IteratorExt is needed when using Box<Iterator> objects, to allow calling generic methods on them (e.g. map), because you can't put a generic method in a vtable. However, last isn't generic, so it can be put in Iterator.