I have a Back-to-Back call from caller to our ucma server to client/operator. When doing a transfer on the leg from caller to ucma, there are a few different results which can happen; the transfer target answers, doesn't answer or ignores the call (ignore/busy button).
I want to differentiate between the later two; busy and no answer. In the ucma application I only get a FailureRequestException with text "The transfer operation failed. For more information, refer to the message data in the exception."
I cannot figure out anywhere in the exception or otherwise how to know the difference between busy and no answer. Both generates the same exception with no obvious parameter saying whichever it is.
Is there any way I can know the reason the transfer failed in this scenario?
I'm not sure if this will help, but if you can get the final non-provisional status code for the invite, a "ignore" end will be a 603. A no answer will be a "480" - altho a 480 (Temporarily Unavailable) can be returned for lots of other reasons.
Also the situation can be confused if the user has more than one endpoint (e.g. Desktop Lync Client and Mobile Lync Client). So you end up with forked requests / responses with only one overall response back to you. Then you may not always be able to tell exactly why the call was terminated.
I actually find it funny you are saying you get a FailureRequestException.
I would be expecting a FailureResponseException. With a FailureResponseException exception you can pull out the status code.
From the UCMA 4.0 exception model msdn page:
FailureResponseException
Thrown when a 4xx, 5xx, or 6xx response was received for a request. This exception contains the ResponseData property, which
contains the complete response including response code, reason text,
headers, and message body. In some rare cases, this may also be thrown
when an error other than a 4xx, 5xx, or 6xx response occurred. In such
cases the ResponseData property is null.
Related
I am writing a new API and documenting it using Swagger/OpenAPI. It seems to be a good standard to document error responses, that the developer can expect to encounter.
But I cannot find any guide lines or best practices about Internal Server Error. Every path could in theory throw an unhandled exception. I do not expect it to happen, but it might. Should all paths have a response with status code 500 "Internal Server Error" or should I only document responses the developer can do anything about, i.e. 2xx, 3xx and 4xx?
The offical documentation shows an example for specifying all 5xx status codes in the responses section, but it does not go into details about the specific status code, or the message returned. It also mentions that the API specification should only contain known errors:
Note that an API specification does not necessarily need to cover all possible HTTP response codes, since they may not be known in advance. However, it is expected to cover successful responses and any known errors. By “known errors” we mean, for example, a 404 Not Found response for an operation that returns a resource by ID, or a 400 Bad Request response in case of invalid operation parameters.
You could follow the same approach and specify it like in the example. I think it's not important or even recommended to try to describe it more specifically, since you might not be able to cover all cases anyway and the client is not expected to act on the message returned for internal server errors (possibly other than retrying later). So for example, I would not recommend specifying a message format for it.
Omitting any responses with 5xx HTTP error codes makes sense as well.
What is the difference between throw new Error and using Meteor.Error()? Is it simply that throw new Error will not be shown to the client, only on the server (the client will get a 500 Internal server error); and Meteor.Error will be sent to the client.
Are there any more differences? E.g. Does one break out of Fibers, stops downstream code?
The main thing with Meteor.Error is like you mentioned
A full stack trace (may not be given by Error always)
Possibility to send the error down to the client, in a limited non revealing form.
Hide the error from the server in certain cases (if its thrown in a method or publish method, and from hooks such as Accounts.onLoginAttempt)
The objects inside are EJSON serialised so a variety of data can be sent down to the client
When a Meteor.Error is thrown, because of the EJSON serialisation you get a bit more information on the server side.
Meteor displays the errors better.
Often you can get [Object object] as the reason to be displayed from ordinary errors when they come from ordinary Errors, from Meteor.wrapAsync
Theres not much else that's different, Meteor.Error is a a subclass of Error with the above changes.
So they'll both stop downstream code. When it comes to Fibers, if the ordinary one is thrown out of a Fiber in any way its likely to stop your app (on the server side & not in a method, startup, Meteor.setInterval, publish, etc)
Its definition is also quite small: https://github.com/meteor/meteor/blob/devel/packages/meteor/errors.js
Suppose I ask a question to an criminal register: http://server/demographics/party/{partyId} and that person is not known on that system.
Is that an error? Isn't it a good thing?
When returning 404, it is an error code, Restlet has implemented it as a specific URL cannot be resolved to a route to a server-resource (a handling class), an erroneous situation.
In my opinion, if a system understands a call, and is able to process it without errors, it should return 200 (HTTP-ok), and it should return the information: "We don't know this person".
What is the best thing to do?
There's nothing wrong in returning a 404 status code. It simply means "you asked for a resource, and it doesn't exist". If it did return 200, it would have to somehow return an additional status code telling you that everything went fine, but the resource couldn't be found. That's unnecessary, because 404 already means exactly that.
A status 500 is normally returned to mean "something went wrong, I can't tell you if the resource exists or not". Now if you returned a 404 to mean that, this would be a mistake.
Whether it's a good thing or not is not doesn't have anything to do with HTTP or REST. And BTW, if the register was a file containing the survivors of a disaster, you would probably find it bad to not find the person you looked for, unless maybe if the person is your mother in law, unless you actually love your mother in law. (this is meant as a joke, for those who don't find it obvious).
A web service could be implemented in a way that produces either kind of response.
If it is being implemented in a way that is truer to HTTP/Rest, then '404 not found' would be the appropriate response for not finding something. This is what the 404 status is for.
It may help to think of your request as saying 'I assume this record exists, and I want to see it', and the 404 response as saying 'You are in error that record does not exist'.
If this URL is going to be used by code (rather than be displayed in a browser), then if you don't make a distinction in the response status then you will have to add extra information to the response body to make the difference obvious.
If this URL is going to be displayed to a user in a browser, then the server is still able to display content in the response body for a 404.
Please read: http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/post/restful_error_handling.html#__federated=1
Quoting:
Conclusion:
Human Readable Error Messages: Part of the major appeal of REST based web services is that you can open any browser, type in the right URL, and see an immediate response -- no special tools needed. However, HTTP error codes do not always provide enough information. For example, if we take option 1 above, and request and invalid book ID, we get back a 404 Error Code. From the developer perspective, have we actually typed in the wrong host name, or an invalid book ID? It's not immediately clear. In Option 3 (DAS), we get back a blank page with no information. To view the actual error code, you need to run a network sniffer, or point your browser through a proxy. For all these reasons, I think Option 4 has a lot to offer. It significantly lowers the barrier for new developers, and enables all information related to a web service to be directly viewable within a web browser.
Application Specific Errors: Option 1 has the disadvantage of not being directly viewable within a browser. It also has the additional disadvantage of mapping all HTTP error codes to application specific error codes. HTTP status codes are specific to document retrieval and posting, and these may not map directly to your application domain. For example, one of the DAS error codes relates to invalid genomic coordinates (sequence coordinate is out of bounds/invalid). What HTTP error code would we map to in this case?
Machine Readable Error Codes: As a third criteria, error codes should be easily readable by other applications. For example, the XooMLe application returns back only human readable error messages, e.g. "Invalid Google API key supplied". An application parsing a XooMLe response would have to search for this specific error message, and this can be notoriously brittle -- for example, the XooMLe server might simply change the message to "Invalid Key Supplied". Error codes, such as those provided by DAS are important for programmatic control, and easy creation of exceptions. For example, if XooMLe returned a 1001 error code, a client application could do a quick lookup and immediately throw an InvalidKeyException.
Based on these three criteria, here's my vote for best error handling option:
Use HTTP Status Codes for problems specifically related to HTTP, and not specifically related to your web service.
When an error occurs, always return an XML document detailing the error.
Make sure the XML error document contains both an error code, and a human readable error message. For example:
1001
Invalid Google API key supplied
By following these three simple practices, you can make it significantly easier for others to interface with your service, and react when things go wrong. New developers can easily see valid and invalid requests via a simple web browser, and programs can easily (and more robustly) extract error codes and act appropriately.
The Amazon.com web services API follows the approach of returned XML document can specify an ErrorMsg element.
XooMLe also follows this approach. (XooMLe provides a RESTful API wrapper to the existing SOAP based Google API).
Another approach is by DAS ( Distributed Annotation System) which always returns 200 if there was no HTTP-error and has error information in the HTTP-header, which is less favorable, because it is not human readable, as a browser does not display the HTTP-header.
Let's say that a request is sent to server via xhrPost and server finds that request needs more information to be processed (for example a variable is missing), so, a response is sent back to client informing that request may have not been completely processed and this message is shown in a dialog box.
I was doing it sending from server an HTTP 202 status code, which I believe is not correct, and treating it on load function, where this message was displayed on a dialog box. But if I respond with some HTTP error code (ex: 400) the error is displayed in console (Note: in this case the message is treated in error function), as well as in my dialog box.
What is the best and correct way to do it?
Note that it is called a load handler, not a success handler.
The load hander is for valid, well formatted responses. These can contain a verity of status codes generated by your server side app that indicates success, failure, or something in between.
The error is just that, the server blew up while trying to process the request and whatever you get back is probably not something your widget was written to expect. For this reason, I recommend using the same error handler across your whole app.
The dojo documentation states:
Sometimes xhrGet calls will fail. Often these are 404 errors or server errors such as 500. The error parameter is another callback function that is only invoked when an error occurs. This allows you to control what happens when an error occurs without having to put a lot of logic into your load function to check for error conditions. The first parameter passed to the error function is a JavaScript Error object indicating what the failure was. Dojo doc
I'm having a discussion with a colleague about when to throw faults and when not to throw faults in a WCF service.
One opinion is, that we only throw faults when the service operation could not do its work due to some error; and something may be in an invalid state because of it. So, some examples:
ValidateMember(string name, string password, string country)
-> would throw a fault if the mandatory parameters are not passed, because the validation itself could not be executed;
-> would throw fault if some internal error occured, like database was down
-> would return a status contract in all other cases, that specifies the result of the validation (MemberValidated, WrongPassword, MemberNotKnown,...)
GetMember(int memberId)
-> would only throw fault if something is down, in all other cases it would return the member or null if not found
The other opinion is that we should also throw faults when GetMember does not find the member, or in the case of ValidateMember the password is wrong.
What do you think?
My take on this...
There are three causes of failure:
The service code threw an exception, e.g. database error, logic error in your code. This is your fault.
The client code failed to use your service properly according to your documentation, e.g. it didn't set a required flag value, it failed to pass in an ID. This is the client software developer's fault.
The end user typed in something silly on screen, e.g. missing date of birth, negative salary. This is the end user's fault.
It's up to you how you choose to map actual fault contracts to each cause of failure. For example, we do this:
For causes 1 and 2, all the client code needs to know is that the service failed. We define a very simple "fatal error" fault contract that contains only a unique error ID. The full details of the error are logged on the server.
For cause 3, the end user needs to know exactly what he/she did wrong. We define a "validation errors" fault contract containing a collection of friendly error messages for the client code to display on screen.
We borrow the Microsoft EntLib class for cause 3, and use exception shielding to handle causes 1 and 2 declaratively. It makes for very simple code.
To Clarify:
We handle the three causes like this inside the service:
An unexpected exception is thrown in the service code. We catch it at the top level (actually exception shielding catches it, but the principle is the same). Log full details, then throw a FaultException<ServiceFault> to the client containing only the error ID.
We validate the input data and deliberately throw an exception. It's normally an ArgumentException, but any appropriate type would do. Once it is thrown, it is dealt with in exactly the same way as (1) because we want to make it appear the same to the client.
We validate the input data and deliberately throw an exception. This time, it's a FaultException<ValidationFault>. We configure exception shielding to pass this one through un-wrapped, so it appears on the client as FaultException<ValidationFault> not FaultException<ServiceFault>.
End result:
No catch blocks at all inside the service (nice clean code).
Client only has to catch FaultException<ValidationFault> if it wants to display messages to the user. All other exception types including FaultException<ServiceFault> are dealt with by the client's global error handler as fatal errors, since a fatal error in the service generally means a fatal error in the client as well.
It it is a common, routine failure, then throwing a fault is a mistake. The software should be written to handle routine items, like entering the wrong password. Fault processing is for exceptional failure which are not considered part of the program's normal design.
For example, if your program was written with the idea that it always has access to a database, and the database is not accessible, that's an issue where the "fix" is well outside of the limits of your software. A fault should be thrown.
Fault processing uses different logical flows through the structure of the programming language, and by using it only when you've "left" the normal processing of the programming problem, you will make your solution leverage the feature of the programming language in a way that seems more natural.
I believe it is good practice to separate error handling and fault handling. Any error case should be dealt by your program - fault handling is reserved for exceptional conditions. As a guide to the separation of the two I found it useful when considering such cases to remember that there are only three types of error (when handling data and messages) and only one type of fault.
The error types are related to different types of validation:
Message validation - you can determine from the message contents that the data is valid or invalid.
Example: content that is intended to be a date of birth - you can tell from the data whether it is valid or not.
Context validation - you can only determine that content is invalid by reference to the message
combined with the system state.
Example: a valid date of joining a company is earlier than that persons date of birth.
Lies to the system - you can only determine that a message was in error when a later message
throws up an anomaly.
Example: Valid date of birth stored and inspection of the person's birth certificate shows this to be incorrect. Correction of lies to the system generally require action outside of the system, for instance invoking legal or disciplinary remedies.
Your system MUST deal with all classes of error - though in case three this may be limited to issuing an alert.
Faults (exceptions) by contrast only have one cause - data corruption (which includes data truncation). Example: validation parameters are not passed.
Here the appropriate mechanism is fault or exception handling - basically handing off the problem to some other part of the system that is capable of dealing with it (which is why there should be an ultimate destination for unhandled faults).
In the old days we used to have a rule that exceptions were only for exceptional and unexpected things. One of the reasons you did not want to use them too much was that they "cost" alot of computing power.
But if you use exceptions you can reduce the amount of code, no need for alot of if else statements, just let the exception bubble up.
It depends on your project. The most important thing is that there is a project standard and everyone does it the same way.
My opinion is that exceptions/fault should be thrown whenever what the method is supposed to do can't be achieved. So validation logic should never raise exception except if the validation can't be made (i.e. for technical reasons) but never just because the data are not valid (in that case it will return validation codes/messages or anything helping the caller to correct the data).
Now the GetMember case is an interesting one because it's all about semantic. The name of the method suggest that a member can be retrieved by passing an id (compare to a TryGetMember method for exemple). Of course the method should not throw the same exception if the id is nowhere to be found or if the database does not respond but a wrong id passed to this method is probably the sign that something is going wrong somewhere before that call. Except if the user can directly enter a member-id from within the interface in which case a validation should occurred before calling the method.
I hear a lot about the performance issue. I just made a simple test using C# and trow/catch 1000 exceptions. The time it took is 23ms for 1K Exeptions. That's 23µ per exception. I think performance is no longer the first argument here except if you plan to raise more than 2000 exception per second in which case you will have a 5% performance down, which I can start considering.
My humble opinion...