Notices by Wolf480pl (wolf480pl@mstdn.io), page 2

@lanodan to be specific:

I asked if I can have multiple wifi networks (guest, IoT, etc) with the router they gave me.

They said that router doesn't have that option.

Then I asked them if I can connect my own router to their router and have multiple WiFi networks on that.

They told me I can't do that, I'd need to have an ONT.

If they told me I could do that I'd explain how it doesn't work.

If they told me there's no way to do it, I'd say that it works with $otherISP.

@lanodan
I was afraid they'd say "we don't usually offer that" or sth.

So I made sure to start with a legit usecase and then propose solutions that are not an ONT, so that they can tell me it won't work, until they have one option left.

And having an ONT means I can get the whole /56 delegated to my router without going through the ISP-provided router, which has broken DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation.

huh, apparently if you start with "how do I make multiple wifi" they'll naturally tell you to cancel the subscription, get a new one, and tell the technician you want a stand-alone ONT

How do you talk to ISP tech support to get them to drop their script and actually think, and/or forward your email to someone who can help you?

Are they legally forbidden from admitting they have bugs?

Or like, even getting them to say "yes, it's a bug on our side, we don't have the resources to fix it" would be better than the "it's none if our problem" I'm getting atm..

@ayo
database:
- contribution deleted
- contribution edited

database (subscribed):
- database edit
- trait application

@mr64bit
Nice.

If you were to some day replace std::io with some other IO library that has a different error type, would that change your API?
@phnt @ignaloidas @lanodan

@mr64bit
is adding another variant to an enum you return a backwards-compatible change?
@phnt @ignaloidas @lanodan

@lanodan @phnt @ignaloidas
ok, so if SDL were to get an fs::error when trying to open a wayland socket, how would it turn that into sdl::no_display?

@lanodan @phnt @ignaloidas
so in which line does the snipped you posted propagate an error from `fs` to the snippet's caller?

@lanodan @phnt @ignaloidas
Ok, so the error types from your dependencies get exposed as part of your API?

What if you wanted to confine a dependency, such that its types are not part of your API?

Eg. imagine you're writing SDL, and you want to abstract away all the different graphics stacks that you support - how do you do that?

@lanodan @phnt @ignaloidas
I am, but I'm not familiar with what fmt::errorfln does

@lanodan @phnt @ignaloidas
wait... so it's creating a new error with an error message that contains the fs::error's strerror, but not the fs:error itself?

@lanodan @phnt @ignaloidas
How do you handle errors from your dependencies?

@ignaloidas
Not quite.

In python, if you call a function and do nothing about error handling, any exceptions will propagate to your caller, who can handle them.

On Rust, if you do nothing, it won't compile.
But if you unwrap, any errors from the called function will crash right in the unwrap, without giving your caller a chance.

AFAIK propagating the error to your caller requires some weird type casting or sth...
@lanodan @phnt

@ignaloidas
Still, unless you can locally prove (using the invariants you available in that particular context) that the error cannot happen, you should pass the error to the caller instead of unwrapping, because the caller may be better equipped to handle it - eg. by falling back to the old config.

But if passing the error to the caller is as simple as a question mark 90% of the time, then I agree Rust's error handling is fine.

@lanodan @phnt

@lanodan
Go error handling is a ripoff of Lua's error handling, and Lua is a very "here's the minimal set of things a language needs to do, go build the rest on top yourself"
@phnt

@lanodan
Yeah, parsing the config with the same parser as the bot filtering service uses before deploying it would've likely caught it.

Also, I've seen many classic Unix daemons that have a config validation subcommand that you're supposed to run before telling the main process to reload its config.

As for human re-writable - sure, but in this case version-controlled would've helped more.