Dealing with multiple error conditions in Rust [duplicate] - rust

Question

Is it possible to handle multiple different errors at once instead of individually in Rust without using additional functions? In short: what is the Rust equivalent to a try-catch statement?
A feature like this (First-class error handling with ? and catch) was suggested back in 2016, but I can't tell what came out of it and how a 2019 solution for such a problem might look like.
For example, doing something like this:
try {
do_step_1()?;
do_step_2()?;
do_step_3()?;
// etc
} catch {
alert_user("Failed to perform necessary steps");
}
Instead of:
match do_steps() {
Ok(_) => (),
_ => alert_user("Failed to perform necessary steps")
}
// Additional function:
fn do_steps() -> Result<(), Error>{
do_step_1()?;
do_step_2()?;
do_step_3()?;
// etc
Ok(())
}
My program has a function which checks a variety of different places in the registry for different data values and returns some aggregate data. It would need to use many of these try-cache statements with try-catch inside of other try-catch inside of loops.

Answer 1

There is no try catch statement in Rust. The closest approach is the ? operator.
However, you do not have to create a function and a match statement to resolve it in the end. You can define a closure in your scope and use ? operator inside the closure. Then throws are held in the closure return value and you can catch this wherever you want like following:
fn main() {
let do_steps = || -> Result<(), MyError> {
do_step_1()?;
do_step_2()?;
do_step_3()?;
Ok(())
};
if let Err(_err) = do_steps() {
println!("Failed to perform necessary steps");
}
}
Playground
Is it possible to handle multiple different errors at once instead of individually in Rust without using additional functions?
There is a anyhow crate for the error management in Rust mostly recommended nowadays.
As an alternative, There is a failure crate for the error management in Rust. Using Failure, you can chain, convert, concatenate the errors. After converting the error types to one common type, you can catch (handle) it easily.

Answer 2

Results in Rust can be chained using and_then. So you can do this:
if let Err(e) = do_step_1().and_then(do_step_2).and_then(do_step_3) {
println!("Failed to perform necessary steps");
}
or if you want a more compact syntax, you can do it with a macro:
macro_rules! attempt { // `try` is a reserved keyword
(#recurse ($a:expr) { } catch ($e:ident) $b:block) => {
if let Err ($e) = $a $b
};
(#recurse ($a:expr) { $e:expr; $($tail:tt)* } $($handler:tt)*) => {
attempt!{#recurse ($a.and_then (|_| $e)) { $($tail)* } $($handler)*}
};
({ $e:expr; $($tail:tt)* } $($handler:tt)*) => {
attempt!{#recurse ($e) { $($tail)* } $($handler)* }
};
}
attempt!{{
do_step1();
do_step2();
do_step3();
} catch (e) {
println!("Failed to perform necessary steps: {}", e);
}}
playground

Answer 3

There's also an unstable feature called try_blocks (https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/unstable-book/language-features/try-blocks.html, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/31436)
Usage example:
#![feature(try_blocks)]
fn main() {
// you need to define the result type explicitly
let result: Result<(), Error> = try {
do_step_1()?;
do_step_2()?;
do_step_3()?;
};
if let Err(e) = result {
println!("Failed to perform necessary steps, ({:?})", e);
}
}
fn do_step_1() -> Result<(), Error> { Ok(()) }
fn do_step_2() -> Result<(), Error> { Ok(()) }
fn do_step_3() -> Result<(), Error> { Err(Error::SomeError) }
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Error {
SomeError,
}

Answer 4

I think match expression is equivalent of try/catch
match get_weather(location) {
Ok(report) => {
display_weather(location, &report);
}
Err(err) => {
println!("error querying the weather: {}", err);
// or write a better logic
}
}
We try to get weather report from api, if our request fails, handle the error other wise shows the result.

Answer 5

Not sure it's considered idiomatic Rust, but you can use an anonymous closure to achieve syntax similar to try/catch:
fn do_step_1() -> Result<(), String> { Ok(()) }
fn do_step_2() -> Result<(), String> { Err("error at step 2".to_string()) }
fn do_step_3() -> Result<(), String> { Ok(()) }
fn alert_user(s: &str) { println!("{}", s); }
fn main() {
(|| {
do_step_1()?;
do_step_2()?;
do_step_3()?;
Ok(())
})().unwrap_or_else(|_err: String| {
alert_user("Failed to perform the necessary steps");
})
}

Answer 6

The try and except concept is used in extremely vague terms. Since Rust is a strongly typed language, the user must write their own methods for handling errors by relying on the provided Option<T> and Result<T, E> enumerations or by defining their own accustomed enumerations.
See here for a more in-depth read for error-handling using enumerations.
The try macro is deprecated and has been replaced with the ? operator which makes it easier to organize and clean up error-handling because it can get messy. A main use for the ? operator would be that it allows you to implement the From trait for Result<T, E>'s Err(E) variant.
Here's a basic example:
use std::num::ParseIntError;
// Custom error-based enum with a single example
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Error {
ParseIntError(ParseIntError),
// Other errors...
}
// Then implement the `From` trait for each error so that the `?` operator knows what to do for each specified error.
impl From<ParseIntError> for Error {
fn from(error: ParseIntError) -> Self {
Self::ParseIntError(error)
}
}
// When using the `?` try operator, if the `Result` is an `Err` then it will basically act as `return Err(E)` returning that error value out to the current scope. If it is `Ok(T)`, it will simply unwrap the variant.
fn main() -> Result<(), Error> {
// This will return the value `69` as a `u8` type
let parsed_value_1 = "69".parse::<u8>()?;
println!("{}", parsed_value_1);
// Since parsing fails here, a `ParseIntError` will be returned to the current function. *Since the scope is the `main` function, it will automatically print the error after panicking.
let parsed_value_2 = "poop".parse::<u8>()?;
// Unreachable code
println!("{}", parsed_value_2);
Ok(())
}