rules generator assumes that actions error type is called `error` about stechec2 HOT 6 CLOSED

More generally, I think we want to map errors to a user-defined type.

This is not the first time that it seems that errors could use a special treatment, so maybe it would be a good idea to implement such a thing.

A simple way to handle it would be to add a boolean field is_error_type to enum definitions, however it doesn't explicit the fact that there must be one and exactly one of such type.

from stechec2.

however it doesn't explicit the fact that there must be one and exactly one of such type.

Is that something we want to enforce? I don't see why we couldn't have multiple error types for different functions.

from stechec2.

Is that something we want to enforce? I don't see why we couldn't have multiple error types for different functions.

I'm thinking about the error type attached to the API, which will be returned by actions. This "special" error type is passed as a template parameter to rules::Api here.

from stechec2.

Yes, I know that it got recently specialized to always work that way, I'm just not sure that's a good approach. Conceptually there is really no reason why all API functions should return the same error type.

from stechec2.

The logic around errors seems very short and quite easy to generalize indeed.

from stechec2.

Migrated to https://gitlab.com/prologin/tech/tools/stechec2/-/issues/143

from stechec2.