[Feature] Improved Errors Type

[MSevey]

Right now the way these errors are being defined and used is quite error prone, specifically as it relates to how we are using the message and params. If a developer doesn't correctly match the number of formatting directives in the message, it will panic when Error is called.

We can do better :-)

First, we should have a New method as that is much safer than manually defining the structs.

Second we should make the params more dynamic.

New Method

The new method should be something like this.

// We should also add some type safety here
type Code string

func New(code Code, msg string) (Error, error) {
    e := Error{Code: code, Message: msg}

    err = e.validate()
        if err != nil {
               return nil, err
        }
    return e, nil
}

func (e *Error) validate() error {
        defer func() {
            if r := recover(); r != nil {
                return fmt.Errorf("invalid Error: %v",r)
            }
        }()
        _ = e.Error()
        return nil
}

Dynamic Params

Instead of relying on a fixed formatted method, we could allow for dynamic params by expecting a key value pair.

func (e *Error) WithParams(params ...interface{}) {
    if len(params)%2 != 0 {
                // Using panic for simplicity of example, but this is a discussion point as to how to handle the error
        panic("Error: Odd number of parameters, expected key-value pairs")
    }
        e.Params = append(e.Params, params...)
        return e
}

func (e *Error) Error() string {
    msg := e.Message
    for i := 0; i < len(e.Params); i += 2 {
        key := params[i]
        value := params[i+1]
        msg = fmt.Sprintf("%s; %v: %v",msg, key, value)
    }
    if e.Err != nil {
        return fmt.Sprintf("%s; error: %v", msg, e.Err)
    }
    return msg
}

[mojtaba-esk]

Saw your comment about creating an issue a bit late, I have applied those on the original PR.

[MSevey]

Saw your comment about creating an issue a bit late, I have applied those on the original PR.

Thanks for adding the New method, that is a good start. I think there are still other parts of this issue that we should discuss. Lower priority though.

[smuu]

done