search

rust-lang / rust

Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
https://www.rust-lang.org
Other
96.08k stars 12.41k forks source link

Tracking issue for error source iterators #58520

Open sfackler opened 5 years ago

sfackler commented 5 years ago

This covers the <dyn Error>::iter_chain and <dyn Error>::iter_sources methods added in #58289.

withoutboats commented 5 years ago

My preference before stabilizing would be to make changes to make it more like the original failure design, which I still prefer. There should be one iterator, it should begin from this error type, and its name should be sources. If you want all the sources of error less this layer, you can write .skip(1).

TimDiekmann commented 5 years ago

I like the idea of a convenient interface to iterate sources. However, the interface feels unergonomic as mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58289#issuecomment-463624435. Additionally I think this should not be stabilized before #53487

haraldh commented 5 years ago

My preference before stabilizing would be to make changes to make it more like the original failure design, which I still prefer. There should be one iterator, it should begin from this error type, and its name should be sources. If you want all the sources of error less this layer, you can write .skip(1).

Yeah, my first iteration (pun) had only .iter(), but then @sfackler requested the other iter_*()

faern commented 5 years ago

These iterators are really good. I have long relied on the display_chain method in error-chain. As I move away from that lib I find it cumbersome to transform my entire chain of errors into a good string representation.

With these iterators I can get the equivalent of display_chain this way:

let display_chain: String = error
    .iter_sources()
    .fold(format!("Error: {}", error), |mut s, e| {
        s.push_str(&format!("\nCaused by: {}", e));
        s
    });

These iterators does not solve the entire problem. But they make it a bit easier to implement.

haraldh commented 5 years ago

So, any changes needed here? I really want this to be stabilized

withoutboats commented 5 years ago

I think a few changes are needed before this can be stabilized:

  1. First, we need to actually reach a consensus about whether we have both of these APIs. I've been consistent that I think the changes made to failure regarding this issue since I stopped maintaining it are a mistake: we should have one iterator which begins with self and calls cause until it returns None. If users want to skip the self value, its just as simple as adding .skip(1) to that iterator. No one else has really expressed an opinion about that question.
  2. Even if we do have both, I think the names right now are not well-chosen. It would be better to change them to something like .errors() and .sources() (or keep one and just call it one of these two names). We tend to avoid the name iter except for iterating through elements of a collection, modified by its ownership type; for iterators which are semantic values pulled out of a type, we prefer just using the name of that kind of value (as in lines, keys, chars, etc).
  3. We need to decide what to do about the trait object vs provided method problem, discussed on the PR. This involves the struggle around the fact that Box<Error> doesn't implement Error. I think the best solution available to us now is to just have the method repeated in both places.
derekdreery commented 5 years ago

my 2¢: I think the simplest (for users) implementation is a single iter method, with a note in the documentation that

  1. The iterator length is always >= 1, that is, you can call iter.next().unwrap() once without causing a panic.
  2. If you just want the sources, use e.iter().skip(1).
  3. An example like 
    fn print_error(e: impl Error) { // or Box<Error> or whatever other actual type this is implemented for
  let mut chain = e.iter();
  eprintln!("error: {}", chain.next().unwrap());
  for source in chain {
    eprintln!("caused by {}", source);
  }

This leaves the option open of an iter_sources method later if it's decided that it's really needed (that can just be implemented as iter().skip(1)).

BurntSushi commented 5 years ago

I agree with @withoutboats and @derekdreery. I had to carefully read the docs for each method before I figured out how they differed. Moreover, I suspect it will be quite difficult to pick names for both methods that are easy to remember and distinguish. Having one method and requiring the caller to use skip(1) if they don't want the current error seems much nicer IMO.

withoutboats commented 5 years ago

It does seem that many users found the terminology causes confusing for an iterator that returns self (myself, it seemed intuitive, if the documentation says so, that this error can be considered a member of the chain of causality). So a better name than sources might be preferred here. However, both of the other options I can think of are also imperfect:

As I said previously, I don't think names like iter_chain are a good choice either, they're pretty far outside of our general style for iterator names.

faern commented 5 years ago

I agree causes/sources would be confusing if the iterator contains the error it's called on. In err.causes() I want the errors that caused err. err did not cause itself, nor is it part of the sources for this error. It would not be consistent with the existing err.source() which returns the first error under err not err itself.

I do fully agree that err is part of the chain of causality however, which is why I think something like chain would work.

derekdreery commented 5 years ago

@withoutboats

I think iter violates our naming convention, in that I think iter must return the same iterator returned by <&T as IntoIterator>::into_iter, and I don't expect that impl to exist for error types.

Is this set in stone. I think iter is the best name, because it feels familiar, in that the iter() method should return an iterator that makes most sense for the object. I wouldn't expect FromIterator to be implemented for &Error, but if it were to be implemented then it should look like this (i.e. include the base error).

Could the naming convention be changed to "iter must return the same iterator returned by <&T as IntoIterator>::into_iter, or if this is not implemented, it must return the canonical iterator for the object (implying that such a canonical iterator must exist)".

derekdreery commented 5 years ago

To give some more context on why I would like it to be called iter:

When I'm reading the documentation for some object with methods, when I see an iter method I think to myself "what iterator makes most sense for this object". So for a vector I would assume it returns refs to the elements, or for a linked list (which is what our error chain is essentially), I would expect it to walk the nodes and return a node per iteration. I don't think "how is FromIterator implemented for the reference type for this object". Maybe I should be thinking that :P

haraldh commented 5 years ago

I think iter violates our naming convention, in that I think iter must return the same iterator returned by <&T as IntoIterator>::into_iter, and I don't expect that impl to exist for error types.

Hmm, this works:

impl<'a> IntoIterator for &'a (dyn Error + 'static) {
    type Item = &'a (dyn Error + 'static);
    type IntoIter = ErrorIter<'a>;

    fn into_iter(self) -> Self::IntoIter {
        ErrorIter {
            current: Some(self),
        }
    }
}
let mut iter = <&(dyn Error + 'static) as IntoIterator>::into_iter(&err);

or 

for e in err.borrow() as &(dyn Error) {
    eprintln!("{}", e);
}

and iter_chain() (or iter() how I would call it) is implemented for dyn Error

withoutboats commented 5 years ago

@haraldh We can add that impl, but I don't think we should (and it seems completely circular to add it just to justify naming the method iter)

haraldh commented 5 years ago

@haraldh We can add that impl, but I don't think we should ...

Agreed

teiesti commented 4 years ago

I'd like to point to the issues discussing the addition (#48420) and stabilization (#50894) of std::path::Path::ancestors. At first glance this API might seem unrelated but the situation back then was quite similar:

  1. The objective was to add an iterator that recursively calls an existing, well-known method.
  2. There was a discussion if self should be included.
  3. There was a lengthy discussion about the name.

In the end, the rationale was:

  1. Such iterators are helpful. They should better be stabilized sooner than later.
  2. self should be included. It is easy to .skip(1) it. Not including self is harmful because it is harder to add self to the iterator than to remove it. (I think, it is not a good idea to add two APIs just to cover both semantics because that will clutter both, the namespace and the human mind.)
  3. The chosen name should be telling and reflect the fact that self is included. Adding an "s" to the original method name is a good to start unless that leads to unwanted associations which, I think, is often the case. (I think, .iter() is not a good choice, because it is natural to iterate over vector items but it is not natural to iterate over error sources. In theory, there may be other properties of an Error that are a more or equally natural subject to iteration, e.g., descriptions provided in different languages. In particular, a type implementing Error might also want to implement a method called .iter() for whatever reason.)

I'd like to throw two naming ideas into the ring that might be considered for further debate:

I'd also like to propose to rename the ErrorIter struct. I think, it is good practice throughout the standard library to name the struct after the method creating it (example).

ehuss commented 4 years ago

Sorry if this was brought up earlier, I tried to read the RFC/issues, and didn't see it brought up.

What is the intent of how to handle older code that overrides cause but not source? For example, IntoStringError only implements cause. If you iterate over sources (iter_sources), then the cause is lost. In this case it is the Utf8Error which provides useful detail like invalid utf-8 sequence of 1 bytes from index 0 .

Should these errors be changed to implement source instead of cause? Or maybe implement both?

faern commented 4 years ago

IMO all new errors should only implement source. All old code that want to stay relevant and usable should be updated to implement source as well. I do not think we should focus the development of new features in libstd to cover deprecated items.

derekdreery commented 4 years ago

IMO all new errors should only implement source. All old code that want to stay relevant and usable should be updated to implement source as well. I do not think we should focus the development of new features in libstd to cover deprecated items.

If we were to do this, could we make an effort to submit PRs to popular crates using cause.

More generally (and slightly OT), is there a mechanism for the community to help crate maintainers with stuff like this?

haraldh commented 4 years ago

I'd like to point to the issues discussing the addition (#48420) and stabilization (#50894) of std::path::Path::ancestors. At first glance this API might seem unrelated but the situation back then was quite similar:

1. The objective was to add an iterator that recursively calls an existing, well-known method.

2. There was a discussion if `self` should be included.

3. There was a lengthy discussion about the name.

In the end, the rationale was:

1. Such iterators are helpful. They should better be stabilized sooner than later.

2. `self` should be included. It is easy to `.skip(1)` it. Not including `self` is harmful because it is harder to add `self` to the iterator than to remove it. (I think, it is not a good idea to add two APIs just to cover both semantics because that will clutter both, the namespace and the human mind.)

3. The chosen name should be telling and reflect the fact that `self` is included. Adding an "s" to the original method name is a good to start unless that leads to unwanted associations which, I think, is often the case. (I think, `.iter()` is not a good choice, because it is natural to iterate over vector items but it is not natural to iterate over error sources. In theory, there may be other properties of an `Error` that are a more or equally natural subject to iteration, e.g., descriptions provided in different languages. In particular, a type implementing `Error` might also want to implement a method called `.iter()` for whatever reason.)

I'd like to throw two naming ideas into the ring that might be considered for further debate:

* `.ancestors()`, because the iterator iterates over the ancestors in a ancestry of errors which are cause to their respective children.

* `.chained()` in honor of `error-chain` and because the iterator iterates over the chain of errors that is _somehow_ included in `self`.

I'd also like to propose to rename the ErrorIter struct. I think, it is good practice throughout the standard library to name the struct after the method creating it (example).

Opened a PR with this suggestion: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65557

haraldh commented 4 years ago

So, it seems, that even Path::ancestors() includes itself. So, to avoid confusion and simplify it more, I reduced PR #65557 to only have chained and Chain.

Rationale:

  1. Such iterators are helpful. They should better be stabilized sooner than later.
  2. self should be included. It is easy to .skip(1) it. Not including self is harmful because it is harder to add self to the iterator than to remove it.
  3. The chosen name should be telling and reflect the fact that self is included. .chained() was chosen in honor of error-chain and because the iterator iterates over the chain of errors that is somehow included in self.
  4. The resulting iterator is named Chain because the error::Chain is what we want to have.
derekdreery commented 4 years ago

I like the name chained because it indicates that it includes the current error, but connects all the others.

The docs should mention the skip(1) way of avoiding the original error. (This is currently the case in the PR 323f6a4)

faern commented 4 years ago

What is the intent of how to handle older code that overrides cause but not source? For example, IntoStringError only implements cause. If you iterate over sources (iter_sources), then the cause is lost. In this case it is the Utf8Error which provides useful detail like invalid utf-8 sequence of 1 bytes from index 0.

I fixed this for IntoStringError in #65366. Now the only libstd error not properly implementing Error::source is the TryLockError. I might look into trying to fix that at some point. But it does not feel critical.

If we were to do this, could we make an effort to submit PRs to popular crates using cause.

I personally don't see why the source iterators should be blocked on helping the ecosystem start using source instead of cause. The decision to move over to source as the preferred method was made back when that was introduced and cause deprecated, not here. This issue just makes the new way more ergonomic/usable. Adding a source iterator does not make the crates still using cause worse than they are today.

shepmaster commented 4 years ago

This iterator should not implement Copy, as it was originally decided that Copy iterators are confusing in practice.

haraldh commented 4 years ago

This iterator should not implement Copy, as it was originally decided that Copy iterators are confusing in practice.

Addressed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66511

haraldh commented 4 years ago

The other issue I see blocking stability (aside from the name) is the T: Error vs dyn Error issue. For reasons that are beyond annoying, Box<dyn Error> does not implement Error. This makes whether methods are implemented for dyn Error or T: Error matter in really annoying ways.

Can this method be implemented on both dyn Error and T: Error? If so, is it? If it can't be, why not? Have we chosen the right choice? I had to make these choices for failure once, and I'm not sure I made them right then (not that I even remember clearly what I did without checking). I would like to see some write up explaining our policy around where we add these convenience methods to convince me we've done it in the right way and not just introduced yet another papercut to the error API.

Originally posted by @withoutboats in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66448#issuecomment-554431107

haraldh commented 4 years ago

With:

pub trait Error: Debug + Display {
    fn sources(&self) -> Chain<'_> {
        Chain {
            current: self.source(),
        }
    }

    fn chain(&self) -> Chain<'_> {
        Chain { current: None }
    }

    fn source(&self) -> Option<&(dyn Error + 'static)> {
        None
    }
}

We can let Errors implement Error::source() and Error::chain().

Sadly we can't do:

    fn chain(&self) -> Chain<'_> {
        Chain {
            current: Some(self),
        }
    }

in the trait definition, because Error is not Sized.

But with the upper trait, we could:

#[derive(Debug)]
struct B(Option<Box<dyn Error + 'static>>);

impl Error for B {
    fn chain(&self) -> Chain<'_> {
        Chain {
            current: Some(self),
        }
    }

    fn source(&self) -> Option<&(dyn Error + 'static)> {
        self.0.as_ref().map(|e| e.as_ref())
    }
}

This would save us from the impl dyn Error and the unergonomic

    let mut iter = (&b as &(dyn Error)).chain();
    // or
    let mut iter = <dyn Error>::chain(&b);
    // or
    let mut iter = Error::chain(&b);

Error::sources() is fine though.

Playground

haraldh commented 4 years ago

With:

pub trait Error: Debug + Display {
    // …
    fn chain(&self) -> Chain<'_>
    where
        Self: Sized + 'static,
    {
        Chain {
            current: Some(self),
        }
    }
    // …
}

we can't use for example:

    let mut iter = b.source().unwrap().chain();
error: the `chain` method cannot be invoked on a trait object
  --> src/main.rs:74:40
   |
74 |     let mut iter = b.source().unwrap().chain();
   |
haraldh commented 4 years ago

Annoyingly Error::sources() is easier to implement than Error::chain().

Point for @withoutboats

haraldh commented 4 years ago

Maybe we can get along with Error::sources() and Chain::new()

Playground

joshtriplett commented 4 years ago

Side note: once we have these, we should consider providing a simple type for boxed errors whose Debug implementation automatically prints the chain. That would make it do the right thing for question-mark-in-main by default.

faern commented 4 years ago

Why would the Debug impl print a bunch of Display impls? Feels a bit weird, but maybe it makes sense.

But yeah, related, something I have wanted since forever is the equivalent of Error::display_chain() from error-chain or Error::display(separator) from err-context.

error.display("\nCaused by: ") is how I print all my errors. It's been my motivation for having a source iterator from the start :)

ArekPiekarz commented 4 years ago

Here's an issue that may be directly related to Error::chain() or to another problem in rustc.

I've tried to use Error::chain() on a borrowed Error and while refactoring its usage into a smaller function I got a compiler error that my borrow and the borrowed type had to be 'static.

error[E0621]: explicit lifetime required in the type of `cause`
  --> src/error_handling.rs:94:34
   |
91 | fn formatMultipleCauses(cause: &dyn StdError) -> String
   |                                ------------- help: add explicit lifetime `'static` to the type of `cause`: `&'static (dyn std::error::Error + 'static)`
...
94 |     for (n, causeEntry) in cause.chain().enumerate() {
   |                                  ^^^^^ lifetime `'static` required

I applied the first suggestion until I got to a point where the compiler declared my error didn't live long enough.

Thanks to the help on Rust's discord I was told the compiler suggestion was incorrect - the borrow didn't have to be static, but the borrowed type had to.

A question was raised if the Error::chain() implementation was correct - right now it is implemented on dyn Error, but do you think it should be done on dyn Error + 'static instead?

Minimal reproduction of the static lifetime incorrect suggestion:

trait Foo { }

struct Bar<'a> {
    inner: &'a (dyn Foo + 'static)
}

impl dyn Foo {
    fn bar(&self) -> Bar<'_> {
        Bar { inner: self }
    }
}

fn f(x: &dyn Foo) {
    x.bar();
}

For reference here are the original snippets that triggered the problem:

haraldh commented 4 years ago

Here's an issue that may be directly related to Error::chain() or to another problem in rustc.

I've tried to use Error::chain() on a borrowed Error and while refactoring its usage into a smaller function I got a compiler error that my borrow and the borrowed type had to be 'static.

error[E0621]: explicit lifetime required in the type of `cause`
  --> src/error_handling.rs:94:34
   |
91 | fn formatMultipleCauses(cause: &dyn StdError) -> String
   |                                ------------- help: add explicit lifetime `'static` to the type of `cause`: `&'static (dyn std::error::Error + 'static)`
...
94 |     for (n, causeEntry) in cause.chain().enumerate() {
   |                                  ^^^^^ lifetime `'static` required

I applied the first suggestion until I got to a point where the compiler declared my error didn't live long enough.

Thanks to the help on Rust's discord I was told the compiler suggestion was incorrect - the borrow didn't have to be static, but the borrowed type had to.

A question was raised if the Error::chain() implementation was correct - right now it is implemented on dyn Error, but do you think it should be done on dyn Error + 'static instead?

Minimal reproduction of the static lifetime incorrect suggestion:

trait Foo { }

struct Bar<'a> {
    inner: &'a (dyn Foo + 'static)
}

impl dyn Foo {
    fn bar(&self) -> Bar<'_> {
        Bar { inner: self }
    }
}

fn f(x: &dyn Foo) {
    x.bar();
}

For reference here are the original snippets that triggered the problem:

* The working version before refactoring:
  https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=8246b0817606b96886f2fad00eee716a

* The not working version with comments what changed:
  https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=0cd335b97b920f0029a8ea6feacf99b6

try &(dyn StdError + 'static) instead of &'static dyn StdError

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=ebbea99325af683ea357a4b53d3f3bdf

ArekPiekarz commented 4 years ago

@haraldh I already said I tried that and it worked. The point is - why did the compiler make a wrong suggestion and could it be avoided by changing the implementation of Error::chain()?

haraldh commented 4 years ago

@haraldh I already said I tried that and it worked. The point is - why did the compiler make a wrong suggestion and could it be avoided by changing the implementation of Error::chain()?

Even if implemented only for dyn Error + 'static the compiler message does not change.

haraldh commented 4 years ago

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=47ce461c7a8f0d0a44ecb6a3220714ca

haraldh commented 4 years ago

Nevertheless, I now found a solution for having chain() on the Error trait as well as on dyn Error.

pub trait ErrorChain {
    fn chain(&self) -> Chain<'_>;
}

impl<T: Error + 'static + Sized> ErrorChain for T {
    fn chain(&self) -> Chain<'_> {
        Chain {
            current: Some(self),
        }
    }
}

impl ErrorChain for dyn Error + 'static {
    fn chain(&self) -> Chain<'_> {
        Chain {
            current: Some(self),
        }
    }
}

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=682e14eddb0270a6787ab0259966f2d3

This removes the non-ergonomic:

    let my_error = MyError;

    let mut iter = <dyn Error>::chain(&my_error);
    // or
    let mut iter = Error::chain(&my_error);

and you can now directly do:

    let mut iter = my_error.chain();
haraldh commented 4 years ago

Will make a PR soon.

haraldh commented 4 years ago

Here we go: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/69163

JelteF commented 4 years ago

Just found out about this API. I think it's a great idea. One thing that would be very useful is adding some more usability methods to Chain. Two ideas that would solve usability problems that people currently have:

  1. Implementing Display. This would then return all the displays, probably concatenated with :. Then you could simply do println!("{}", error.chain()) to display the whole chain. This would solve the issue described here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53487#issuecomment-583957601
  2. A backtrace() method, to find the first Backtrace in the chain. This would fix the issue described here: https://github.com/JelteF/derive_more/pull/110#issuecomment-587425851. Since you could simply do error.chain().backtrace() then.
shepmaster commented 4 years ago

to find the first Backtrace in the chain

The last is the most useful one, probably. This is why SNAFU encourages “wrapper” errors to delegate backtrace to the wrapped error, effectively creating a linked list of delegation.

Arnavion commented 4 years ago

What is the use case to default to returning an iterator that starts at self rather than self.source() ? From personal experience, the only time I've ever iterated the source chain of an error is to pretty-print it, which means every error except the root has a caused by: prefix and thus needs to be treated differently.

If this is the common use case for others too, then it seems to me the API should be designed such that the common use case does not have to write err.chain().skip(1). Rather the uncommon use case should require writing std::iter::once(&err).chain(err.chain())

haraldh commented 4 years ago

What is the use case to default to returning an iterator that starts at self rather than self.source() ? From personal experience, the only time I've ever iterated the source chain of an error is to pretty-print it, which means every error except the root has a caused by: prefix and thus needs to be treated differently.

If this is the common use case for others too, then it seems to me the API should be designed such that the common use case does not have to write err.chain().skip(1). Rather the uncommon use case should require writing std::iter::once(&err).chain(err.chain())

Hmm, I was more thinking about s.th. like:

if let Some(ioerror) = err
    .chain()
    .filter_map(Error::downcast_ref::<io::Error>)
    .find(|ioerror| ioerror.kind() == io::ErrorKind::NotFound)
{
    // …
}

for error handling rather than error reporting

JelteF commented 4 years ago

@Arnavion You could actually use something like this on the chain to achieve the pretty printing you talk about (untested code):

main_err.chain().map(|err| err.to_string()).join("\ncaused by:")
Arnavion commented 4 years ago

@haraldh Yes, that's true. I'm not a fan of chain introspection (*), but it's a valid use case.

@JelteF That creates a single String that can be potentially quite large and is certainly very unnecessary. It's worse than writing err.chain().skip(1).

() It ought* to be done by matching strongly-typed enum variants, like Error::ReadConfig(inner) if inner.kind() == ... rather than walking the chain() and guessing that this std::io::Error I found at an arbitrary depth in the chain relates to reading the config file. This is especially the case when trying to walk the chain of errors from third-party crates, because there is no guarantee of the chain being the same when you update the crate. But it's also true that sometimes there are too many Error types involved in the chain that it would be a hassle to change them all to have the cause explicitly in the variant, or even impossible if they're in third-party crates.

bbqsrc commented 3 years ago

Anything blocking this from stabilization?

haraldh commented 3 years ago

see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/58520#issuecomment-554912556 and following

especially https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69161 is annoying

haraldh commented 3 years ago

Stabilization Report

The current implementation of error source iterators is only implemented on dyn Error as chain(), which returns an iterator beginning with self instead of self.source() (which was discussed here).

This causes an un-ergonomic usage on non &dyn Error types:

    let mut iter = (&b as &(dyn Error)).chain();
    // or
    let mut iter = <dyn Error>::chain(&b);
    // or
    let mut iter = Error::chain(&b);

Solutions to the un-ergonomic usage

Implement chain() on the Error trait

An additional implementation on trait Error could be done via:

pub trait Error: Debug + Display {
    // […]
    fn chain(&self) -> Chain<'_> where Self: Sized + 'static {
        Chain {
            current: Some(self),
        }
    }
}

but that leads to issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69161

Add an ErrorChain trait

See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/58520#issuecomment-583289404 and PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/69163

Remove chain() and add sources() instead

Returning an iterator not starting with self but self.source() can be done in the Error trait directly and so it is implemented for all dyn Error also.

pub trait Error: Debug + Display {
    // […]
    fn sources(&self) -> Chain<'_> {
        Chain {
            current: self.source(),
        }
    }
}
haraldh commented 3 years ago

@withoutboats https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/58520#issuecomment-691982191