I have two functions that are similar but can fail with different errors:
#[derive(Debug, thiserror::Error)]
enum MyError {
#[error("error a")]
MyErrorA,
#[error("error b")]
MyErrorB,
#[error("bad value ({0})")]
MyErrorCommon(String),
}
fn functionA() -> Result<String, MyError> {
// can fail with MyErrorA MyErrorCommon
todo!()
}
fn functionB() -> Result<String, MyError> {
// can fail with MyErrorB MyErrorCommon
todo!()
}
Is there an elegant (*) way I can express this?
If I split the error type into two separate types, is there a way to reuse the definition of MyErrorCommon
?
(*) by "elegant" I mean something that improves the code - I'm sure one could define a few macros and solve that way, but I don't want to go there
edit: grammar (rust grammar)
You can't create a subset of an enum directly, but splitting this up into multiple types works. You can have
FunctionAError
with errors that function can produce and a variant for your common errors, andFunctionBError
which is similar:The try operator (
?
) will automatically useFrom
impls to convert errors for you as well. If a function returns a result containingMyErrorCommon
in your function and you use?
on it, it gets converted to that function's error type for you.thiserror
generates theFrom
impl for you if you use#[from]
.