From 9e08a887a08da3f0cc132d148b748eb2ce7db135 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <9e08a887a08da3f0cc132d148b748eb2ce7db135.1635645523.git.julien@lepiller.eu>
From: Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 02:58:14 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] guix: records: Improve error reporting.
* guix/records.scm (report-invalid-field-specifier): Handle various
invalidity causes separately.
---
guix/records.scm | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
;;; Copyright © 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
;;; Copyright © 2018 Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
+;;; Copyright © 2021 Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>
;;;
;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
;;;
@@ -21,9 +22,13 @@ (define-module (guix records)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-9)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-26)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-35)
+ #:use-module (ice-9 format)
#:use-module (ice-9 match)
#:use-module (ice-9 regex)
#:use-module (ice-9 rdelim)
+ #:use-module (guix diagnostics)
+ #:use-module (guix ui)
#:autoload (system base target) (target-most-positive-fixnum)
#:export (define-record-type*
this-record
@@ -83,10 +88,53 @@ (define-syntax record-error
;; WEIRD may be an identifier, thus lacking source location info, and
;; BINDINGS is a list, also lacking source location info. Hopefully
;; PARENT-FORM provides source location info.
- (apply syntax-violation name "invalid field specifier"
- (if parent-form
- (list parent-form #'weird)
- (list #'weird)))))))
+ (let* ((weird-properties (source-properties #'weird))
+ (parent-properties (and parent-form (syntax-source parent-form)))
+ (location (source-properties->location
+ (or (and (not (null? weird-properties)) weird-properties)
+ (and (not (null? parent-properties)) parent-properties)
+ '()))))
+ (syntax-case #'weird ()
+ (() ;the empty list
+ (raise-exception
+ (condition
+ (&message (message (format #f (G_ "invalid field specifier: ~a")
+ #'weird)))
+ (&error-location (location location))
+ (&fix-hint (hint (G_ "The format of a field is `(field value)'"))))))
+ (((field ...) _ ...) ;a list whose first element is a list
+ (raise-exception
+ (condition
+ (&message (message (format #f (G_ "invalid field specifier: ~a \
+is not a valid field name")
+ (map syntax->datum #'(field ...)))))
+ (&error-location (location location)))))
+ ((field) ;a list with one element
+ (raise-exception
+ (condition
+ (&message (message (G_ "missing value in field specifier")))
+ (&error-location (location location))
+ (&fix-hint (hint (format #f (G_ "The field is missing a value: `(~a <value>)'.")
+ (syntax->datum #'field)))))))
+ ((field value ...) ;any other list
+ (raise-exception
+ (condition
+ (&message (message (G_ "multiple values in field specifier")))
+ (&error-location (location location))
+ (&fix-hint (hint (format #f (G_ "~a values were associated with \
+field `~a'. We got the following values:~%@lisp~%~{~a~%~}~%@end lisp~%Perhaps the additional values
+were intended to be other field specifiers. This usually indicates missing or \
+misplaced parenthesis.")
+ (length #'(value ...))
+ (syntax->datum #'field)
+ (map syntax->datum #'(value ...))))))))
+ (field ;not a list
+ (raise-exception
+ (condition
+ (&message (message (format #f (G_ "invalid field specifier: ~a")
+ #'weird)))
+ (&error-location (location location))
+ (&fix-hint (hint (G_ "The format of a field is `(field value)'"))))))))))))
(define (report-duplicate-field-specifier name ctor)
"Report the first duplicate identifier among the bindings in CTOR."
--
2.33.1
Hi Guix! Here is a new patch that attempts to better catch various causes of syntax errors in records. I think I fixed all the concerns Ludo had, and I draw some inspiration from https://issues.guix.gnu.org/50914 for using conditions. Here are examples of what you get: (operating-system ()) test.scm:1:0: error: invalid field specifier: () hint: The format of a field is `(field value)' (operating-system ((services %base-services))) test.scm:1:0: error: invalid field specifier: (services %base-services) is not a valid field name (operating-system (services)) test.scm:1:0: error: missing value in field specifier hint: The field is missing a value: `(services <value>)'. (operating-system (services (service tor-service-type) %base-services)) test.scm:1:0: error: multiple values in field specifier hint: 2 values were associated with field `services'. We got the following values: (service tor-service-type) %base-services Perhaps the additional values were intended to be other field specifiers. This usually indicates missing or misplaced parenthesis. (operating-system services %base-services) test.scm:1:0: error: invalid field specifier: #<syntax services> hint: The format of a field is `(field value)' (not sure why the last one is wrapped in syntax...)