Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it is possible to use errors.Join directly on the error type instead of a slice.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, they're subtly different though; repeatedly calling
errors.Joineffectively is similar toerrors.Wrap; the new error is nesting previous errors, whereas a slice approach makes them all "peers"; https://go.dev/play/p/42cXzTSkjoAOutput;
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
interesting, i thought it might've behaved the same
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I think they chose a bad name for the function; I was confused as well when I was pointed at it!
Joinfeels like "same level", not "wrap errors to be nested".In many cases it doesn't make a big difference, e.g.
errors.Iswill recurse, so will still find nested errors (which sometimes is a bit of a pain / unwanted as well), but sometimes it may matter ("peer" errors vs "nested errors")