-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 157
Fix #1390: Suppress stack traces for incomplete OSM relations #1431
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
zstadler
wants to merge
2
commits into
onthegomap:main
Choose a base branch
from
zstadler:fix-1390-suppress-incomplete-relation-stack-traces
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Thanks for adding this! I already have some similar handling along these lines where these "verbose" exceptions are instances of "GeometryException.Verbose", and GeometryException has a built in
geometryException.log("Error processing relation")orgeometryException.log("Error processing relation", stats, "osm_relation_error")if we want to include these in the summary of geometry errors that gets printed at the end.It seems like we might be able to replace this whole PR with just changing these 2 "catch (Exception e)" blocks to something like:
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.
Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion about the appearance in the log, other than avoiding a scary ERROR and a useless stack trace.
Please feel free to change the PR code in any way you like.
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.
Actually could you share one or a few full stack traces that you're seeing? I tried adding that line but found that GeometryException is actually caught before that point and logged using that method that suppresses verbose logs already.
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.
There is a stack trace in #1390 (comment)
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.
Ahh I see, these geometry exceptions are normally caught and logged quietly (or not logged at all) but your profile asks for the area of a feature, and
Unit.javacallsapplyAndWrapExceptionwhich propagates any geometry exception that would have been suppressed very loudly.What do you think the fallback should be when area/length fail to compute? Should it return 0? null? or omit the entire feature
Or more broadly, if any of the properties in a yaml file fail with an exception do you think we should just omit that property? or the entire feature?
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.
There are actually two questions here:
Should an incomplete polygon be processed at all? For example, should its attributes be computed?
IMO, if a potential feature does not have a valid geometry it should be dropped as soon as can be.
How to handle (other) exceptions while computing attribute values?
IMO, it would be best if there is a clear error message with the OSM feature id and type, the layer.feature.name and the attribute name.
That should allow users to fix their definition/code.
Silent drop is generally not a good option. On the other hand, keeping the current stack trace is not very helpful for the user, and an unnecessary support burden for you.
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.
OK got it, what about this approach: #1454 - it avoids calling attribute processing functions if we already failed to construct the geometry, and also logs any exceptions less verbosely if they do occur?
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.
If I understand correctly, #1454 should address question 1 in a more general way than this PR.
You may want to use the tests added in this PR.
Question 2 is not addressed by this PR #1431 or the issue it would resolve - #1390.