-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 719
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
Load MiniMagick before use #12754
Load MiniMagick before use #12754
Conversation
We only reference MiniMagick when rescuing errors but when it's not loaded, that code fails to find the error class itself to apply the rescue block. The rescue block is covered by a spec but the code passes there as MiniMagick is loaded. We can see this error only in development, staging and production.
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ | |||
# frozen_string_literal: true | |||
|
|||
require "mini_magick" |
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.
The alternative is to rescue StandardError
which may be more robust and agnostic of what kind of problem is arising when processing an image.
Usually it's good practice to rescue specific errors. But if an unknown error breaks the shop page instead of not displaying an image then that's a bad consequence in production as well.
I want to merge this pull request today to include it in the release. But let's discuss other options, @openfoodfoundation/developers.
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.
I agree that using specific errors for rescuing should be the practice, however, I think it should be the case where we want to handle different errors differently.
If we need to handle each error similarly, then the StandardError
rescue seems better with some logging or non-code-breaking alerts. In this case, we are rescuing from 3 different errors I guess, but each is handled in a same way. We could shorten this by just rescuing StandardError
. In image processing, many cases may break the code and we may again face a similar issue in the future. That may have been handled by the MiniMagick::Error
rescue. But yes, like you said StandardError
may be more agnostic to handling these image processing cases.
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.
I agree it's worth breaking our rule of "always rescue specific errors" for this case. We are still notifying to Bugsnag so it won't be hiding any new types of errors.
Do we need to differentiate between known errors (ActiveStorage::Error, MiniMagick::Error, ActionView::Template::Error) and new error types?
I think not. Whatever the error type, if it happens infrequently we can probably ignore it. If it is impacting on users and they report it, we can investigate. Or if we see a huge spike in bugsnag, we can investigate it.
So I'm happy to switch to just StandardError. But I would suggest we use at least one of these known error types in the spec (if not already).
What? Why?
We only reference MiniMagick when rescuing errors but when it's not loaded, that code fails to find the error class itself to apply the rescue block.
The rescue block is covered by a spec but the code passes there as MiniMagick is loaded.
We can see this error only in development, staging and production with a freshly restarted server before any image has been uploaded. An upload triggers the loading of MiniMagick and the error disappears.
So there are two conditions to trigger this bug:
ActiveStorage::Error
.What should we test?
Release notes
Changelog Category (reviewers may add a label for the release notes):
The title of the pull request will be included in the release notes.
Dependencies
Documentation updates