Reconcile use of handleException vs. logError for server side exception handling. #425
Conversation
This file contains 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
lbwexler
changed the title
|
Going to merge this simple fix to close this ticket. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We use both
handleExceptionandlogErroron the server. But the former provides additional services (e.g. sanitization, recognition of "RoutineExceptions" and other conventions). That logic should be used generally when logging our exceptionsNot sure how we want to do this syntactically -- integrate the use of ExceptionHandler into 'logSupport.logError'? Favor the use of
xhExceptionHandler.handleException? Or write a new service methodBaseService.logExceptionthat will call the latter in a more streamlined way?