<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Error-Handling on Brian Faust</title><link>https://wimdy.works/tags/error-handling/</link><description>Recent content in Error-Handling on Brian Faust</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://wimdy.works/tags/error-handling/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Silencing an Error Does Not Protect the Customer</title><link>https://wimdy.works/thoughts/silencing-an-error-does-not-protect-the-customer/</link><pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://wimdy.works/thoughts/silencing-an-error-does-not-protect-the-customer/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;One of our shipment-booking paths returned success after it had already failed.
The remote booking existed and so did a local shipment, but the shipment had no
label and no tracking number. From the customer&amp;rsquo;s point of view, the one thing
we had promised to do was not done.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The failure happened while persisting the carrier response. A broad catch
swallowed the exception, reported nothing, and let the request continue. This
was meant to serve a reasonable operational goal: do not bother customers with
errors if we can avoid it. Instead, we gave them a broken shipment and called
it a success.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>