m13-domain-error

Domain Error Strategy

Layer 2: Design Choices

Core Question

Who needs to handle this error, and how should they recover?

Before designing error types:

• Is this user-facing or internal?
• Is recovery possible?
• What context is needed for debugging?

---

Error Categorization

Error Type	Audience	Recovery	Example
User-facing	End users	Guide action	InvalidEmail, NotFound
Internal	Developers	Debug info	DatabaseError, ParseError
System	Ops/SRE	Monitor/alert	ConnectionTimeout, RateLimited
Transient	Automation	Retry	NetworkError, ServiceUnavailable
Permanent	Human	Investigate	ConfigInvalid, DataCorrupted

---

Thinking Prompt

Before designing error types:

1. Who sees this error?

   • End user → friendly message, actionable
   • Developer → detailed, debuggable
   • Ops → structured, alertable

2. Can we recover?

   • Transient → retry with backoff
   • Degradable → fallback value
   • Permanent → fail fast, alert

3. What context is needed?

   • Call chain → anyhow::Context
   • Request ID → structured logging
   • Input data → error payload

---

Trace Up ↑

To domain constraints (Layer 3):

"How should I handle payment failures?"
    ↑ Ask: What are the business rules for retries?
    ↑ Check: domain-fintech (transaction requirements)
    ↑ Check: SLA (availability requirements)

Question	Trace To	Ask
Retry policy	domain-*	What's acceptable latency for retry?
User experience	domain-*	What message should users see?
Compliance	domain-*	What must be logged for audit?

---

Trace Down ↓

To implementation (Layer 1):

"Need typed errors"
    ↓ m06-error-handling: thiserror for library
    ↓ m04-zero-cost: Error enum design

"Need error context"
    ↓ m06-error-handling: anyhow::Context
    ↓ Logging: tracing with fields

"Need retry logic"
    ↓ m07-concurrency: async retry patterns
    ↓ Crates: tokio-retry, backoff

---

Quick Reference

Recovery Pattern	When	Implementation
Retry	Transient failures	exponential backoff
Fallback	Degraded mode	cached/default value
Circuit Breaker	Cascading failures	failsafe-rs
Timeout	Slow operations	tokio::time::timeout
Bulkhead	Isolation	separate thread pools

Error Hierarchy

#[derive(thiserror::Error, Debug)]
pub enum AppError {
    // User-facing
    #[error("Invalid input: {0}")]
    Validation(String),

    // Transient (retryable)
    #[error("Service temporarily unavailable")]
    ServiceUnavailable(#[source] reqwest::Error),

    // Internal (log details, show generic)
    #[error("Internal error")]
    Internal(#[source] anyhow::Error),
}

impl AppError {
    pub fn is_retryable(&self) -> bool {
        matches!(self, Self::ServiceUnavailable(_))
    }
}

Retry Pattern

use tokio_retry::{Retry, strategy::ExponentialBackoff};

async fn with_retry<F, T, E>(f: F) -> Result<T, E>
where
    F: Fn() -> impl Future<Output = Result<T, E>>,
    E: std::fmt::Debug,
{
    let strategy = ExponentialBackoff::from_millis(100)
        .max_delay(Duration::from_secs(10))
        .take(5);

    Retry::spawn(strategy, || f()).await
}

---

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Why Wrong	Better
Same error for all	No actionability	Categorize by audience
Retry everything	Wasted resources	Only transient errors
Infinite retry	DoS self	Max attempts + backoff
Expose internal errors	Security risk	User-friendly messages
No context	Hard to debug	.context() everywhere

---

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Why Bad	Better
String errors	No structure	thiserror types
panic! for recoverable	Bad UX	Result with context
Ignore errors	Silent failures	Log or propagate
Box everywhere	Lost type info	thiserror
Error in happy path	Performance	Early validation

---

Related Skills

When	See
Error handling basics	m06-error-handling
Retry implementation	m07-concurrency
Domain modeling	m09-domain
User-facing APIs	domain-*