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<dyn Error> 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-*