/cc @rsc @dsnet @bradfitz @mvdan

I understand that this should go through the proposal process, but any idea to start that?

@Segflow See https://golang.org/s/proposal. To make a proposal, please propose a specific change. Thanks.

First I think we want to hear what @mvdan thinks of the idea...

Given the existence of custom UnmarshalJSON functions that already don't guarantee any semantics regarding the errors they returns, I don't think we should expose semantically identifiable errors for unknown fields since it would only be a partial guarantee.

Furthermore, the original poster should adequately explain what they want to use this for. It's rare for any proposal to go through without some justification for why it's useful.

@dsnet one of our services process messages from a queue, there could be multiple instances reading from the same queue. Once a service reads a message from the dequeue we decode it(json) and process it.

A message could be invalid, thus a service should decide whenever it should delete the message from the queue or keep it so that probably another instance can process it (probably a newer version of the service).

For instance a "SyntaxError" on a message means we can safely delete the message.

We currently check if error starts with json: unknown field .

I also some similar usage in other repo: https://github.com/search?q=%22json%3A+unknown+field%22+language%3AGo&type=Code&ref=advsearch&l=Go&l=

If you want to keep the message if it is syntactically valid, is there a reason why json.Valid is not being used? It seems backwards trying to determine properties about the input after the fact by interpreting the error condition, rather than checking validity of the data up-front.

Following up a bit more, a problem with relying on errors to determine attributes about the input is the difficulty in presenting that information well and the confusion that arises when scaling to multiple attributes that a user may want to distinguish.

For protocol buffers, we had this issue where we wanted to present errors to distinguish between inputs that were "missing required fields" and inputs that contained "invalid UTF-8". Let's suppose the previous error was distinguishable using errors.Is(err, proto.ErrMissingRequired) and the latter distinguishable using errors.Is(err, proto.ErrInvalidUTF8).

Now suppose an input had both missing required fields and invalid UTF-8, which error do you present? Do you arbitrarily present just one of the two errors or do you return a composite error where errors.(err, proto.ErrMissingRequired) and errors.Is(err, proto.ErrInvalidUTF8) both return true? If you take the previous approach, it breaks users who expect to also detect the other error attribute. If you take the latter approach, it is subtly confusing since users are typically only asking one of the following two questions:

• Is this error exactly identical to proto.ErrInvalidUTF8 and definitely nothing else?
• Does this error at least contain proto.ErrInvalidUTF8 and I don't care if there are other attributes present?

The errors.Is function does not provide guidance on which of the two questions are being answered. However, in common usage, we found that both questions were reasonable ones that the user wanted to know for some specific use case. Rather than presenting an API that is confusing and easy to use incorrectly, I believe it is better to validate up-front attributes about the input than to rely on the error.

@dsnet - things may have changed a bit now with errors.Join?

Our case is that we want to present a specific message format to the caller. The json package already has two structured error types. Not having one in this error case is inconsistent.

Our use case is something like the following:

        se := &json.SyntaxError{}
	ue := &json.UnmarshalTypeError{}
	switch {
	case errors.Is(err, io.EOF) || errors.Is(err, io.ErrUnexpectedEOF):
		// return a formatted user message
		return
	case errors.As(err, &se):
		// return a slightly differently formatted user message - using the offset to be helpful
		// sure we need to string manipulate se.Error() in any case
		return
	case errors.As(err, &ue):
		// return another  differently formatted user message - using fields from ue
		return
	case err != nil:
		if strings.Contains(err.Error(), "unknown field ") { // TODO - go should have an error type for this
			// string manipulate err.Error to pull out things to go into the user message 
		}
	}