@ianlancetaylor How could this proposal be moved into more active consideration? I think it is relatively simple, I am willing to implement it (if accepted), but having it sooner than later could allow the ecosystem to start using it.

CC @golang/runtime

What is a situation where PanicError would want to print more information than Error?
Or conversely what information must Error not print that PanicError would print?
Specifically, why is it important to print the stack trace during a program-ending panic but important NOT to print it when logging the error to disk and continuing?

Another possible approach to this would be to add a function to the runtime.

// Panicking reports whether the program is crashing due to an unhandle panic.
func Panicking() bool

Another possible approach to this would be to add a function to the runtime.

// Panicking reports whether the program is crashing due to an unhandle panic.
func Panicking() bool

I assume that the idea here is that Error methods would check runtime.Panicking() and modify their output?

One downside to this approach is that (currently, at least), the runtime calls the Error method prior to freezing the scheduler (in case those methods depend on scheduling, I suppose), so the modified "panicking" output could leak into logs, etc on non-panicking goroutines, which could get confusing.

(Unless runtime.Panicking() is goroutine-local, I suppose? But that is a whole other can of worms.)

What is a situation where PanicError would want to print more information than Error?
Or conversely what information must Error not print that PanicError would print?

So in general I would say that PanicError should print all information available in the error, to maximize debugging potential. That can include a stack trace (where the error happened, not where panic was called), but it can also include various key/value/fields data attached to the error (the errors package I maintain supports for example attaching arbitrary details, and some other packages as well). None of those packages output that information using Error(), generally Error() is single-line and all information above adds additional lines. How packages do that is that they support custom printf formatting flags to enable additional printing. But panic handling does not call that, it calls only Error() or String() and this is reasonable - you do not necessary want to call into printf formatting during panic, nor there is a standard fmt format to really extract all information out.

So I think keeping Error() output de-facto standard single-lines is something packages would not like to break just to handle the case that it might be printed during a runtime panic. Also, having Error() be multi-line makes it hard to combine errors with Errorf and %w - I think this is also another reason why everyone is sticking with single-line Error() output.

Specifically, why is it important to print the stack trace during a program-ending panic but important NOT to print it when logging the error to disk and continuing?

For the latter case the developer is in control and they can use fmt.Printf("%+v", err) or something to get this information out. During runtime panic developer does not have control.

I really think that PanicError is a simple and clear API for error to implement. We could also make it PanicString or RuntimePanicString to not suggest that only errors should be passed to panic, but it is really something which returns all info to output during a runtime panic.

I really think that PanicError is a simple and clear API for error to implement.

It may seem simple, but then it raises the question of best practices for which errors implement PanicError versus not, what extra information you print during panics, whether it is acceptable for logging packages and the like to call PanicError to get extra information even for errors that it doesn't know came from panics, and so on. Any time we change a fundamental interface, that's a major shift in the ecosystem that everyone writing Go programs has to absorb.

So far I don't think I have seen the evidence that this problem is pressing enough to be worth all this conceptual cost. Small changes can have very large consequences.

Also more concretely, if (1) PanicError is used for panics that go all the way to the top level of a goroutine and cause a program crash and (2) the example of what PanicError would do is print a stack trace of the error, then: the panic crash is already printing a stack trace. Why do we need to print a second one too?

This proposal has been added to the active column of the proposals project
and will now be reviewed at the weekly proposal review meetings.
— rsc for the proposal review group

It may seem simple, but then it raises the question of best practices for which errors implement PanicError versus not, what extra information you print during panics, whether it is acceptable for logging packages and the like to call PanicError to get extra information even for errors that it doesn't know came from panics, and so on. Any time we change a fundamental interface, that's a major shift in the ecosystem that everyone writing Go programs has to absorb.

You are right. Maybe a better interface could be a FullError() string which returns any additional data it has and is expected to return a multi-line string? Then also other callers might call it and find it useful.

I do find runtime.Panicking() an interesting idea as well, if it could be implemented easily. In a way, Error() today could already do that, inspect the stack trace to see if it is called from the runtime directly. An ugly workaround though in my mind.

Also more concretely, if (1) PanicError is used for panics that go all the way to the top level of a goroutine and cause a program crash and (2) the example of what PanicError would do is print a stack trace of the error, then: the panic crash is already printing a stack trace. Why do we need to print a second one too?

There can be a difference between a stack trace where the error was made and a stack trace where the error was passed to panic! You can call into a library which returns errors with stack traces and then determine that error at that point is unexpected and pass it to panic.

Also there is much more than just stack traces which can be stored in the error. gitlab.com/tozd/go/errors in fact promotes the idea that error strings should be more or less constant and you should not interpolate user provided or dynamic values into error strings, but that they should be attached as additional structured details on the error. This also allows one to add more such structured details as the error is bubbling up. Such separation makes it easier to log such errors (with structured logging) and in general makes one not have to parse such data out of errors. Moreover, such data might be large and could be unwieldy if tried to be interpolated into the error string. And often data is multi-line or potentially multi-line. Examples of such additional details:

• file system paths
• SQL queries
• paths to where in JSON an error is including the unparsed JSON string where the error failed
• URLs with query strings
• username

Those are similar benefits to why structured logging can be simpler to work with than textual logging, especially when you collect logs to some central place and want to automatically analyze them. Such errors with structured details allow then integration with structured logging, find patterns, count occurrences, etc. But with unhandled panic error, this pattern of not putting everything into Error has a downside: data is not visible. Having a way to output it in that case is what I am asking for here.

I still fundamentally don't see why we should privilege the act of crashing the program and make that Error string different from when the panic is recovered but logged for debugging separately. This seems fundamentally wrong as a design matter.

If this were needed in a widespread way (I haven't seen evidence of that yet), a more general approach would be to make the runtime look for a Format method and if so call it as if the panic value were being formatted with %+v.

But it's also already possible for anything doing panic(err) to do panic(percentPlusVFormatting(err)) where that wrapper intercepts the Error method and returns the %+v text. So it's unclear that the runtime should change.

I still fundamentally don't see why we should privilege the act of crashing the program and make that Error string different from when the panic is recovered but logged for debugging separately. This seems fundamentally wrong as a design matter.

Because if panic is recovered, you have control how you want to log the error. But for unhandled panic you, by definition, do not have control. So the other place with control is where the error is made and error could be providing additional way to format itself in the case of the unhandled panic.

a more general approach would be to make the runtime look for a Format method and if so call it as if the panic value were being formatted with %+v.

Not really, because there is no standard way to really format errors to get different information it might include. github.com/pkg/errors "standardized" that using %+v formats a stack trace and in my errors package I in fact, for backwards compatibility, cannot include more information with %+v because users expect that it formats (only) a stack trace, in specific format. So for example, you can use %#v to get additional structured details in my package (and %+v for stack trace, for compatibility with github.com/pkg/errors so that my package can be used as maintained drop-in replacement for it).

But it's also already possible for anything doing panic(err) to do panic(percentPlusVFormatting(err)) where that wrapper intercepts the Error method and returns the %+v text. So it's unclear that the runtime should change.

If you control panic call, sure. But if I am writer of a library which uses rich errors with additional information, and final app uses different libraries, some using additional information and some not, then it becomes tricky to handle all of that in percentPlusVFormatting because different errors might expose this additional information in different ways. Also, you have to remember to call percentPlusVFormatting for all panic calls.

I have used this pattern for JSON marshaling and for extended Format for errors. But that is easier because it is clearer what you are doing when you do fmt.Printf("%+v", errors.Formatter{err}) or json.Marshal(errors.Formatter{err})). But panic(percentPlusVFormatting(err)) is less clear because you do not really know if panic will be handled or not.

I mean, this argument could be made also for why does unhandled panic even check for error interface, it could check only stringer and then expect caller to do panic(errorToString(err)). But that would be sad because you would have to do it always. In the same way as now I would have to do panic(percentPlusVFormatting(err)) always, just in case if err happens to be a rich error. (And again, percentPlusVFormatting would have to support all possible error packages instead of being able to delegate unhandled panic formatting to those error packages themselves.)

===

I think interface { PanicString() string } is probably the best approach here. It is general and can be used for any value passed to panic() to handle the case when the panic is unhandled.

Alternative might be interface { PanicUnwrap() any } which would be called on the value passed to panic if the panic is unhandled, and only then existing logic of Error() or String() would be called on this unwrapped value.

This still seems too special case. I don't think we are going to convince you, but I also don't see a compelling case for this change today.

Yea, I see that we are not getting across to each other. That is fine, no hard feelings here, just so that you know.

But I do think that it is a necessary feature, unhandled panics are generally rare and you really want to maximize debugging information you can get at that point. So if error carries such information, it is sad that it is not possible to expose that information. There are not much alternatives (using Error() to expose it will break regular uses of Error(), and wrapping an error every time you pass to panic might work if you do control when panic is called, but that is not always the case - caller of panic might not know anything about the super informative error it is getting).

Based on the discussion above, this proposal seems like a likely decline.
— rsc for the proposal review group

Change https://go.dev/cl/581215 mentions this issue: runtime: properly frame panic values in tracebacks

No change in consensus, so declined.
— rsc for the proposal review group