RFC 1644: default-and-expanded-rustc-errors

tools (diagnostics)

Summary

This RFC proposes an update to error reporting in rustc. Its focus is to change the format of Rust error messages and improve --explain capabilities to focus on the user's code. The end goal is for errors and explain text to be more readable, more friendly to new users, while still helping Rust coders fix bugs as quickly as possible. We expect to follow this RFC with a supplemental RFC that provides a writing style guide for error messages and explain text with a focus on readability and education.

Motivation

Default error format

Rust offers a unique value proposition in the landscape of languages in part by codifying concepts like ownership and borrowing. Because these concepts are unique to Rust, it's critical that the learning curve be as smooth as possible. And one of the most important tools for lowering the learning curve is providing excellent errors that serve to make the concepts less intimidating, and to help 'tell the story' about what those concepts mean in the context of the programmer's code.

[as text]

src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:29:22: 29:30 error: cannot borrow `foo.bar1` as mutable more than once at a time [E0499]
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:29     let _bar2 = &mut foo.bar1;
                                                                                         ^~~~~~~~
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:29:22: 29:30 help: run `rustc --explain E0499` to see a detailed explanation
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:28:21: 28:29 note: previous borrow of `foo.bar1` occurs here; the mutable borrow prevents subsequent moves, borrows, or modification of `foo.bar1` until the borrow ends
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:28     let bar1 = &mut foo.bar1;
                                                                                        ^~~~~~~~
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:31:2: 31:2 note: previous borrow ends here
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:26 fn borrow_same_field_twice_mut_mut() {
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:27     let mut foo = make_foo();
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:28     let bar1 = &mut foo.bar1;
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:29     let _bar2 = &mut foo.bar1;
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:30     *bar1;
src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:31 }
                                                                    ^

[as image] Image of new error flow

Example of a borrow check error in the current compiler

Though a lot of time has been spent on the current error messages, they have a couple flaws which make them difficult to use. Specifically, the current error format:

This RFC details a redesign of errors to focus more on the source the programmer wrote. This format addresses the above concerns by eliminating clutter, following a more natural order for help messages, and pointing the user to both "what" the error is and "why" the error is occurring by using color-coded labels. Below you can see the same error again, this time using the proposed format:

[as text]

error[E0499]: cannot borrow `foo.bar1` as mutable more than once at a time
  --> src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:29:22
   |
28 |      let bar1 = &mut foo.bar1;
   |                      -------- first mutable borrow occurs here
29 |      let _bar2 = &mut foo.bar1;
   |                       ^^^^^^^^ second mutable borrow occurs here
30 |      *bar1;
31 |  }
   |  - first borrow ends here

[as image]

Example of the same borrow check error in the proposed format

Expanded error format (revised --explain)

Languages like Elm have shown how effective an educational tool error messages can be if the explanations like our --explain text are mixed with the user's code. As mentioned earlier, it's crucial for Rust to be easy-to-use, especially since it introduces a fair number of concepts that may be unfamiliar to the user. Even experienced users may need to use --explain text from time to time when they encounter unfamiliar messages.

While we have --explain text today, it uses generic examples that require the user to mentally translate the given example into what works for their specific situation.

You tried to move out of a value which was borrowed. Erroneous code example:

use std::cell::RefCell;

struct TheDarkKnight;

impl TheDarkKnight {
    fn nothing_is_true(self) {}
}
...

Example of the current --explain (showing E0507)

To help users, this RFC proposes a new --explain errors. This new mode is more textual error reporting mode that gives additional explanation to help better understand compiler messages. The end result is a richer, on-demand error reporting style.

error: cannot move out of borrowed content
   --> /Users/jturner/Source/errors/borrowck-move-out-of-vec-tail.rs:30:17

I’m trying to track the ownership of the contents of `tail`, which is borrowed, through this match
statement:

29  |              match tail {

In this match, you use an expression of the form [...]. When you do this, it’s like you are opening
up the `tail` value and taking out its contents. Because `tail` is borrowed, you can’t safely move
the contents.

30  |                  [Foo { string: aa },
    |                                 ^^ cannot move out of borrowed content

You can avoid moving the contents out by working with each part using a reference rather than a
move. A naive fix might look this:

30  |                  [Foo { string: ref aa },

Detailed design

The RFC is separated into two parts: the format of error messages and the format of expanded error messages (using --explain errors).

Format of error messages

The proposal is a lighter error format focused on the code the user wrote. Messages that help understand why an error occurred appear as labels on the source. The goals of this new format are to:

In order to accomplish this, the proposed design needs to satisfy a number of constraints to make the result maximally flexible across various terminals:

Header

error[E0499]: cannot borrow `foo.bar1` as mutable more than once at a time
  --> src/test/compile-fail/borrowck/borrowck-borrow-from-owned-ptr.rs:29:22

The header still serves the original purpose of knowing: a) if it's a warning or error, b) the text of the warning/error, and c) the location of this warning/error. We keep the error code, now a part of the error indicator, as a way to help improve search results.

Line number column

   |
28 |
   |
29 |
   |
30 |
31 |
   |

The line number column lets you know where the error is occurring in the file. Because we only show lines that are of interest for the given error/warning, we elide lines if they are not annotated as part of the message (we currently use the heuristic to elide after one un-annotated line).

Inspired by Dybuk and Elm, the line numbers are separated with a 'wall', a separator formed from pipe('|') characters, to clearly distinguish what is a line number from what is source at a glance.

As the wall also forms a way to visually separate distinct errors, we propose extending this concept to also support span-less notes and hints. For example:

92 |         config.target_dir(&pkg)
   |                           ^^^^ expected `core::workspace::Workspace`, found `core::package::Package`
   = note: expected type `&core::workspace::Workspace<'_>`
   = note:    found type `&core::package::Package`

Source area

      let bar1 = &mut foo.bar1;
                      -------- first mutable borrow occurs here
      let _bar2 = &mut foo.bar1;
                       ^^^^^^^^ second mutable borrow occurs here
      *bar1;
  }
  - first borrow ends here

The source area shows the related source code for the error/warning. The source is laid out in the order it appears in the source file, giving the user a way to map the message against the source they wrote.

Key parts of the code are labeled with messages to help the user understand the message.

The primary label is the label associated with the main warning/error. It explains the what of the compiler message. By reading it, the user can begin to understand what the root cause of the error or warning is. This label is colored to match the level of the message (yellow for warning, red for error) and uses the ^^^ underline.

Secondary labels help to understand the error and use blue text and --- underline. These labels explain the why of the compiler message. You can see one such example in the above message where the secondary labels explain that there is already another borrow going on. In another example, we see another way that primary and secondary work together to tell the whole story for why the error occurred.

Taken together, primary and secondary labels create a 'flow' to the message. Flow in the message lets the user glance at the colored labels and quickly form an educated guess as to how to correctly update their code.

Note: We'll talk more about additional style guidance for wording to help create flow in the subsequent style RFC.

Expanded error messages

Currently, --explain text focuses on the error code. You invoke the compiler with --explain and receive a verbose description of what causes errors of that number. The resulting message can be helpful, but it uses generic sample code which makes it feel less connected to the user's code.

We propose adding a new --explain errors. By passing this to the compiler (or to cargo), the compiler will switch to an expanded error form which incorporates the same source and label information the user saw in the default message with more explanation text.

error: cannot move out of borrowed content
   --> /Users/jturner/Source/errors/borrowck-move-out-of-vec-tail.rs:30:17

I’m trying to track the ownership of the contents of `tail`, which is borrowed, through this match
statement:

29  |              match tail {

In this match, you use an expression of the form [...]. When you do this, it’s like you are opening
up the `tail` value and taking out its contents. Because `tail` is borrowed, you can’t safely move
the contents.

30  |                  [Foo { string: aa },
    |                                 ^^ cannot move out of borrowed content

You can avoid moving the contents out by working with each part using a reference rather than a
move. A naive fix might look this:

30  |                  [Foo { string: ref aa },

Example of an expanded error message

The expanded error message effectively becomes a template. The text of the template is the educational text that is explaining the message more more detail. The template is then populated using the source lines, labels, and spans from the same compiler message that's printed in the default mode. This lets the message writer call out each label or span as appropriate in the expanded text.

It's possible to also add additional labels that aren't necessarily shown in the default error mode but would be available in the expanded error format. This gives the explain text writer maximal flexibility without impacting the readability of the default message. I'm currently prototyping an implementation of how this templating could work in practice.

Tying it together

Lastly, we propose that the final error message:

error: aborting due to 2 previous errors

Be changed to notify users of this ability:

note: compile failed due to 2 errors. You can compile again with `--explain errors` for more information

Drawbacks

Changes in the error format can impact integration with other tools. For example, IDEs that use a simple regex to detect the error would need to be updated to support the new format. This takes time and community coordination.

While the new error format has a lot of benefits, it's possible that some errors will feel "shoehorned" into it and, even after careful selection of secondary labels, may still not read as well as the original format.

There is a fair amount of work involved to update the errors and explain text to the proposed format.

Alternatives

Rather than using the proposed error format format, we could only provide the verbose --explain style that is proposed in this RFC. Respected programmers like John Carmack have praised the Elm error format.

Detected errors in 1 module.

-- TYPE MISMATCH ---------------------------------------------------------------
The right argument of (+) is causing a type mismatch.

25|       model + "1"
                  ^^^
(+) is expecting the right argument to be a:

    number

But the right argument is:

    String

Hint: To append strings in Elm, you need to use the (++) operator, not (+).
<http://package.elm-lang.org/packages/elm-lang/core/latest/Basics#++>

Hint: I always figure out the type of the left argument first and if it is acceptable on its own, I
assume it is "correct" in subsequent checks. So the problem may actually be in how the left and
right arguments interact.

Example of an Elm error

In developing this RFC, we experimented with both styles. The Elm error format is great as an educational tool, and we wanted to leverage its style in Rust. For day-to-day work, though, we favor an error format that puts heavy emphasis on quickly guiding the user to what the error is and why it occurred, with an easy way to get the richer explanations (using --explain) when the user wants them.

Stabilization

Currently, this new rust error format is available on nightly using the export RUST_NEW_ERROR_FORMAT=true environment variable. Ultimately, this should become the default. In order to get there, we need to ensure that the new error format is indeed an improvement over the existing format in practice.

We also have not yet implemented the extended error format. This format will also be gated by its own flag while we explore and stabilize it. Because of the relative difference in maturity here, the default error message will be behind a flag for a cycle before it becomes default. The extended error format will be implemented and a follow-up RFC will be posted describing its design. This will start its stabilization period, after which time it too will be enabled.

How do we measure the readability of error messages? This RFC details an educated guess as to what would improve the current state but shows no ways to measure success.

Likewise, while some of us have been dogfooding these errors, we don't know what long-term use feels like. For example, after a time does the use of color feel excessive? We can always update the errors as we go, but it'd be helpful to catch it early if possible.

Unresolved questions

There are a few unresolved questions:

Copyright 2022 Nick Cameron and the RFC authors.