proc-macro-error
This crate aims to make error reporting in proc-macros simple and easy to use.
Migrate from panic!
-based errors for as little effort as possible!
Also, there's ability to append a dummy token stream to your errors.
[]
= "0.4"
Supports rustc 1.31 and up
What emitted errors look like
error: multiple error part: multi2
= note: help message test
= help: Option help test
= note: I see what you did here...
--> $DIR/multi-error.rs:4:18
|
4 | make_fn!(multi1, multi2, _, multi3);
| ^^^^^^
Examples
Panic-like usage
use *;
use TokenStream;
use ;
use quote;
// This is your main entry point
// this attribute *MUST* be placed on top of the #[proc_macro] function
proc_macro::Diagnostic
-like usage
use *;
use TokenStream;
use ;
use quote;
Limitations
- Warnings are emitted only on nightly, they are ignored on stable.
- "help" suggestions can't have their own span info on stable, (essentially inheriting the parent span).
- If a panic occurs somewhere in your macro no errors will be displayed. This is not a
technical limitation but rather intentional design.
panic
is not for error reporting. - Temporary incompatible with
proc_macro_hack
, unfortunately. No worries, some highly trained people are working on it!
MSRV policy
proc_macro_error
will always be compatible with proc-macro Holy Trinity:
proc_macro2
, syn
, quote
crates. In other words, if the Trinity is available
to you - proc_macro_error
is available too.
Important!
If you want to use
#[proc_macro_error]
withsynstructure
, you're going to have to put the attribute inside thedecl_derive!
invocation. Unfortunately, due to some bug in pre-1.34 rustc, putting proc-macro attributes inside macro invocations doesn't work, so your MSRV is effectively 1.34 in cases like that.
Motivation
Error handling in proc-macros sucks. There's not much of a choice today:
you either "bubble up" the error up to the top-level of the macro and convert it to
a compile_error!
invocation or just use a good old panic. Both these ways suck:
-
Former sucks because it's quite redundant to unroll a proper error handling just for critical errors that will crash the macro anyway; so people mostly choose not to bother with it at all and use panic. Simple
.expect
is too tempting.Also, if you do decide to implement this
Result
-based architecture in your macro you're going to have to rewrite it entirely onceproc_macro::Diagnostic
is finally stable. Not cool. -
Later sucks because there's no way to carry out the span info via
panic!
.rustc
will highlight the invocation itself but not some specific token inside it.Furthermore, panics aren't for error-reporting at all; panics are for bug-detecting (like unwrapping on
None
or out-of-range indexing) or for early development stages when you need a prototype ASAP so error handling can wait. Mixing these usages only messes things up. -
There is
proc_macro::Diagnostic
which is awesome but it has been experimental for more than a year and is unlikely to be stabilized any time soon.This crate's API is intentionally designed to be compatible with
proc_macro::Diagnostic
and delegates to it whenever possible. OnceDiagnostics
is stable this crate will always delegate to it, no code changes will be required on user side.
That said, we need a solution, but this solution must meet these conditions:
- It must be better than
panic!
. The main point: it must offer a way to carry span information over to user. - It must take as little effort as possible to migrate from
panic!
. Ideally, a new macro with the same semantics plus ability to carry out span info. - It must maintain compatibility with
proc_macro::Diagnostic
. - It must be usable on stable.
This crate aims to provide such a mechanism. All you have to do is annotate your top-level
#[proc_macro]
function with #[proc_macro_errors]
attribute and change panics to
abort!
/abort_call_site!
where appropriate, see the Guide.
Disclaimer
Please note that this crate is not intended to be used in any way other
than proc-macro error reporting, use Result
and ?
for anything else.