-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 338
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Diagnostics] Fix store kit error description tracking #4799
[Diagnostics] Fix store kit error description tracking #4799
Conversation
@@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ enum StoreKitErrorUtils { | |||
return storeKitError.trackingDescription | |||
} else if let storeKitError = underlyingError as? StoreKit.Product.PurchaseError { | |||
return storeKitError.trackingDescription | |||
} else { | |||
return Self.extractStoreKitErrorDescription(from: underlyingError) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In case the current underlying error is not a store kit error, we try to get the underlying error for the current error, if it exists. I don't think this should result in an infinite loop, as long as we don't have a circular reference in the underlying errors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this should result in an infinite loop
Yeah, I agree. But still, this scares me a bit. However, I honestly can't think of a way to check this without overcomplicating things a lot 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could add a maximum depth or keeping references to the errors as we loop, so we stop if we find one we already iterated on... but yeah might complicatethings a bit and I believe this should be mostly ok at the moment IMO. Other thoughts @RevenueCat/coresdk ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, I agree this should be ok for now. We should assume that this won't happen in errors coming from Apple's SDKs. And in our own errors, since they are structs or enums, we're dealing with copies anyways so I think this should not happen either.
@@ -222,6 +223,7 @@ class SK2ProductsManagerDiagnosticsTrackingTests: ProductsManagerTests { | |||
expect(params?.storeKitVersion) == .storeKit2 | |||
expect(params?.errorMessage) == "Products request error: Unable to Complete Request" | |||
expect(params?.errorCode) == 2 | |||
expect(params?.storeKitErrorDescription) == StoreKitError.unknown.trackingDescription |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This failed without adding the new code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense!
Only one comment about the infinite loop
@@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ enum StoreKitErrorUtils { | |||
return storeKitError.trackingDescription | |||
} else if let storeKitError = underlyingError as? StoreKit.Product.PurchaseError { | |||
return storeKitError.trackingDescription | |||
} else { | |||
return Self.extractStoreKitErrorDescription(from: underlyingError) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this should result in an infinite loop
Yeah, I agree. But still, this scares me a bit. However, I honestly can't think of a way to check this without overcomplicating things a lot 🤔
Will merge this for now, since I think we're safe for this change |
Description
Noticed that obtaining the store kit error description actually didn't try to get the store kit error when it was nested. I was able to reproduce in an existing test (by adding a new assertion), which gets fixed with the changes in this PR.