Originally published on my blog.
Introduction
If you’ve ever used a compiler (or any other tool) that can produce warnings about your code, you may be used to messages that are hard to understand, confusing or just plain wrong.
But today I want to show you that good compiler warnings do exist and how they can make your code more correct.
The incorrect server API
The first example comes from code I wrote to test the Rust implementation of the Tanker client SDK. You don’t need to know precisely how Tanker works to follow this example - let’s just say the client needs a “Tanker permanent identity” from an identity server to start a session. 1
In my case, the identity server was already written in Go using the Gin-Gonic framework.
Here’s what the implementation of the sign_in route looked like:
// This struct is used by various Gin handlers
type UserResponse struct {
UserID string `json:"user_id"`
Email string `json:"email"`
PermanentIdentity string `json:"tanker_permanent_identity"`
}
// handler for the /sign_in route
func (this *Server) signIn(c *gin.Context) {
var body SignInBody
jsonErr := c.BindJSON(&body)
if jsonErr != nil {
c.JSON(400, gin.H{"error": jsonErr.Error()})
return
}
email := body.Email
password := body.Password
// Not shown: check email and password, fetch user from the db
userResponse := UserResponse{
Email: user.Email,
UserID: user.UserID,
PermanentIdentity: user.PermanentIdentity,
}
c.JSON(200, userResponse)
}
To parse the JSON response from the server in the Rust client, I used serde, like this:
#[derive(Deserialize)]
struct UserResponse {
user_id: String,
email: String,
tanker_permanent_identity: String,
}
impl Client {
pub async fn sign_in(&mut self) -> Result<()> {
let email = ...;
let password = ...;
let mut data = HashMap::new();
data.insert(String::from("email"), email);
data.insert(String::from("password"), password);
let response = self.client.post("/sign_in", data).await?;
let user_response = response.json::<UserResponse>().await?;
self.start_tanker(&user_response).await?;
}
async fn start_tanker(&self, user_response: &UserResponse) -> Result<()> {
let private_identity = &user_response.tanker_permanent_identity;
let email = &user_response.email;
let status = self.tanker.start(&private_identity).await?;
// Not shown: verify identity by email when required
Ok(())
}
}
When I first compiled the code, I got this warning:
Warning: field is never read: `user_id`
--> src/notepad.rs:24:5
|
24 | user_id: String,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(dead_code)]` on by default
This made sense: as you can see, to start a Tanker session we only need the email and tanker_permanent_identity fields of the JSON response returned by the server. In particular, we don’t need the user ID at all.
What’s interesting with this example is that at Tanker, we already wrote six other clients for the server in question (using Python, Go, Java, Javascript, Objective-C and Ruby) and that was the first time we got an indication that our JSON API was wasting bandwidth by sending information that was actually not needed!
The useless mutation
The second example comes from a personal project - a week ago I started implementing an interpreter in Rust, following the instructions from the Writing an Interpreter in Go, by Throsten Ball.
As I worked on the the lexer, I wrote the following code:
use std::iter::Peekable;
use std::str::CharIndices;
#[derive(Debug)]
pub(crate) struct Lexer<'a> {
code: &'a str,
iter: Peekable<CharIndices<'a>>,
}
impl<'a> Lexer<'a> {
pub fn new(code: &'a str) -> Self {
Self {
iter: code.char_indices().peekable(),
code,
}
}
// ...
/// Try to read an identifier starting at start_pos
fn read_identifier(&mut self, start_pos: usize) -> &'a str {
// end_pos is either `None` if we reached the end of the input code,
// or Some(index) if we reached a character that is not part of
// of a valid identifier
let mut end_pos = Some(start_pos);
loop {
// Is the next character valid?
let peek = self.iter.peek();
match peek {
Some((next_pos, next_c)) if Self::is_valid_ident(*next_c) => {
// Yes: advance next_pos
end_pos = Some(*next_pos);
self.iter.next();
}
Some((next_pos, _)) => {
// No: advance next_pos and exit the loop
end_pos = Some(*next_pos);
break;
}
None => {
// There's no next character : we've reached the end
// of the input code
end_pos = None;
break;
}
}
}
match end_pos {
// end_pos is None: return all the code from start_pos to the end
None => &self.code[start_pos..],
// end_pos is not None: return the code from start_pos to end_pos
Some(index) => &self.code[start_pos..index],
}
}
}
Here’s what the compiler had to say:
warning: value assigned to `end_pos` is never read
--> src/lexer.rs:131:13
|
131 | let mut end_pos = Some(start_pos);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_assignments)]` on by default
= help: maybe it is overwritten before being read?
warning: value assigned to `end_pos` is never read
--> src/lexer.rs:136:21
|
136 | end_pos = Some(*next_pos);
| ^^^^^^^
|
= help: maybe it is overwritten before being read?
The second warning was the easiest to fix: we keep setting end_pos toSome(*next_pos) but never read it until the loop exits. So we can just remove the line that sets end_pos before calling self.iter.next():
fn read_identifier(&mut self, start_pos: usize) -> &'a str {
let mut end_pos = Some(start_pos);
loop {
match peek {
- Some((next_pos, next_c)) if Self::is_valid_ident(*next_c) => {
- end_pos = Some(*next_pos);
+ Some((_, next_c)) if Self::is_valid_ident(*next_c) => {
self.iter.next();
}
Some((next_pos, _)) => {
end_pos = Some(*next_pos);
break;
}
None => {
end_pos = None;
break;
}
}
}
But the compiler was still unhappy:
warning: value assigned to `end_pos` is never read
--> src/lexer.rs:131:13
|
131 | let mut end_pos = Some(start_pos);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_assignments)]` on by default
= help: maybe it is overwritten before being read?
This took me a while to realize, but the compiler is telling me that I can declare the end_pos binding but not initialize it right away:
fn read_identifier(&mut self, start_pos: usize) -> &'a str {
- let mut end_pos = Some(start_pos);
+ let end_pos;
loop {
match peek {
Some((_, next_c)) if Self::is_valid_ident(*next_c) => {
end_pos = Some(*next_pos);
self.iter.next();
}
Some((next_pos, _)) => {
end_pos = Some(*next_pos);
break;
}
None => {
end_pos = None;
break;
}
}
}
I love this : the end_pos binding is no longer mut, and can only be assign a value in two cases: either in the None arm of the match peek block, or to end_pos when the peek character is not valid.
It’s much less likely for the code to be buggy!
Conclusion
I hope those two examples gave you an idea of what it’s like to write code using a language that has such a focus on correctness and how nice it is to have useful warnings.
For now, Rust is the only language I’ve used which gave me this feeling of “the compiler has my back”, but I’m sure they are others - please tell me bellow if you know one.
And if this gave you a motivation to try and learn Rust, go for it!
I'd love to hear what you have to say, so please feel free to leave a comment below, or check out my contact page for more ways to get in touch with me.
-
More info in the Tanker documentation ↩
Top comments (0)