# Objective
- ECS error handling is a lovely flagship feature for Bevy 0.16, all in
the name of reducing panics and encouraging better error handling
(#14275).
- Currently though, command and system error handling are completely
disjoint and use different mechanisms.
- Additionally, there's a number of distinct ways to set the
default/fallback/global error handler that have limited value. As far as
I can tell, this will be cfg flagged to toggle between dev and
production builds in 99.9% of cases, with no real value in more granular
settings or helpers.
- Fixes#17272
## Solution
- Standardize error handling on the OnceLock global error mechanisms
ironed out in https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/17215
- As discussed there, there are serious performance concerns there,
especially for commands
- I also think this is a better fit for the use cases, as it's truly
global
- Move from `SystemErrorContext` to a more general purpose
`ErrorContext`, which can handle observers and commands more clearly
- Cut the superfluous setter methods on `App` and `SubApp`
- Rename the limited (and unhelpful) `fallible_systems` example to
`error_handling`, and add an example of command error handling
## Testing
Ran the `error_handling` example.
## Notes for reviewers
- Do you see a clear way to allow commands to retain &mut World access
in the per-command custom error handlers? IMO that's a key feature here
(allowing the ad-hoc creation of custom commands), but I'm not sure how
to get there without exploding complexity.
- I've removed the feature gate on the default_error_handler: contrary
to @cart's opinion in #17215 I think that virtually all apps will want
to use this. Can you think of a category of app that a) is extremely
performance sensitive b) is fine with shipping to production with the
panic error handler? If so, I can try to gather performance numbers
and/or reintroduce the feature flag. UPDATE: see benches at the end of
this message.
- ~~`OnceLock` is in `std`: @bushrat011899 what should we do here?~~
- Do you have ideas for more automated tests for this collection of
features?
## Benchmarks
I checked the impact of the feature flag introduced: benchmarks might
show regressions. This bears more investigation. I'm still skeptical
that there are users who are well-served by a fast always panicking
approach, but I'm going to re-add the feature flag here to avoid
stalling this out.
---------
Co-authored-by: Zachary Harrold <zac@harrold.com.au>
27d02de375