Re: [Bug 11375] New: [IndexedDB] Error codes need to be assigned new numbers

On 12/10/2010 5:03 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> Speaking of which, we use UNKNOWN_ERR for a bunch of other
> internal consistency issues.  Is this OK by everyone, should we use another,
> or should we create a new one?  (Ideally these issues will be few and far
> between as we make things more robust.)
Would a CONSTRAINT_ERR make more sense?

> What error code should we use for IDBCursor.update/delete when the cursor is
> not currently on an item (or that item has been deleted)?
I think NOT_FOUND_ERR makes sense there.

> TRANSIENT_ERR doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the spec.  Should it be
> removed?
I can't think of anything that we'd actually want to use it for.

> As for the numbering: does anyone object to me just starting from 1 and
> going sequentially?  I.e. does anyone have a problem with them all getting
> new numbers, or should I keep the numbers the same when possible.  (i.e.
> only UNKNOWN_ERR, RECOVERABLE_ERR, TRANSIENT_ERR, TIMEOUT_ERR, DEADLOCK_ERR
> would change number, but the ordering of those on the page would change.)
I think it is fine to just renumber.  If anyone is relying on the 
numbers being a certain thing now, I think it's probably best just to 
have a clean break instead of sometimes being right still.

Cheers,

Shawn