I was not commenting on the error being silent or not.

I am commenting that your initial version failed to log critical information that would make it possible to debug the problem later. And no matter how controlled the environment may be, you are not going to convince me that you won't ever have bugs to track down.

I am glad that your current example does that better. It does not do it well enough to make me happy, but it is better.

Here is a better version of the same thing that you have: 

sub ret_read_fh {
  my $filename = shift;
  my $fh = do {local *FH};
  unless(open($fh, "< $filename")) {
    log_error("open '$filename': $!");
    return;
  }
  unless(flock($fh, 1)) {
    log_error("flock '$filename': $!");
    return;
  }
  return $fh;
}

sub display_values_from_file {
  my $fh = ret_read_fh(shift);
  if ($fh) {
    while(<$fh>) {
      print process_line_from_file($_);
    }
  }
  else {
    print "Error opening file.  Please try again later!";
  }
}

[download]
Why better? Well suppose that some bright sysadmin gets the idea of having your data mounted from another machine over NFS. (This is not an unreasonable thing for a sysadmin to have reason to do.) With the revised version you will get notified that flock no longer works. With the original version the error would be silent until someone noticed sporadic loss of data over 6 months and thought to wonder why. (At which point you read your code and have no a clue where it could fail.)

My points?

  1. Don't trust system calls to succeed.
  2. Make sure that when they go wrong you have enough information to debug.
  3. Realistically you have a choice. Make errors fatal, or else encapsulate code which needs to handle errors. After all when you find a new possible cause of errors you do not want handling it to be harder than necessary.
Also a middle ground to consider is to make errors be fatal, but make sections with fatal error handling be trapped by an eval block. That makes breaking out on large numbers of possible errors easy to implement, while not interfering with your ability to handle the exception for the user.

In reply to Re (tilly) 5: Seeking Feed back by tilly
in thread Seeking Feedback on Chat Program (was Seeking Feed back) by Cobo

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.