trivial failing test case for non-existing catch_error operator - #281

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.38%. Comparing base (0e638ae) to head (f53bd8d).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #281      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.43%   82.38%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          84       84              
  Lines       11810    11816       +6     
==========================================
  Hits         9735     9735              
- Misses       2075     2081       +6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Thanks for opening this. catch_error is definitely a missing operator, and contributions for it are welcome.

For the implementation, retry should be the best existing operator to reference, because catch_error also needs to keep the same downstream observer and switch to another subscription after an error. The main difference is that catch_error should subscribe to the fallback observable returned by the handler, rather than resubscribing to the original source.

For the first version, I think it is fine to keep the semantics simple: source values pass through, source completion completes normally, source error calls the handler and switches to the fallback observable. The fallback should then forward its values/completion/error downstream.

Thank you for responding! Looking at retry sounds like a great tip! We already started, but mostly by reading through existing operators. If an expert wants to one-shot catch_error, please don't hold back, but do let us know 😅. Otherwise, we are scheduled for another session Saturday.

Hey. Just an update report. I know that this is only one operator, but it has been quite a challenge, and it seems we have made progress.

I think we have it nearly figured out today.

Still coming along.