Remove misleading type definition

[adkenyon]

Goal

The type definition for client.notify method implies that several types are acceptable. Which isn't exactly true. When using an Error type client.notify works as expected. When using a string type, the error reported is notify() received a non-error. See "notify()" tab for more detail. while the error details are on the notify tab. This is confusing and does not work as expected.

Design

I removed the NotifiableError type in favor of Error. This is purely a type definition change with no change in functionality.

Changeset

The NotifiableError type was removed in favor of Error.

Testing

I'm having issues building/testing the repo as is. I was able to run the typescript check command with 400+ errors. After my changes, the typescript check did not register any new errors.

[xljones]

Hey @adkenyon, I do agree, an Error object should always be the preference for making a call to Bugsnag.notify(), especially in Promises so that we have a known object getting sent in (https://eslint.org/docs/rules/prefer-promise-reject-errors). However, I don't think this is a PR we'd be looking to accept as in some cases where an Error is not thrown, we still want a notification to be sent, e.g. legacy browsers, packages & code, or even just mistakes where a non-Error is tolerable, even if it's not perfect.

When notify is called, an Event is created: https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-js/blob/58c0ade57fa1ada78ce3dd912022f3e15b326fc7/packages/core/client.js#L286

When creating the event we make a call to normalize the "error": https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-js/blob/8bae662a32f939de7371ce542989d2dbed84f03b/packages/core/event.js#L163

https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-js/blob/8bae662a32f939de7371ce542989d2dbed84f03b/packages/core/event.js#L193-L265

If we made the change you're suggesting wouldn't break, but it would limit functionality for anyone using TS.

In your case, where you're seeing notify() received a non-error. See "notify()" tab for more detail., this sounds like a situation where you needed to specify an Error but did not, i.e. this specific message you saw was context specific.

[adkenyon]

@xander-jones thanks for the quick response!

One point I'd like to convey is the frustration this type definition continues to cause us. Passing an Error type compared to a non-Error type results in two very different results on BugSnag. This last week we shipped an app release that passed a String type to .notify() and the data in BugSnag isn't useful or actionable. We've having to update the code and create another app release. We've effectively wasted our time and lost a week of data. By passing an Error type, the data is much more useful in Bugsnag and actionable. This is something also comes up every few months, a dev thinks that a String type will work as expected when in actuality it doesn't.

I see your point on that this may limit functionality, but I'm not sure the functionality is desired? We've never found it useful or actionable

[xljones]

Hey – thanks for the added context! This has struck up a bit of a discussion internally. Some more thought is needed on how we'd like to proceed on this, so at the moment we won't be accepting the PR directly, but I'll leave this open for future updates on this area.

[adkenyon]

@xljones no worries! Thanks for considering it and happy to spur some discussion. This is all purely my team's experience and perspective. Understand ya'll have many more customers, perspectives, and tasks.

[gareththackeray]

Hi @adkenyon. Could you confirm that you simply passed called Bugsnag.notify('some string') and got notify() received a non-error. See "notify()" tab for more detail. as the message?
I've tried to reproduce this and can't. ~You should only get that message under certain circumstances like unhandled rejections.~ If you pass an arbitrary object you will get the behaviour you describe. Is it possible that that is what happened?