Summary
Similar to #32958 and motivated by #32958#pullrequestreview-3107029707
We now are using util::Expected and removed TransactionError::OK
This makes the enum less confusing because it no longer includes OK.
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
See the guideline for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers |
|---|---|
| Approach NACK | janb84 |
If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code><!--meta-tag:bot-skip--></code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.
<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->
Approach NACK
I do not think this is the best future proof way to accomplish the goal. In C++ 23 std::expected is introduced, which is a better way (imo) to do for explicit error handling. E.g link link2
Yes we are currently on C++ 20 but a "polyfill" std::expected is already introduced in the code as util::Expected<T, E>
This makes the upgrade path to C++23 an easy search and replace and is a better way to do explicit error handling / remove the ok from the errors.
<!--cf906140f33d8803c4a75a2196329ecb-->
🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.