惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
H
Hacker News: Front Page
P
Palo Alto Networks Blog
T
ThreatConnect
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
博客园_首页
T
True Tiger Recordings
P
Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Blog
B
Blog
IT之家
IT之家
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
F
Full Disclosure
Hacker News: Ask HN
Hacker News: Ask HN
C
Comments on: Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
C
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency CISA
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
博客园 - 【当耐特】
N
News and Events Feed by Topic
NISL@THU
NISL@THU
腾讯CDC
雷峰网
雷峰网
Security Latest
Security Latest
李成银的技术随笔
M
Microsoft Research Blog - Microsoft Research
L
LangChain Blog
L
Lohrmann on Cybersecurity
cs.CL updates on arXiv.org
cs.CL updates on arXiv.org
C
Check Point Blog
Y
Y Combinator Blog
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
博客园 - Franky
N
News | PayPal Newsroom
V
V2EX
A
About on SuperTechFans
The Register - Security
The Register - Security
月光博客
月光博客
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
Google Online Security Blog
Google Online Security Blog
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
Cisco Talos Blog
Cisco Talos Blog
Vercel News
Vercel News
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
C
Cyber Attacks, Cyber Crime and Cyber Security
The Hacker News
The Hacker News
IntelliJ IDEA : IntelliJ IDEA – the Leading IDE for Professional Development in Java and Kotlin | The JetBrains Blog
IntelliJ IDEA : IntelliJ IDEA – the Leading IDE for Professional Development in Java and Kotlin | The JetBrains Blog
爱范儿
爱范儿
A
Arctic Wolf
L
LINUX DO - 最新话题
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More

Datadog | The Monitor blog

Reduce CVE noise with OpenVEX assessments in Datadog How we made a SQL query optimization agent 59% more accurate using autoresearch and LLM Observability How to audit and clean up monitors effectively Diagnose slow PostgreSQL queries faster with explain plan correlation Explore Datadog metrics with Natural Language Queries Toto 2.0: Time series forecasting enters the scaling era Simplify micro-frontend observability with Datadog RUM Attribute AI costs across providers with Datadog Cloud Cost Management Diagnose and resolve database performance issues faster with Database Investigator Datadog for Government achieves FedRAMP® High certification Analyze cloud costs with flexible spreadsheets in Datadog Sheets Inside Datadog’s AI Research Lab: Meet two PhD candidates behind Toto Connect triage and investigation in a single workflow with Datadog Cloud SIEM This Month in Datadog - April 2026 Monitor and optimize Supabase query performance with Datadog Database Monitoring Add dynamically updating context to logs with Reference Tables and Observability Pipelines Introducing ARFBench: A time series question-answering benchmark based on real incidents The product signal latency gap slowing your growth Test network paths with TCP, UDP, and ICMP in Datadog Turn developer feedback into operational insight with Datadog Forms and Sheets How to investigate cloud credential compromise with Bits AI Security Analyst Evaluate, optimize, and secure your Google Cloud AI stack with Datadog Bringing observability data hosting to the UK on AWS Identify and fix code issues faster with Datadog’s Azure DevOps Source Code integration Steganography at scale: Embedding share URLs in Datadog widget screenshots Every team should be A/B testing Centralize observability management with Datadog Governance Console Spotting CI/CD misconfigurations before the bots do: Securing GitHub Actions with Datadog IaC Security Route OTel data from AI apps to ClickHouse and Datadog using Observability Pipelines Manage service tracing across hosts with Single Step Instrumentation rules Offline evaluation for AI agents: Best practices Detect runtime threats in Python Lambda functions with Datadog AAP Introducing our open source AI-native SAST Instrument and monitor Boomi integration flows with OpenTelemetry and Datadog Not all index scans are equal: How we cut query latency by over 99% Platform engineering metrics: What to measure and what to ignore Integrate Recorded Future threat intelligence with Datadog Cloud SIEM CI/CD security: threat modeling using a MITRE-style threat matrix CI/CD security: How to secure your GitHub ecosystem Ingress NGINX is EOL: A practical guide for migrating to Kubernetes Gateway API How we built a real-world evaluation platform for autonomous SRE agents at scale Operating agentic AI with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore and Datadog LLM Observability: Lessons from NTT DATA Introducing the Datadog Code Security MCP Capture and analyze custom heatmaps in Session Replay Understand session replays faster with AI summaries and smart chapters Monitor ClickHouse query performance with Datadog Database Monitoring How we designed empathetic alert sounds for on-call engineers Search and act across Datadog to resolve issues faster with Bits Assistant Measure the business impact of every product change with Datadog Experiments Analyzing round trip query latency Configuring JavaScript caches for better performance Introducing Bits AI Dev Agent for Code Security Datadog achieves ISO 42001 certification for responsible AI Monitor Nutanix clusters, hosts, and VMs with Datadog Monitor Juniper Mist in Datadog A new Host Map for modern infrastructure When upserts don't update but still write: Debugging Postgres performance at scale Annotate traces to improve LLM quality with Datadog LLM Observability What's new in Cloud SIEM: AI-powered investigations, enhanced threat intelligence, and scalable security operations Explore Kubernetes with native OpenTelemetry data Monitor Oracle Fusion Cloud Applications with Datadog Announcing the Datadog Terraform provider v4.0.0 Scaling Kubernetes workloads on custom metrics How to design cloud environments for AI-powered threat analysis Monitor Aruba Central in Datadog How we centralize and remediate risks with Datadog Case Management Accelerate incident response with Datadog and ServiceNow Monitor your application and network load balancer logs Understanding Karpenter architecture for Kubernetes autoscaling Tools for collecting metrics and logs from Karpenter Monitor Karpenter with Datadog What your product data is actually saying Key metrics for monitoring Karpenter Securing Datadog's platform in the AI age: The role of observability data Closing the verification loop: Observability-driven harnesses for building with agents When an AI agent came knocking: Catching malicious contributions in Datadog’s open source repos Closing the verification loop, Part 2: Fully autonomous optimization Four ways engineering teams use the Datadog MCP Server to power AI agents Approaching your observability migration with the right mindset Meet the new Bits AI SRE: Deeper reasoning, twice as fast Designing MCP tools for agents: Lessons from building Datadog's MCP server Key learnings from the 2026 State of DevSecOps study Use plain English to query your multi-cloud infrastructure in Resource Catalog Simplifying troubleshooting across the user journey with Datadog Synthetic Monitoring Protect your OCI resources with Datadog Cloud Security This Month in Datadog - February 2026 Fine-tune Toto for turbocharged forecasts Amazon EC2 security: How misconfigured and public AMIs expand your cloud attack surface Enable end-to-end visibility into your Java apps with a single command Measure and improve mobile app startup performance with Datadog RUM Evaluating our AI Guard application to improve quality and control cost Identify untested code across every level of your codebase Make use of guardrail metrics and stop babysitting your releases Monitor Versa Networks SD-WAN performance in Datadog How we reduced the size of our Agent Go binaries by up to 77% Improve performance and reliability with APM Recommendations Remediate transitive vulnerabilities faster with Datadog Software Composition Analysis Generate audit-ready vulnerability and compliance reports with Datadog Sheets Monitor Fortinet FortiManager performance in Datadog Improve test coverage across codebases with Datadog Code Coverage
A practical guide to error handling in Go
2025-09-08 · via Datadog | The Monitor blog
Wojciech Gancarczyk

Wojciech Gancarczyk

When you first start coding in Go, you quickly learn how error handling in the language differs from error handling in languages such as Java, Python, JavaScript, or Ruby. In those languages, throwing an exception automatically generates a stack trace. Go, by contrast, provides no built-in error tracing to reveal an error’s origin. But despite its lack of automatic error tracing, Go’s error handling has matured significantly over time to give developers richer ways to capture context and diagnose failures.

This guide explores these richer capabilities in more depth. It shows how Go’s idiomatic error handling patterns work and how to apply them in real applications. It then summarizes best practices for error handling in Go. Finally, it demonstrates how Datadog’s Error Tracking and Orchestrion address the absence of built-in tracing by giving you clear visibility into where errors occur, how they propagate through code, and what context each error carries. With these added capabilities, teams can debug more quickly and keep Go services production-ready and reliable.

Evolution of error handling in Go

Go’s error handling started from a minimal design and has gradually expanded to include more advanced features and idioms. The subsections below walk through this progression, showing how simple return values grew into richer approaches: wrapping errors with context, defining custom types through the error interface, using errors.Is and errors.As for type inspection, and combining errors with errors.Join.

Error values and wrapping

Error handling in Go begins with the built-in error interface, which has been part of the language since its earliest versions. Its definition is minimal:

type error interface {

Error() string

}

Any type that implements this method can be treated as an error. This design reflects Go’s philosophy: errors are values, returned explicitly from functions rather than hidden behind exceptions.

From this simple definition, Go’s standard library provides the tools to create actual error values. The two core functions are errors.New and fmt.Errorf. Both return values of type error, which means they satisfy the built-in error interface. The distinction lies in how they construct those values. The errors.New function is the simplest option: Each call creates a distinct error value, even if the message text is identical. By contrast, the fmt.Errorf function allows you to build error values by using formatted strings. Since Go 1.13, fmt.Errorf has also supported the %w verb, which lets developers wrap an existing error with added context. Together with the errors.Unwrap function, this makes it possible to preserve the original error and later trace the cause of a failure through multiple layers of code.

The following code snippet illustrates how to use these functions in practice.

func main() {

err1 := errors.New("something went wrong")

err2 := errors.New("something went wrong")

// This will print false since errors.New always returns distinct values.

fmt.Println("err1 == err2:", err1 == err2)

// This will wrap the previous error using fmt.Errorf (Go 1.13+).

wrapped := fmt.Errorf("failed to process request: %w", err1)

fmt.Println("wrapped error:", wrapped)

// This will unwrap the error to see the cause.

cause := errors.Unwrap(wrapped)

fmt.Println("unwrapped cause:", cause)

}

Error wrapping plays an important role in Go because it provides a way to trace the origin of failures in situations where they move through several layers of a call stack. Once an error is wrapped, the added context makes it easier to identify where the problem occurred and to diagnose the underlying cause, which in turn helps developers resolve issues more quickly.

Custom error types

In Go’s early years, most code relied on simple error values created with errors.New or fmt.Errorf. As Go idioms matured, developers began to define custom error types more often. This shift took advantage of the fact that error is an interface, so any type that implements the Error() method can be treated as an error. This approach lets Go programs represent errors with richer information and allow callers to react differently depending on the type of error returned.

The following snippet shows how a custom QueryError type can be defined and checked at runtime, allowing the caller to handle it differently from a built-in error:

type QueryError struct {

Message string

}

func (e QueryError) Error() string { return e.Message }

func executeQuery() (int, error) {

randomBit := rand.Intn(2)

if randomBit == 1 {

return 0, errors.New("Unexpected error")

} else {

return 0, &QueryError{Message: "socket not found"}

}

}

func main() {

result, err := executeQuery()

if e, ok := err.(*QueryError); ok {

fmt.Println("QueryError:", e.Message)

} else if err != nil {

fmt.Println("An unexpected error occurred:", err)

} else {

fmt.Println("Query executed successfully, result:", result)

}

}

Extending custom errors with causes

While custom error types improve flexibility, introducing a new type for every failure condition quickly becomes cumbersome. A more scalable option is to enrich a single error type with structured information that distinguishes among categories of errors.

The snippet below extends QueryError with a Cause field and an enum of values (NetworkError, UserError, and UnknownError) so that the caller can branch on error categories without multiplying error types:

type QueryErrorCause int

const (

NetworkError QueryErrorCause = iota

UserError

UnknownError

)

func (q QueryErrorCause) String() string {

return [...]string{"NetworkError", "UserError", "UnknownError"}[q]

}

type QueryError struct {

Message string

Cause QueryErrorCause

}

func (e QueryError) Error() string {

return fmt.Sprintf("Failed to execute the query, %s", e.Message)

}

func executeQuery() (int, *QueryError) {

return 0, &QueryError{Message: "socket not found", Cause: NetworkError}

}

func main() {

result, err := executeQuery()

if err != nil {

if err.Cause == NetworkError {

// retry

}

if err.Cause == UserError {

// return error message

}

}

// ...

}

Type inspection and grouping with new language features

Although custom types and enums provided more structure, developers still needed simpler ways to inspect and extract errors as they moved through call stacks. Go 1.13 introduced errors.Is and errors.As to simplify unwrapping and type matching. Go 1.20 added errors.Join for grouping multiple errors.

The next snippet shows how errors.Is, errors.As, and errors.Join can be applied with QueryError to provide fine-grained inspection and handle combined errors cleanly:

type QueryErrorCause int

const (

NetworkError QueryErrorCause = iota

UserError

UnknownError

)

func (q QueryErrorCause) String() string {

return [...]string{"NetworkError", "UserError", "UnknownError"}[q]

}

// We are adding simple errors here that we will be able to use

// to highlight error unwrapping.

var (

ErrNetwork = errors.New("socket not found")

ErrUser = errors.New("user error")

ErrUnknown = errors.New("unknown error")

)

type QueryError struct {

Message string

Cause QueryErrorCause

// We are also adding an error here to allow error wrapping.

Err error

}

func (e QueryError) Error() string {

return fmt.Sprintf("Failed to execute the query, %s", e.Message)

}

// And finally the unwrapping support.

func (e QueryError) Unwrap() error {

return e.Err

}

func executeQuery() (int, *QueryError) {

return 0, &QueryError{

Message: "network error",

Cause: NetworkError,

Err: ErrNetwork,

}

}

func main() {

_, err := executeQuery()

if err != nil {

if errors.Is(err, ErrNetwork) {

// retry

} else if errors.Is(err, ErrUser) {

// return user-friendly message

} else {

// unknown error

}

}

var queryErr *QueryError

if errors.As(err, &queryErr) {

fmt.Printf("QueryError details: cause=%v, msg=%s\n", queryErr.Cause, queryErr.Message)

// special handling, or logging, monitoring, etc.

}

// This could be some other function call that returned an error.

otherErr := errors.New("timeout")

combinedErr := errors.Join(err, otherErr)

if errors.Is(combinedErr, ErrNetwork) {

fmt.Println("At least one error was a network error! Combined error:", combinedErr)

}

}

Best practices for handling errors in Go

The examples above highlight common patterns. From these, we can extract some best practices that help ensure Go programs remain idiomatic, debuggable, and easy to maintain:

  • Embrace Go’s idiomatic error handling: Functions that can fail should return an error as part of a tuple. This explicit style is central to Go and keeps error handling visible in the flow of the program.
  • Prefer wrapping errors: Instead of using errors.New, prefer fmt.Errorf when returning a generic error. Wrapping allows errors to propagate through the call chain and, with errors.Unwrap, makes it possible to trace their origin.
  • Use custom errors for additional context: Simple text messages may not carry enough information to resolve an error. Defining custom types allows you to encode more detail, represent unique states, and give callers fine-grained control over resolution strategies.
  • Handle specific errors differently: Use errors.Is to check for specific underlying errors and handle them in tailored ways. Use errors.As to extract custom error types when more detail is needed for logging, reporting, or advanced handling.
  • Balance custom types with simplicity: Defining too many custom error types can make code harder to follow. Favor readability over excessive granularity, and introduce new types only when they provide clear value.

Tracking errors with Orchestrion and Datadog Error Tracking

Providing reliable performance from day one requires visibility not just into metrics but also into errors as they occur. But investigating errors is challenging in Go. Although its error wrapping capabilities do add useful context, the language (as we have mentioned) does not automatically produce a full stack trace. What’s more, compensating for this lack of built-in visibility into the source of errors requires application tracing, which relies on instrumented code—and this is tricky with Go applications. Because Go applications are compiled into native binaries, they don’t provide the runtime hooks that languages like Java, Python, or .NET use for automatic instrumentation. This makes it harder to add tracing without changing the code. As a result, capturing detailed context of application errors in Go often requires adding tracing libraries directly to the application.

To address this issue, Datadog created Orchestrion, an open source, compile-time instrumentation tool that integrates with the Go toolchain and inserts tracing hooks, enabling comprehensive tracing and error tracking without manual code changes.

Once instrumentation is integrated into the build via Orchestrion, Datadog Error Tracking becomes available automatically as an additional capability. Error Tracking can surface precise details about where an error originated, including the file and line number. These details make it much easier to locate and debug issues in Go applications. On top of this, Error Tracking provides filtering and grouping features that reduce noise, so related errors are clustered together, and the most important problems are easier to spot.

To show how this works in practice, the remainder of this blog post will demonstrate Orchestrion together with Datadog Error Tracking in the context of a simple HTTP API. The scaffolded server below provides a controlled way to illustrate three types of errors—handled errors, unhandled errors, and panics—and how Error Tracking presents them. Each request to the /roll-error endpoint triggers one of these outcomes, allowing us to explore Error Tracking’s grouping and debugging features step by step.

func main() {

http.HandleFunc("/roll-error", rollErrorHandler)

log.Println("Server started on :8080")

if err := http.ListenAndServe(":8080", nil); err != nil {

log.Fatalf("Server failed: %v", err)

}

}

func rollErrorHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {

randomInt := rand.Intn(100)

ctx := r.Context()

switch {

case randomInt < 25:

w.Write([]byte(fmt.Sprintf("Rolled a number %d, no error", randomInt)))

case randomInt < 50:

if handledErr := handledError(randomInt); handledErr != nil {

w.Write([]byte("An error occurred, but it was handled gracefully returning a success response"))

} else {

w.Write([]byte("Rolled a number above 25 but handledError returned nil, no error occurred"))

}

case randomInt < 75:

_ = unhandledError(ctx)

http.Error(w, "An error occurred, but it was not handled", http.StatusInternalServerError)

default:

safePanic(ctx)

w.Write([]byte("Panicked, but recovered gracefully"))

}

}

Handled errors

Handled errors are those that are triggered by invalid or disallowed user input. They are common in systems where the request is structurally valid—for example, a properly formatted JSON payload sent with the correct HTTP method—but semantically fails because it violates application-level business rules.

In our simplified API, handled errors are deliberately raised when the random number generator produces a value between 25 and 50. Our implementation here is minimal as it is intended merely to demonstrate how such errors can be surfaced and tracked with Datadog Error Tracking. To make grouping behavior easier to see in the Error Tracking interface, the generated number is embedded directly in the error message. To illustrate, here is the function that raises handled errors and embeds the random number in the message:

// dd:span span.name:fooify.handledError

func handledError(randomInt int) error {

return fmt.Errorf("some business rule failed and error was handled gracefully for number %d", randomInt)

}

When Error Tracking processes these handled errors, it automatically groups them together. Even though the error messages differ because of the embedded number, they originate from the same line of source code and are therefore classified as a single issue.

The screenshot below shows how this appears in the Error Tracking interface. At the top, you can see the grouped issue and a timeline of occurrences. Beneath that, a sampled error displays the stack trace leading to the failure. By default, Error Tracking hides irrelevant third-party frames so that only frames from the application’s code are shown. This reduces noise, highlights the true origin of the error, and helps developers focus on the most important parts of the stack trace.

Datadog Error Tracking showing a grouped handled error.

Unhandled errors

Unhandled errors typically represent exceptional conditions that should result in an HTTP status code of 500 or higher. They often occur when a service receives unexpected input or enters a state in a downstream dependency that it cannot recover from. In these cases, the API could return an error response to the client, and the client could implement a retry mechanism to handle the failure more gracefully.

With only a small change to our scaffold, we can demonstrate how debug information can be attached to these unhandled errors. In a real application, the code would likely involve more complex logic, but here we model a simple case where a procedure calls two different downstream services. By tagging which service was invoked, you can capture metadata in Error Tracking that helps identify the root cause of an issue or at least narrow down the investigation.

The snippet below shows how the API adds tags to distinguish between Service A and Service B when raising an unhandled error:

import (

"github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-go/v2/ddtrace/tracer"

"math/rand"

"net/http"

)

// ...

case randomInt < 75:

randomBit := rand.Intn(4)

span, _ := tracer.SpanFromContext(ctx)

if randomBit == 1 {

_ = callExternalServiceA()

span.SetTag("callingExternalService", "Service A")

} else {

_ = callExternalServiceB()

span.SetTag("callingExternalService", "Service B")

}

http.Error(w, "An error occurred, but it was not handled", http.StatusInternalServerError)

// ...

In our example, we configured the callingExternalService tag with two distinct values to represent Service A and Service B. The goal was to achieve an approximate 25/75 distribution of errors between the two. After adding the tag to the issue panel in Error Tracking, we can confirm that the observed distribution matched our expectations. This result suggests that the majority of unhandled errors originated from Service B, allowing us to narrow the scope of investigation and focus troubleshooting efforts more effectively.

The screenshot below shows this breakdown in the Error Tracking interface. The error distribution panel displays the relative frequency of issues for each service, confirming that most errors are associated with Service B.

Datadog Error Tracking showing an unhandled error with tags indicating 75% from Service B and 25% from Service A.

A note on panic

In Go, a panic signals that something exceptional has happened at runtime. Common causes include dereferencing a nil pointer, which results in a process crash, or attempting to access an array index that is out of bounds. In some Go libraries, panics are also used to enforce the exhaustiveness of enums by raising an error if an unexpected value is assigned.

In our example API, panics are triggered in the final branch of the error-handling switch. The snippet below shows how to recover from a panic using a deferred function. By combining recover with Datadog’s tracer.StartSpanFromContext, the code captures the error, marks the operation as an error in the active span, and allows the panic to appear in Datadog Error Tracking as an issue with a full stack trace. This approach records the error while letting the application continue running.

func safePanic(ctx context.Context) {

span, ctx := tracer.StartSpanFromContext(ctx, "fooify.safePanic")

defer func() {

var err error

if r := recover(); r != nil {

err = fmt.Errorf("recovered from panic: %v", r)

}

span.Finish(tracer.WithError(err))

}()

var p *int

_ = *p

}

The screenshot below illustrates how a recovered panic is displayed in Datadog Error Tracking. The full stack trace is captured, but by default irrelevant third-party frames are hidden so you can focus on the application code that triggered the panic. Thanks to recover, the service keeps running while the panic is recorded and tracked as an error.

Datadog Error Tracking showing a recovered panic with stack trace, highlighting a nil pointer dereference in application code.

Other features of Error Tracking

The examples above highlight only a subset of what Datadog Error Tracking can do. On the issue overview page, handled and unhandled errors can be quickly distinguished by using the search parameter error.handling:handled. This separation makes it easier to triage problems and assign them to the right teams.

Error Tracking also goes beyond simply identifying errors. It captures a complete history of related events and actions, which allows teams to reproduce issues without relying solely on user feedback. Combined with volume metrics that show the frequency and impact of specific problems, this information helps teams prioritize which errors to address first.

Finally, Error Tracking integrates with alerting channels so that teams receive real-time notifications of critical issues. This makes it less likely for errors to slip into production unnoticed. And because all of this works with minimal setup when using Orchestrion, developers can gain full error visibility without a heavy lift.

Building reliable Go applications with observability in mind

Go’s design treats errors as values and encourages explicit handling through return types, wrapping, and custom error types. Over time, the ecosystem has added tools like errors.Is, errors.As, and errors.Join to make inspection and classification easier. These patterns give developers flexibility, but they also highlight the need for strong observability to understand how errors propagate in real systems.

With Orchestrion’s compile-time instrumentation and Datadog Error Tracking, teams can connect Go’s idiomatic error-handling techniques to actionable insights in production. Error Tracking groups related issues, filters out noise, and provides detailed metadata so that developers can identify and resolve problems quickly. Together, these practices and tools help teams build Go applications that are resilient and debuggable in production.

For more information about Orchestrion, read our blog post on the topic. To read more about Datadog Error Tracking, see our documentation. And if you’re not yet a Datadog customer, sign up for a 14-day free trial.