This is a returning theme and while errors have been improved a number of times, there are still some critical flaws in the system.
At some point, the whole pipeline feature should be refactored but for now, the most pressing issue is to differentiate between critical and non-critical errors. An example is that a malfunctioning extension will panic the application if it fails for all documents. This happens because the errors are only handled after the output is generated (and even if this was not the case, the errors are simply printed to the console and don't have any influence over the program flow).
The solution seems to be to differentiate between non-critical and critical errors. The former comprises user errors, mainly syntax errors and template errors. The latter consists of programming errors in extensions or in imported templates.
This is a returning theme and while errors have been improved a number of times, there are still some critical flaws in the system.
At some point, the whole pipeline feature should be refactored but for now, the most pressing issue is to differentiate between critical and non-critical errors. An example is that a malfunctioning extension will panic the application if it fails for all documents. This happens because the errors are only handled after the output is generated (and even if this was not the case, the errors are simply printed to the console and don't have any influence over the program flow).
The solution seems to be to differentiate between non-critical and critical errors. The former comprises user errors, mainly syntax errors and template errors. The latter consists of programming errors in extensions or in imported templates.