It is important to note that a failure to read data stored on the disk can happen due to transient, recoverable reasons as well (low memory, lack of file descriptors, etc.). We can decide whether to specify an error for these scenarios too or to leave it to the implementer, but we should intend to distinguish between the recoverable and unrecoverable cases so that developers can handle the two cases appropriately. More details here - https://chromestatus.com/feature/5140210640486400

CC @asutherland, @domenic, @inexorabletash, @SteveBeckerMSFT

According to the WebIDL spec UnknownError should be reserved for transient problems. We should probably update the IDB spec to reflect that distinction.

It was pointed out elsewhere that NotFoundError is usually used (in IDB) for cases where the most likely source of the error is the usage of the API, i.e. an index or object store is missing because it was never added.

I'd propose pulling NotReadableError into the IDB spec, which is described by WebIDL as "The I/O read operation failed." (No mention of transient or permanent.) The message text, AFAICT, is left to the implementation; in Chromium we'd likely add some more color such as "A file is missing and the value is irrecoverable. The record should be deleted or updated". Transient read errors should probably be reported as UnknownError (as FF already does -- Chromium uses DataError which seems not correct.)

I agree that it's worth standardizing the error for cases where it's reported, and NotReadableError seems appropriately descriptive.

That said, it's been our belief in Firefox that unless we spec some kind of content opt-in to avoid the behavior, data corruption should result in the containing storage bucket being cleared. Multiple storage buckets seems like the most practical approach since it normalizes a hopefully uncommon case (data corruption) into a common case that code should already be handling (data clearing due to storage pressure).

Related discussions: Storage corruption reporting.

Thanks, Evan, Andrew. Let me work on a spec PR to:

1. Specify in the description of UnknownError that it should be used for transient reasons.
2. Add an entry for NotReadableError under https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#exceptions.
3. Add an additional step under all applicable retrieval steps that says some version of If the stored value is not readable due to a permanent error (such as data loss), throw a "NotReadableError" DOMException.

Thoughts? Should we specify the conditions for throwing a NotReadableError in a common place instead of for individual methods?

data corruption should result in the containing storage bucket being cleared

We discussed this briefly for Chromium too. Yes, deleting the storage bucket entirely would leave things in as consistent a state as possible, but it is a destructive action whose impact could vary based on how the website is using IndexedDB. Hence, it seemed better to surface the error clearly to the website so that it could take the right corrective action for its use case. We could discuss this further, though, and also perhaps solicit developer feedback.

Thoughts? Should we specify the conditions for throwing a NotReadableError in a common place instead of for individual methods?

This seems good, thank you. I don't have a strong opinion other than, if there aren't many cases of needing the verbiage to throw the error and the verbiage isn't too verbose, having them in-line as opposed to in an extracted algorithm makes it more likely people will see that that can happen?

data corruption should result in the containing storage bucket being cleared

We discussed this briefly for Chromium too. Yes, deleting the storage bucket entirely would leave things in as consistent a state as possible, but it is a destructive action whose impact could vary based on how the website is using IndexedDB. Hence, it seemed better to surface the error clearly to the website so that it could take the right corrective action for its use case. We could discuss this further, though, and also perhaps solicit developer feedback.

Yes, it would be good to discuss this further, and it need not be on this issue.

I agree with the rationale that if a site can take corrective action, it would be good to enable the site to take corrective action. Unfortunately we've found many users of IDB don't really handle errors, so it would be desirable to have some kind of strong signal that the site is taking responsibility for dealing with the error. But I suppose that could be as simple as "the default behavior of a NotReadableError is clearing your bucket, so call preventDefault if you think you can clean things up".

A meta issue for us is that right now, for non-Private Browsing Mode (PBM), we really only have SQLite's concept of detecting corruption and structured deserialization errors from JS, so if corruption happens, it's very hard to tell what still might be good. For PBM we actually use AEAD encryption on a database page level and blob chunk basis so we potentially have a much better idea of what is good and what is bad, and we might potentially move to using AEAD for non-PBM cases to that end in order to be able to better characterize the integrity of data.

@asutherland, I've created #431 to discuss further on whether we should spec deletion of site data on corruption.