Error Handling: improvements
reviewed
Crypto Monday
Enable error handling also for:
- the whole scenario
- sequences of modules
- module's Initialization phase (currently only available for the module's Operation phase)
- verification of connections (takes place before the Initialization phase)
-------
I don't know if I've missed a feature, but I find attaching error handlers to single modules pretty laborious.
I think it would be helpful to have some kind of catch all error handling module. On one side it could be for the whole scenario, but it could maybe also behave like the router. Meaning, all modules attached after that error handling module, will be sort of sandboxed, and any error occurring in that box gets routed to other modules that should handle that error. And you could have multiple "sandboxes" in one scenario. Nested Sandboxes should pass on the error to the parent sandbox, if it can't handle it.
Chris Hintz: The lack of error handling during the init phase of modules (concerns) mainly business users which need to trust that once 'activated' scenario's keep running. As long as business users cannot trust activated scenario's I believe Intergromat cannot grow in that market.
Log In
Ilia Sablukov
marked this post as
reviewed
Peter Trenkner
Thank you for this detailed feedback — we hear you on the complexity of managing error handling across larger scenarios.
While the specific structural changes you've described (scenario-level catch-all, sandboxed error zones) aren't on our immediate roadmap, we are actively working on improving the overall error experience.
This includes helping users better understand where errors originate during scenario building, how to resolve them, and providing clearer guidance on the role of each error handling module and when to use it.
We believe these improvements will make error handling significantly more approachable, and your feedback helps us shape that direction.
Surya Sanchez
Peter Trenkner Webhook on error / warning please. At the moment I think we can only receive Make error via email.
Gabriel
Error handling that's applied for all modules in a given scenario. That would be extremely helpful, much better than attaching an error handler to every module, like we currently have to do...
Tal
This is critical! Scenarios cannot be fully automated without these features.
LEROY Nicolas
any news ?
LEROY Nicolas
any news ?
Al
These are all great ideas. I'm also very concerned about the lack of a ability to RESOLVE and more importantly, CONTINUE.
Imagine a very complicated scenario with a lot of paths, routers, etc. One step fails 1/4 of the way in. I need to fix that and CONTINUE through the ENTIRE scenario.
Error handling allows you to gracefully deal with an error and continue. None of the options provided thus far allow me to do this outside of a very, very simple scenario.
The error handling that exists today only creates a NEW path that can never continue down the ORIGINAL path.
Aslan Goldenhour
👆 this! especially when connections fail
Aslan Goldenhour
Adding on here… maybe a way to handle this easily is a webhook to trigger when the whole scenario errors. That way we can have a catch-all where we can handle errors and note that in our DB. With that functionality we could retry scenarios later based on a timer, where a particular flow has an error flag in processing in our DB.
Aslan Goldenhour
One other note Tereza Klobouckova, I see docs on the Throw "workaround" (https://www.make.com/en/help/errors/throw) — please replace that work around with this feature. 🙏
Kazumi Akashi
We need this...
Bruno Thomé
Really useful for scenarios that depend on SFTP and other servers that might be temporarily offline. Handling errors on Initialization phase would be a godsend, but there's a workaround using Make API endpoints to turn a scenario back on :)
Load More
→