Prisma Error Translation Translate Prisma 7 P2002, P2003, and P2025 without leaking ORM internals
Phase 13 - Professional Error Handling Volume 04 - Professional Backend
Architecture milestone Prisma error
↓
domain context if available
↓
safe HTTP mapping
Phase 13 creates one professional exception boundary and a correlation story that spans client response and server logs.
Translate Prisma errors deliberately Prisma errors are implementation details. Clients should receive HTTP/domain semantics, not raw ORM error text. TaskFlow catches a small set of understood Prisma 7 codes and gives them stable meanings.
Other known Known Prisma failure not explicitly modeled 500 DATABASE_ERROR request error
Do not return Prisma message directly // BAD public response { "message": "Invalid this.prisma.task.create() invocation ... Unique constraint failed ..." }
Raw ORM messages may contain model names, operation context, field names, local paths, or other details that clients do not need. Log what engineers need privately; expose a safe contract publicly.
Where P2025 should be handled For a Task update/delete, the service knows the domain context and can produce TASK_NOT_FOUND. That is more useful than allowing the global filter to produce generic RESOURCE_NOT_FOUND. The global P2025 mapping remains a safety net for errors that escape from less contextual code.
Figure 1 - Context first, global fallback second TasksService catches expected P2025
↓
↓
↓
↓
Translate errors as close as possible to the layer that understands their business meaning, while keeping a global safety boundary.
Conflict does not always mean 409 Use 409 when the request is structurally valid but conflicts with current server state. Do not mechanically map every database exception to 409. Connection failures, malformed schema, timeouts, and unknown database faults are server-side operational failures, not client conflicts.
Prisma improves developer ergonomics, but migrations and generated queries still change a real relational database. You should be able to inspect both sides.
Restate the goal of “Prisma Error Translation” as one observable behavior. Write the success signal before touching code.
Trace the boundary map: domain intent → Prisma Client → generated SQL → PostgreSQL → mapped result. Mark the one boundary this lesson changes.
Inspect the current repository state and record the exact files, route, table, or runtime involved. Avoid creating an abstraction before you can name the existing owner.
Implement the smallest vertical slice. Add one coherent change, run the narrowest verification command, and read the output before continuing.
Connect the slice to TaskFlow’s phase artifact: Error taxonomy + NestJS mapping layer/filters + structured error response with request IDs.. Verify behavior from the outside as a user or API client would.
Create one controlled failure that is safe to reproduce. Predict the symptom first, capture evidence, locate the earliest broken boundary, then fix only that cause.
Close the reference and rebuild or explain the core change from memory. Record what you would monitor or test before trusting the same change in production.
const tasks = await prisma.task.findMany({
where: { workspaceId },
orderBy: [{ createdAt: "desc" }, { id: "desc" }],
take: 20,
});Do not copy this as a finished answer. Predict what each boundary does, type the smallest useful slice, run it, then compare the result with your prediction.
Verify connection string, host, port, SSL/pooler mode, network reachability, and which environment file the process loaded.
Read the generated SQL before applying it and compare the change against existing production-shaped data.
Without copying the final source, create a second small scenario that applies “Prisma Error Translation” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.
Prove an unexpected exception returns a generic 500 while the real stack/context remains in logs.
Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.Catching everything inside each controller
Predict the symptom before causing the failure. Then locate the earliest boundary where reality diverges from expectation.Why does this responsibility live here, what input does it trust, what output proves success, and what would go wrong if another layer owned it?
If your explanation is vague, repeat the boundary trace before moving on.Close the reference. Reproduce the core idea from memory or explain the exact request/data flow aloud. Then check your diff or notes for accidental shortcuts that bypass validation, authorization, error handling, or verification earned in earlier phases.