We Keep Coding

C# Cannot catch exceptions from another project within same solution

Got a strange problem: in a complex camera control program I'm working on, I use an SDK with a C# wrapper that was programmed by someone else. I include the wrapper as a separate project within the same solution. My own code is a WPF project that uses numerous calls into the SDK.
Everything synchronous works fine. However, depending on camera responses, the SDK occasionally sends asynchronous responses, usually in the form of throwing a custom exception with info about an error the camera reports. I implemented this using
try { ... } catch (ThisExceptionType) { ... }
However, NO exception ever gets caught. When an exception situation occurs, VisualStudio breaks, shows me the code where the SDK throws it and reports "ThisExceptionType was unhandled by user code", also showing the details of the exception condition (meaning it was apparently thrown properly). I verified that the exception corresponds with the error condition I created, so I'm sure I'm not looking at the wrong part of my code.
For testing purposes, I also replaced the line in the SDK where it throws ThisExceptionType with a standard exception, such as throw new ArgumentException("Test"); Same result: when changing my catch to catch (ArgumentException), I still cannot catch the condition and get a similar unhandled-by-user-code error.
Here's how the SDK throws the exception:
void CallEntryPoint( ...)
{
eNkMAIDResult result = _md3.EntryPoint(...);
switch (result)
{
// Note: Ignore these return values
case eNkMAIDResult.kNkMAIDResult_NoError:
case eNkMAIDResult.kNkMAIDResult_Pending:
break;
default:
throw new NikonException(...);
}
}
What am I missing here? Sorry if this is a simple issue - I'm pretty experienced in general programming but have not worked much with VisualStudio, and not a whole lot in C#, either.
UPDATE: According to the wrapper's author (this is actually Thomas Dideriksen's Nikon SDK wrapper), "when you're writing WPF or WinForms application, the C# wrapper relies on the inherent windows message queue to fire events on the UI thread."
He also states that the wrapper processes all camera tasks sequentially, so I guess my statement was incorrect about the wrapper throwing asynchronous exceptions - all code examples for the wrapper use the same try { ... } catch (ThisExceptionType) { ... } approach. For good measure, I tried some of your suggestions, for instance by hooking a handler to AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException, but that approach failed to catch the exception, as well.
Any other ideas why this may be happening?

This article on MSDN may help. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997415(v=vs.110).aspx
There are differences in handling exceptions using Tasks in C#. Hopefully that will give a run down on different techniques you can use to handle the exceptions appropriately.
From the MSDN article:
Unhandled exceptions that are thrown by user code that is running
inside a task are propagated back to the calling thread, except in
certain scenarios that are described later in this topic. Exceptions
are propagated when you use one of the static or instance Task.Wait or
Task.Wait methods, and you handle them by enclosing the call
in a try/catch statement. If a task is the parent of attached child
tasks, or if you are waiting on multiple tasks, multiple exceptions
could be thrown.
And there are a couple solutions provided:
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
public class Example
{
public static void Main()
{
var task1 = Task.Run( () => { throw new CustomException("This exception is expected!"); } );
try
{
task1.Wait();
}
catch (AggregateException ae)
{
foreach (var e in ae.InnerExceptions) {
// Handle the custom exception.
if (e is CustomException) {
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
// Rethrow any other exception.
else {
throw;
}
}
}
}
}
public class CustomException : Exception
{
public CustomException(String message) : base(message)
{}
}
// The example displays the following output:
// This exception is expected!
Or you can do this:
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
public class Example
{
public static void Main()
{
var task1 = Task.Run( () => { throw new CustomException("This exception is expected!"); } );
while(! task1.IsCompleted) {}
if (task1.Status == TaskStatus.Faulted) {
foreach (var e in task1.Exception.InnerExceptions) {
// Handle the custom exception.
if (e is CustomException) {
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
// Rethrow any other exception.
else {
throw e;
}
}
}
}
}
public class CustomException : Exception
{
public CustomException(String message) : base(message)
{}
}
// The example displays the following output:
// This exception is expected!
I hope that helps!

Repeating exception handling

I have a question about repeating exception handling...
For example: Webmethods have try-catch block and inside try block there is execution code. This try-catch blocks are the same for each webmethod.
Is there any possibility to make it easier, more maintainable, without repeating the same code?
I know about aspects, but is there any other solution?
The code lang is C#, but I thing in general solution.
Thanks for answers.

Using functional programming principles, you can pass the action or method that you want to be executed in a certain way.
In C# you can make a method like this to standardize your code:
public void HandleExceptions(Action action)
{
try
{
action();
}
catch (ExceptionA exa)
{
}
catch (ExceptionB exb)
{
}
finally
{
}
}
and call it like this:
HandleExceptions(() =>
{
//insert code to be handled by try/catch structure
Method1();
});
HandleExceptions(() =>
{
Method2();
});

How to catch and log exception inside Using statement without using try-catch?

As I know that Using statement has built in implementation of Dispose() and Try-Catch. So I want to know few things
Is it possible to log an exception inside using statement without
using try-catch block , either inside or outside the statement. If
not, then why its built in to the statement.
Nested or overuse of try-catch is not preferred, then why such model
preferred to use.
using (some_resource)
{
try
{
}
catch
{
}
finally
{
//my exception logging mechanism
}
}
will become
try
{
try
{
}
catch
{
}
finally
{
//my exception logging mechanism
}
}
catch
{
}
finally
{
//some_resource.Dispose()
}

A using statement involves try/finally; there is no catch. But frankly, your concern is overkill; multiply-nested and complex try/catch/finally is "undesirable" because:
it makes the code hard to read
and even harder to get right (most people get it wrong, alas)
it is frequently misused
it suggests your method is doing too much
With using, this isn't an issue; it makes the intent very clean, without adding complexity or concern.
I would just use:
using (some_resource) {
try {
// some code
} catch (Exception ex) {
LogIt(ex);
throw;
}
}

Using compiles to Try{}Finally{}. See the following question: Does a C# using statement perform try/finally?
The reason for this is so that the resource will be disposed of regardless of if an exception is thrown. Resource disposal is the purpose of the using statement.
The correct implementation is:
using(Resource myresource = GetResource())
{
try
{}
catch(Exception e)
{ //Maybe log the exception here when it happens?
}
}

Can a scope block with the "using" keyword react to exceptions?

I have the need to do some logging within my code. I'm required to use an internal company-developed library to record some information. Here's how it works.
Recorder recorder = Recorder.StartTiming();
DoSomeWork();
recorder.Stop(); // Writes some diagnostic information.
To ensure that Stop() is always called, I created a wrapper class that allows a clean "using" block.
using (RecorderWrapper recorderWrapper = new RecorderWrapper) // Automatically calls Recorder.StartTiming() under the covers
{
DoSomeWork();
} // When the recorderWrapper goes out of scope, the 'using' statement calls recorderWrapper.Dispose() automatically - which calls recorder.Stop() under the covers
it's worked well so far. However, there's a change my company is requiring, that would look something like this on the original code:
Recorder recorder = Recorder.StartTiming();
try
{
DoSomeWork();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
recorder.ReportFailure(ex); // Write out some exception details associated with this "transaction"
}
recorder.Stop(); // Writes some diagnostic information.
I'd like to avoid try/catches in all my 'using' scope blocks with RecorderWrapper. Is there a way I can accomodate the "ReportFailure()" call and still leverage the 'using' scope block?
Specifically, I want everyone on my team to "fall into a pit of success", i.e. make it easy to do the right thing. To me, this means making it really hard to forget to call recorder.Stop() or forget the try/catch.
Thanks!

You might be able to create a method on the recorder to hide this:
public void Record(Action act)
{
try
{
this.StartTiming();
act();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
this.ReportFailure(ex);
}
finally
{
this.Stop();
}
}
So your example would then just be:
recorder.Record(DoSomeWork);

You could always try something like:
Edit by 280Z28: I'm using a static StartNew() method here similar to Stopwatch.StartNew(). Make your Recorder class IDisposable, and call Stop() from Dispose(). I don't think it gets any more clear than this.
using (Recorder recorder = Recorder.StartNew())
{
try
{
DoSomeWork();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
recorder.ReportFailure(ex);
}
}

You could continue to use the RecorderWrapper you have, but add a TryExecuting method that accepts a lambda of what you want to happen add runs it in a try/catch block. eg:
using (RecorderWrapper recorderWrapper = new RecorderWrapper) // Automatically calls Recorder.StartTiming() under the covers
{
recorderWrapper.TryExecuting(() => DoSomeWork());
}
Inside RecorderWrapper:
public void TryExecuting(Action work)
{
try { work(); }
catch(Exception ex) { this.ReportFailure(ex); }
}

You could copy the pattern used by TransactionScope, and write a wrapper that must be actively completed - if you don't call Complete(), then the Dispose() method (which gets called either way) assumes an exception and does your handling code:
using(Recorder recorder = Recorder.StartTiming()) {
DoSomeWork();
recorder.Complete();
}
Personally, though, I'd stick with try/catch - it is clearer for maintainers in the future - and it provides access to the Exception.

No, a using block is only syntactic sugar for a try/finally block. It doesn't deal with try/catch. At that point you're going to be left with handling it yourself since it looks like you need the exception for logging purposes.

A using block is effectively a try/finally block that calls dispose on the object in question.
So, this:
using(a = new A())
{
a.Act();
}
is (i think, exactly) equivalent to this:
a = new A();
try
{
a.Act();
}
finally
{
a.Dispose();
}
And you can tack your catches onto the end of the try block.
Edit:
As an alternative to Rob's solution:
Recorder recorder = Recorder.StartNew()
try
{
DoSomeWork();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
recorder.ReportFailure(ex);
}
finally
{
recorder.Dispose();
}

Oops, I hadn't noticed that a new instance of Recorder was being created by StartTiming. I've updated the code to account for this. The Wrap function now no longer takes a Recorder parameter but instead passes the recorder it creates as an argument to the action delegate passed in by the caller so that the caller can make use of it if needed.
Hmmm, I've needed to do something very similar to this pattern, lambdas, the Action delegate and closures make it easy:
First define a class to do the wrapping:
public static class RecorderScope
{
public static void Wrap(Action<Recorder> action)
{
Recorder recorder = Recorder.StartTiming();
try
{
action(recorder);
}
catch(Exception exception)
{
recorder.ReportFailure(exception);
}
finally
{
recorder.Stop();
}
}
}
Now, use like so:
RecorderScope.Wrap(
(recorder) =>
{
// note, the recorder is passed in here so you can use it if needed -
// if you never need it you can remove it from the Wrap function.
DoSomeWork();
});
One question though - is it really desired that the catch handler swallows the exception without rethrowing it? This would usually be a bad practice.
BTW, I'll throw in an addition to this pattern which can be useful. Although, it doesn't sound like it applies to what you're doing in this instance: Ever wanted to do something like the above where you want to wrap some code with a set of startup actions and completion actions but you also need to be able to code some specific exception handling code. Well, if you change the Wrap function to also take an Action delegate and constrain T to Exception, then you've got a wrapper which allows user to specify the exception type to catch, and the code to execute to handle it, e.g.:
public static class RecorderScope
{
public static void Wrap(Action<Recorder> action,
Action<Recorder, T1> exHandler1)
where T1: Exception
{
Recorder recorder = Recorder.StartTiming();
try
{
action(recorder);
}
catch(T1 ex1)
{
exHandler1(recorder, ex1);
}
finally
{
recorder.Stop();
}
}
}
To use.. (Note you have to specify the type of exception, as it obviously cannot be inferred. Which is what you want):
RecorderScope.Wrap(
(recorder) =>
{
DoSomeWork();
},
(recorder, MyException ex) =>
{
recorder.ReportFailure(exception);
});
You can then extend this pattern by providing multiple overloads of the Wrap function which take more than one exception handler delegate. Usually five overloads will be sufficient - it's pretty unusual for you to need to catch more than five different types of exceptions at once.

Don't add another level of indirection. If you need to catch the Exception, use try..catch..finally and call Dispose() in the finally block.

What is the best way to execute sequential methods?

Working on a project where a sequential set of methods must be run every x seconds. Right now I have the methods contained within another "parent method", and just sequentially call them right after another.
class DoTheseThings()
{
DoThis();
NowDoThat();
NowDoThis();
MoreWork();
AndImSpent();
}
Each method must run successfully without throwing an exception before the next step can be done. So now I wrapped each of those methods with a while and try..catch, then in the catch execute that method again.
while( !hadError )
{
try
{
DoThis();
}
catch(Exception doThisException )
{
hadError = true;
}
}
This seems smelly and not very dry. Is there a better way to do this so I'm not wrapping any new functionality in the same methods. Isn't some kind of Delegate collection the proper way to implement this?
Is there a more "proper" solution?

Action[] work=new Action[]{new Action(DoThis), new Action(NowDoThat),
new Action(NowDoThis), new Action(MoreWork), new Action(AndImSpent)};
int current =0;
while(current!=work.Length)
{
try
{
work[current]();
current++;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// log the error or whatever
// maybe sleep a while to not kill the processors if a successful execution depends on time elapsed
}
}

Isn't some kind of Delegate collection the proper way to implement this?
Delegate is a possible way to solve this problem.
Just create a delegate something like:
public delegate void WorkDelegate();
and put them in arraylist which you can iterate over.

I have a personal religious belief that you shouldn't catch System.Exception, or more accurately, you should only catch the exceptions you know how to handle.
That being said, I am going to assume that each one of the methods that you are calling are doing something different, and could result in different exceptions being thrown. Which means you would likely need to have different handlers for each method.
If you follow my religion as well, and the second statement is true, then you are not repeating code unnecessarily. Unless you have other requirements, my recommendations to improve your code would be:
1) Put the try-catch in each method, not around each method call.
2) Have the catches within each method catch ONLY the exceptions you know about.
http://blogs.msdn.com/fxcop/archive/2006/06/14/631923.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/14/352949.aspx
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
HTH ...

your example seems ok.. its a dry one but will do the job well!! actually if this methods execute db access.. you can use transaction to ensure integrity...
if your dealing with shared variables for multi threader programs.. it is cleaner to use synchronization.. the most important thing in coding is that you write the proper code... that has less bugs.. and will do the task correctly..

public void DoTheseThings()
{
SafelyDoEach( new Action[]{
DoThis,
NowDoThat,
NowDoThis,
MoreWork,
AndImSpent
})
}
public void SafelyDoEach( params Action[] actions )
{
try
{
foreach( var a in actions )
a();
}
catch( Exception doThisException )
{
// blindly swallowing every exception like this is a terrible idea
// you should really only be swallowing a specific MyAbortedException type
return;
}
}

What would be the reason that an error was occuring?
If this were a resource issue, such as access to something like a connection or object, then you might want to look at using monitors, semaphores, or just locking.
lock (resource)
{
Dosomething(resource);
}
This way if a previous method is accessing the resource, then you can wait until it releases the resource to continue.
Ideally, you shouldn't have to run a loop to execute something each time it fails. It is failing at all, you would want to know about the issue and fix it. Having a loop to always just keep trying is not the right way to go here.

I'd do what Ovidiu Pacurar suggests, only I'd use a foreach loop and leave dealing with array indexes up to the compiler.

Simple delegate approach:
Action<Action> tryForever = (action) => {
bool success;
do {
try {
action();
success = true;
} catch (Exception) {
// should probably log or something here...
}
} while (!success);
};
void DoEverything() {
tryForever(DoThis);
tryForever(NowDoThat);
tryForever(NowDoThis);
tryForever(MoreWork);
tryForever(AndImSpent);
}
Stack approach:
void DoEverything() {
Stack<Action> thingsToDo = new Stack<Action>(
new Action[] {
DoThis, NowDoThat, NowDoThis, MoreWork, AndImSpent
}
);
Action action;
while ((action = thingsToDo.Pop()) != null) {
bool success;
do {
try {
action();
success = true;
} catch (Exception) {
}
} while (!success);
}