We Keep Coding

How to try/catch all exceptions

I'm completing a UWP app started by someone else. The app crashes frequently and I always end up in App.g.i.cs at
if (global::System.Diagnostics.Debugger.IsAttached)
global::System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break();
where I then have to say "no, don't start the debugger" and close 2 windows.
Is there somewhere I could put a big try/catch so that I don't have to restart the app each time this happen? I can't find anything in AppShell or App.
Or do I have to put a try/catch in every single event handler?

If you want to avoid starting the new debugger and restarting the app each time when encountering unhandled exceptions, you can use Application.UnhandledException event and set the Handled property of the event arguments to true like following:
public App()
{
this.InitializeComponent();
this.Suspending += OnSuspending;
this.UnhandledException += (sender, e) =>
{
e.Handled = true;
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(e.Exception);
};
}
The UnhandledException event is used to notify the app about exceptions encountered by the XAML framework or by the Windows Runtime in general that have not been handled by app code.
Normally after the UnhandledException event is fired, the Windows Runtime terminates the app because the exception was unhandled. The app code has some control over this: if the UnhandledException event handler sets the Handled property of the event arguments to true, then in most cases the app will not be terminated.
For more info, please see Remarks of Application.UnhandledException event and the blog: Strategies for Handling Errors in your Windows Store Apps.

As far as i know most you cant do what you are trying to do (big try catch block) and for all intents and purposes you shouldn't even consider that possibility.
First try to determine why the app is crashing, on what page, is it when you try to something specific, the same thing everytime and then you can try catch some of the methods on that particular page and determine what's causing the crash

If you want to treat the cause rather than the symptoms, you should enable first-chance exceptions in the debugger settings. Then the debugger should break at the source of the exception, rather than in the global handler. You can then address the root cause of the problems directly.
Shipping an app that has the global handler blindly set every exception as "handled" even when you don't know why it's failing is not a good solution.

You can try/catch in your main app to catch all exceptions. Shown is an example using Xamarin Forms DisplayAlert:
try
{
//throw new Exception("gone and done it");
MyMainProgram();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
await DisplayAlert("Whoops!", ex.Message, "ok");
throw ex;
}
You can test this by uncommenting the "throw new Exception". Execution stops with an alert you must answer, then continues by throwing the exception to prevent executing corrupted code.

C# WPF unhandled exception: how to make the most of it

I am quite new to WPF but find AMAZING to be able to trap any unhandled exception. I have put
this.Dispatcher.UnhandledException += Dispatcher_UnhandledException;
in the constructor of my class. This leads me to trap it with
private void Dispatcher_UnhandledException(object sender, System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
e.Handled = true;
...
}
At first it didn't work but then I've seen that to make it work I have to run it in release and outside VS IDE. So that works.
What I'd like is to get as much as info as possible about what caused the exception. Possibly the exception type, the s/r, the line and whatever else is provided.
At the moment by doing
int a = 0;
int b = 3 / a;
and by putting
MessageBox.Show(e.ToString() + " " + sender.ToString());
I get:
so that's not the right way.
I know that I am not putting the necessary information in the question but I have searched through various answer but none reported what I need. If so it can be useful to save any data prior closing but not about closing but not to detected what caused the exception
What's more when I exit with
Environment.Exit(-1)
I find the process still running and that's a problem.
Here Terminate application after unhandled exception it says that I have to kill my process is it really the right way to close my application after an unhandled exception?
Thanks for any help

The actual exception that caused the application to crash is wrapped inside the DispatcherUnhandledExceptionEventArgs parameter.
Simply use e.Exception to get hold of it.
MessageBox.Show(e.Exception.ToString());
After displaying the exception, I would suggest allowing the application to continue by calling the base method:
base.OnUnhandledException(sender, e);
You may choose to mark the exception as handled of course, however in the case of when you are simply overriding this method to display the error, I would not count that as handled.

Messagebox in Catch block not always showing [duplicate]

When I create a new project, I get a strange behavior for unhandled exceptions. This is how I can reproduce the problem:
1) create a new Windows Forms Application (C#, .NET Framework 4, VS2010)
2) add the following code to the Form1_Load handler:
int vara = 5, varb = 0;
int varc = vara / varb;
int vard = 7;
I would expect that VS breaks and shows an unhandled exception message at the second line. However, what happens is that the third line is just skipped without any message and the application keeps running.
I don't have this problem with my existing C# projects. So I guess that my new projects are created with some strange default settings.
Does anyone have an idea what's wrong with my project???
I tried checking the boxes in Debug->Exceptions. But then executions breaks even if I handle the exception in a try-catch block; which is also not what I want. If I remember correctly, there was a column called "unhandled exceptions" or something like this in this dialog box, which would do excatly what I want. But in my projects there is only one column ("Thrown").

This is a nasty problem induced by the wow64 emulation layer that allows 32-bit code to run on the 64-bit version of Windows 7. It swallows exceptions in the code that runs in response to a notification generated by the 64-bit window manager, like the Load event. Preventing the debugger from seeing it and stepping in. This problem is hard to fix, the Windows and DevDiv groups at Microsoft are pointing fingers back and forth. DevDiv can't do anything about it, Windows thinks it is the correct and documented behavior, mysterious as that sounds.
It is certainly documented but just about nobody understands the consequences or thinks it is reasonable behavior. Especially not when the window procedure is hidden from view of course, like it is in any project that uses wrapper classes to hide the window plumbing. Like any Winforms, WPF or MFC app. Underlying issue is Microsoft could not figure out how to flow exceptions from 32-bit code back to the 64-bit code that triggered the notification back to 32-bit code that tries to handle or debug the exception.
It is only a problem with a debugger attached, your code will bomb as usual without one.
Project > Properties > Build tab > Platform target = AnyCPU and untick Prefer 32-bit. Your app will now run as a 64-bit process, eliminating the wow64 failure mode. Some consequences, it disables Edit + Continue for VS versions prior to VS2013 and might not always be possible when you have a dependency on 32-bit code.
Other possible workarounds:
Debug > Exceptions > tick the Thrown box for CLR exceptions to force the debugger to stop at the line of code that throws the exception.
Write try/catch in the Load event handler and failfast in the catch block.
Use Application.SetUnhandledExceptionMode(UnhandledExceptionMode.CatchException) in the Main() method so that the exception trap in the message loop isn't disabled in debug mode. This however makes all unhandled exceptions hard to debug, the ThreadException event is pretty useless.
Consider if your code really belongs in the Load event handler. It is very rare to need it, it is however very popular in VB.NET and a swan song because it is the default event and a double-click trivially adds the event handler. You only ever really need Load when you are interested in the actual window size after user preferences and autoscaling is applied. Everything else belongs in the constructor.
Update to Windows 8 or later, they have this wow64 problem solved.

In my experience, I only see this issue when I'm running with a debugger attached. The application behaves the same when run standalone: the exception is not swallowed.
With the introduction of KB976038, you can make this work as you'd expect again. I never installed the hotfix, so I'm assuming it came as part of Win7 SP1.
This was mentioned in this post:
The case of the disappearing OnLoad exception – user-mode callback exceptions in x64
Here's some code that will enable the hotfix:
public static class Kernel32
{
public const uint PROCESS_CALLBACK_FILTER_ENABLED = 0x1;
[DllImport("Kernel32.dll")]
public static extern bool SetProcessUserModeExceptionPolicy(UInt32 dwFlags);
[DllImport("Kernel32.dll")]
public static extern bool GetProcessUserModeExceptionPolicy(out UInt32 lpFlags);
public static void DisableUMCallbackFilter() {
uint flags;
GetProcessUserModeExceptionPolicy(out flags);
flags &= ~PROCESS_CALLBACK_FILTER_ENABLED;
SetProcessUserModeExceptionPolicy(flags);
}
}
Call it at the beginning of your application:
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
Kernel32.DisableUMCallbackFilter();
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Run(new Form1());
}
I've confirmed (with the the simple example shown below) that this works, just as you'd expect.
protected override void OnLoad(EventArgs e) {
throw new Exception("BOOM"); // This will now get caught.
}
So, what I don't understand, is why it was previously impossible for the debugger to handle crossing kernel-mode stack frames, but with this hotfix, they somehow figured it out.

As Hans mentions, compile the application and run the exe without a debugger attached.
For me the problem was changing a Class property name that a BindingSource control was bound to. Running without the IDE I was able to see the error:
Cannot bind to the property or column SendWithoutProofReading on the
DataSource. Parameter name: dataMember
Fixing the BindingSource control to bind to the updated property name resolved the problem:

I'm using WPF and ran into this same problem. I had tried Hans 1-3 suggestions already, but didn't like them because studio wouldn't stop at where the error was (so I couldn't view my variables and see what was the problem).
So I tried Hans' 4th suggestion. I was suprised at how much of my code could be moved to the MainWindow constructor without any issue. Not sure why I got in the habit of putting so much logic in the Load event, but apparently much of it can be done in the ctor.
However, this had the same problem as 1-3. Errors that occur during the ctor for WPF get wrapped into a generic Xaml exception. (an inner exception has the real error, but again I wanted studio to just break at the actual trouble spot).
What ended up working for me was to create a thread, sleep 50ms, dispatch back to main thread and do what I need...
void Window_Loaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(50);
CrossThread(() => { OnWindowLoaded(); });
}).Start();
}
void CrossThread(Action a)
{
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(a);
}
void OnWindowLoaded()
{
...do my thing...
This way studio would break right where an uncaught exception occurs.

A simple work-around could be if you can move your init code to another event like as Form_Shown which called later than Form_Load, and use a flag to run startup code at first form shown:
bool firstLoad = true; //flag to detect first form_shown
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//firstLoad = true;
//dowork(); //not execute initialization code here (postpone it to form_shown)
}
private void Form1_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (firstLoad) //simulate Form-Load
{
firstLoad = false;
dowork();
}
}
void dowork()
{
var f = File.OpenRead(#"D:\NoSuchFile756.123"); //this cause an exception!
}

Struggling to understand Xamarin exception handling

I have been crawling the Internet for quite a long time in hope of a solution, and I've come across a number of answers, but none of these seem to achieve what I want.
I'm trying to handle exceptions without causing the app to crash. Rather than the app simply exiting, I would rather capture the exception, present the user with a more user-friendly error (perhaps a messagebox warning) and allow them to continue operation in the app.
Is it possible to stop the app from bailing out?
The way I'm currently attempting to catch this is like the following:
public class Login : Activity
{
int count = 1;
Session mySession;
protected override void OnCreate(Bundle bundle)
{
AndroidEnvironment.UnhandledExceptionRaiser += HandleAndroidException;
base.OnCreate(bundle);
// Set our view from the "main" layout resource
SetContentView(Resource.Layout.Login);
Button button = FindViewById<Button>(Resource.Id.Login);
string accountCode = Resource.Id.AccountCode.ToString();
string password = Resource.Id.Password.ToString();
// button.Click += delegate { button.Text = string.Format("{0} clicks!", count++); };
button.Click += delegate
{
throw new Exception("LETS THROW A RANDOM EXCEPTION");
};
}
void HandleAndroidException(object sender, RaiseThrowableEventArgs e)
{
Log.Error("INTERNAL DEBUG", "PLEASE HANDLE MY EXCEPTION!");
e.Handled = true;
System.Console.Write("YOU'VE JUST BEEN HANDLED!");
}
}
As you can see I am throwing a general exception and attempting to catch this with an UnhandledExceptionRaiser. I used this as a reference: http://androidapi.xamarin.com/index.aspx?link=E%3AAndroid.Runtime.AndroidEnvironment.UnhandledExceptionRaiser
I am able to find my message in the "Android Device Logging" tool, however it is being triggered AFTER an unhandled exception error occurs. I think this means something inside of Xamarin is having first crack at the exception and falling over. Surely there has to be a way of stopping this??
I have seen countless examples online where people have been asking similar questions and there has been no clear solution. Some people have offered some solutions, but these don't actually do what I had anticipated.
It is literally mind boggling to me if this cannot be done.
This is my first time using Xamarin and also my first time developing a mobile app so I apologise if I'm being ignorant about anything.
Please help!!!

There is one important thing you have to understand about the nature of an Unhandled exception in Android, there isn't one.... in Android framework which uses Java it's an Uncaught exception which means you can't "handle" it or recover from it like you maybe would in a .Net environment. Xamarin(Mono) internally "handles" those uncaught exceptions by surrounding literally everything with try-catch and raising the Unhandled event but that is besides the point. It is also discouraged to interact with the UI as well for various reasons.
Theoretically there are several "workarounds" for displaying a dialog to the user or restarting the app, none of which I'd recommend on doing. Instead you should surround sensitive areas with try-catch clauses to handle expected exceptions, as for the unexpected one's just use an exception reporting component and update your app after analyzing the reported exceptions.
Also, I would move the event subscription to the Application class but that is a personal preference.
Like so:
public class YourAppClass : Application
{
public override void OnCreate()
{
AndroidEnvironment.UnhandledExceptionRaiser += HandleAndroidException;
}
}

Globally catch exceptions in a WPF application?

We have a WPF application where parts of it may throw exceptions at runtime. I'd like to globally catch any unhandled exceptions and log them, but otherwise continue program execution as if nothing happened (kinda like VB's On Error Resume Next).
Is this possible in C#? And if so, where exactly would I need to put the exception handling code?
Currently I can't see any single point where I could wrap a try/catch around and which would catch all exceptions that could occur. Even then, I would have left whatever has been executed because of the catch. Or am I thinking in horribly wrong directions here?
ETA: Because many people below pointed it out: The application is not for controlling nuclear power plants. If it crashes, it's not that big a deal, but it throws random exceptions that are mostly UI-related that are a nuisance in the context where it would be used. There were (and probably still are) a few of those and since it uses a plugin architecture and may be extended by others (also students in that case; so no experienced developers that are able to write completely error-free code).
As for the exceptions that get caught: I do log them to a log file, including the complete stack trace. That was the whole point of that exercise. Just to counter those people that were taking my analogy to VB's OERN too literally.
I know that blindly ignoring certain classes of errors is dangerous and might corrupt my application instance. As said before, this program isn't mission-critical for anyone. No-one in their right mind would bet the survival of the human civilization on it. It's simply a little tool for testing certain design approaches wrt. software engineering.
For the immediate use of the application there are not many things that can happen on an exception:
No exception handling – error dialog and application exit. Experiment has to be repeated, though likely with another subject. No errors have been logged, which is unfortunate.
Generic exception handling – benign error trapped, no harm done. This should be the common case judged from all errors we were seeing during development. Ignoring this kind of errors should have no immediate consequences; the core data structures are tested well enough that they will easily survive this.
Generic exception handling – serious error trapped, possibly crash at a later point. This may happen rarely. We've never seen it so far. The error is logged anyway and a crash might be inevitable. So this is conceptually similar to the very first case, except that we have a stack trace. And in the majority of cases the user won't even notice.
As for the experiment data generated by the program: A serious error would at worst just cause no data to be recorded. Subtle changes that change the result of the experiment ever so slightly are pretty unlikely. And even in that case, if the results seem dubious the error was logged; one can still throw away that data point if it's a total outlier.
To summarize: Yes, I consider myself still at least partially sane and I don't consider a global exception handling routine which leaves the program running to be necessarily totally evil. As said twice before, such a decision might be valid, depending on the application. In this case it was judged a valid decision and not total and utter bullshit. For any other application that decision might look different. But please don't accuse me or the other people who worked on that project to potentially blow up the world just because we're ignoring errors.
Side note: There is exactly one user for that application. It's not something like Windows or Office that gets used by millions where the cost of having exceptions bubble to the user at all would be very different in the first place already.

Use the Application.DispatcherUnhandledException Event. See this question for a summary (see Drew Noakes' answer).
Be aware that there'll be still exceptions which preclude a successful resuming of your application, like after a stack overflow, exhausted memory, or lost network connectivity while you're trying to save to the database.

Example code using NLog that will catch exceptions thrown from all threads in the AppDomain, from the UI dispatcher thread and from the async functions:
App.xaml.cs :
public partial class App : Application
{
private static Logger _logger = LogManager.GetCurrentClassLogger();
protected override void OnStartup(StartupEventArgs e)
{
base.OnStartup(e);
SetupExceptionHandling();
}
private void SetupExceptionHandling()
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException += (s, e) =>
LogUnhandledException((Exception)e.ExceptionObject, "AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException");
DispatcherUnhandledException += (s, e) =>
{
LogUnhandledException(e.Exception, "Application.Current.DispatcherUnhandledException");
e.Handled = true;
};
TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException += (s, e) =>
{
LogUnhandledException(e.Exception, "TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException");
e.SetObserved();
};
}
private void LogUnhandledException(Exception exception, string source)
{
string message = $"Unhandled exception ({source})";
try
{
System.Reflection.AssemblyName assemblyName = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName();
message = string.Format("Unhandled exception in {0} v{1}", assemblyName.Name, assemblyName.Version);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.Error(ex, "Exception in LogUnhandledException");
}
finally
{
_logger.Error(exception, message);
}
}

AppDomain.UnhandledException Event
This event provides notification of uncaught exceptions. It allows the
application to log information about the exception before the system
default handler reports the exception to the user and terminates the
application.
public App()
{
AppDomain currentDomain = AppDomain.CurrentDomain;
currentDomain.UnhandledException += new UnhandledExceptionEventHandler(MyHandler);
}
static void MyHandler(object sender, UnhandledExceptionEventArgs args)
{
Exception e = (Exception) args.ExceptionObject;
Console.WriteLine("MyHandler caught : " + e.Message);
Console.WriteLine("Runtime terminating: {0}", args.IsTerminating);
}
If the UnhandledException event is handled in the default application
domain, it is raised there for any unhandled exception in any thread,
no matter what application domain the thread started in. If the thread
started in an application domain that has an event handler for
UnhandledException, the event is raised in that application domain. If
that application domain is not the default application domain, and
there is also an event handler in the default application domain, the
event is raised in both application domains.
For example, suppose a thread starts in application domain "AD1",
calls a method in application domain "AD2", and from there calls a
method in application domain "AD3", where it throws an exception. The
first application domain in which the UnhandledException event can be
raised is "AD1". If that application domain is not the default
application domain, the event can also be raised in the default
application domain.

In addition what others mentioned here, note that combining the Application.DispatcherUnhandledException (and its similars) with
<configuration>
<runtime>
<legacyUnhandledExceptionPolicy enabled="1" />
</runtime>
</configuration>
in the app.config will prevent your secondary threads exception from shutting down the application.

Here is complete example using NLog
using NLog;
using System;
using System.Windows;
namespace MyApp
{
/// <summary>
/// Interaction logic for App.xaml
/// </summary>
public partial class App : Application
{
private static Logger logger = LogManager.GetCurrentClassLogger();
public App()
{
var currentDomain = AppDomain.CurrentDomain;
currentDomain.UnhandledException += CurrentDomain_UnhandledException;
}
private void CurrentDomain_UnhandledException(object sender, UnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
var ex = (Exception)e.ExceptionObject;
logger.Error("UnhandledException caught : " + ex.Message);
logger.Error("UnhandledException StackTrace : " + ex.StackTrace);
logger.Fatal("Runtime terminating: {0}", e.IsTerminating);
}
}
}

in Wpf application Project follow this Steps:
in App.xaml.cs file:
using 'System.Windows.Threading'
create App_DispatcherUnhandledException method same example.
example:
using System.Windows;
using System.Windows.Threading;
namespace Test
{
public partial class App : Application
{
void App_DispatcherUnhandledException(object sender,
DispatcherUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
// Process unhandled exception
// Prevent default unhandled exception processing
e.Handled = true;
}
}
}
in App.xaml:
add DispatcherUnhandledException="App_DispatcherUnhandledException"
for Example:
<Application x:Class="eValGr.UI.Light.App"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:local="clr-namespace:eValGr.UI.Light"
DispatcherUnhandledException="Application_DispatcherUnhandledException">
<Application.Resources>
</Application.Resources>
</Application>

Like "VB's On Error Resume Next?" That sounds kind of scary. First recommendation is don't do it. Second recommendation is don't do it and don't think about it. You need to isolate your faults better. As to how to approach this problem, it depends on how you're code is structured. If you are using a pattern like MVC or the like then this shouldn't be too difficult and would definitely not require a global exception swallower. Secondly, look for a good logging library like log4net or use tracing. We'd need to know more details like what kinds of exceptions you're talking about and what parts of your application may result in exceptions being thrown.