We Keep Coding

Does method overload work with exception types?

using System;
// Custom Exception types
class AException : Exception
{
}
class BException : Exception
{
}
class Test
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
throw new AException();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Callme(ex);
}
}
public static void Callme(AException aexception) {}
public static void Callme(BException bexception) {}
public static void Callme(Exception ex) {}
}
Callme(ex) will always call Callme(Exception ex) instead of Callme(AException ..) .. Is this an expected behavior. I read method overload resolution do work with inheritance relationships.

there is a more accepted way of doing this. try the following:
try
{
throw new AException();
}
catch (AException aex)
{
Callme(aex);
}
catch (BException bex)
{
Callme(bex);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Callme(ex);
}

Specific exceptions handling

Is there any reason to use specific expetion classes MyException1 and MyException2 in this case?
public static void Main()
{
try
{
TestMethod();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.Writeline(ex);
}
}
private static void TestMethod()
{
// This method can throw Exception1 and Exception2
}
public class MyException1 : Exception {}
public class MyException2 : Exception {}
I know that it makes sense in case when we have several catch blocks for each exception type. But in this case MyException1 and MyException2 are similar empty. These throwed exceptions will be casted to Exception class in the Main method. Maybe is it better not to create two similar Exception classes with such handling?

The concept behind a catch block is that you handle the exception. If a certain type of exception requires a certain type of handling, it is helpful when that exception has its own class, so it can have its own catch block.
For example, if MyException1 can be safely swallowed while MyException2 is fatal, you could write:
try
{
DoSomethingHard();
}
catch (MyException1 exception1)
{
_log.Write("Warning: small exception, no worries. {0}", exception1.Message);
continue;
}
catch (MyException2 exception2)
{
_log.Write("Fatal: big exception, gotta bail out now. {0}", exception2.Message);
break;
}

Exceptions should be wide rather than deep. Have a different exception for each, erm... exception.
Your example doesn't really show a good example. Perhaps if it was more like:
public static void Main()
{
try
{
TestMethod();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.Writeline(ex);
}
}
private static void TestMethod()
{
if(..bad configuration)
throw new ConfigurationException("configuration item");
if(missing file)
throw new FileMissingException("filename");
// This method can throw Exception1 and Exception2
}
public class ConfigurationException : Exception {}
public class FileMissingException : Exception {}

If you are using ASP.NET, its so common that you create and use your own Exception handler, in that case, you can to consider specific behavior for each exception in only one method (not catch block in every error prone code blocks), look at this simple example:
public class MyExceptionHandler : ExceptionHandler
{
public override void Handle(ExceptionHandlerContext context)
{
if (context.Exception is SqlException)
{
//do something...
}
else if (context.Exception is HttpListenerException)
{
//do something...
}
else
{
//do something else...
}
}
}

C# Try Catch Statement Query

I have a question about Try Catch statements in C#.
For example if I had a statement as such
try
{
string text = sometext;
var Auto_IMPORT = new AutoImport();
Auto_IMPORT.StartProcessing();
Console.WriteLine(sometext);
}
catch(Exception Ex)
{
//Would this catch AutoImport.StartProcessing() exceptions?
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
AutoImport is a Class Library and i'm calling some logic to start processing.
If an exception occurred within the logic inside AutoImport.StartProcessing() would this try statement catch that exception or would it be out of scope by then?
Thanks In Advance

It depends on the behavior of Auto_IMPORT.StartProcessing(). If no exception is caught in it, then yes, you will get an exception. On the other hand, if the internal code off Auto_IMPORT catches the exception, and doesn't throw a new exception, then you wont get any exceptions.

Yes.
It catches any errors that are in the try block. Doesn't matter if they're in some method of some class.
Tested with:
class _Class
{
public string name;
public void myMethod()
{
int i;
string s = "asda";
i = int.Parse(s);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
_Class blah = new _Class();
blah.name = "Steve";
blah.myMethod();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.ToString());
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
Caught exception at int.Parse

How to remove try...catch block from many different functions [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is there a way to catch all unhandled exceptions thrown by a given class?
(6 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have a lot of classes (WCF services) that contain several function. Now I need to handle errors, but I don't want to create a block try ... catch within each function (for error handling).
How can I make try...catch in any class (or something else) so that we catch errors but did not write the same block within each method?

There will always be some duplication of code but you can reduce it to one line
public static class ExceptionHandler
{
public static void Run(Action action)
{
try
{
a();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
//Do Something with your exception here, like logging
}
}
}
and then just call
ExceptionHandler.Run(yourAction);
you can add overloads for functions and what not but this approach is not ideal. As you may want to catch specific exceptions in certain cases.

Since you did not provide code specifically, I will write some sample code to make it more obvious. If you have this:
public class MyClass
{
public void Method1ThatCanThrowException()
{
try
{
// the Method1 code that can throw exception
}
catch (MySpecificException ex)
{
// some specific error handling
}
}
public object Method2ThatCanThrowException()
{
try
{
// the Method2 code that can throw exception
}
catch (MySpecificException ex)
{
// the same specific error handling
}
}
}
So, if you intend to have single place error handling, you can use lambda, and the help of a private method:
private T CheckAndCall<T>(Func<T> funcToCheck)
{
try
{
return funcToCheck();
}
catch (MySpecificException ex)
{
// the old specific error handling
}
}
Notice the use of the Func<T> delegate. This is because you may need to wrap the try-catch logic around some code that can return a value.
Then you can rewrite the above methods like this:
public void Method1ThatCanThrowException()
{
CheckAndCall(
() =>
{
// the Method1 code that can throw exception
return null;
});
}
public object Method2ThatCanThrowException()
{
return CheckAndCall(
() =>
{
// the Method2 code that can throw exception
return someObject;
});
}

For example, rather than having to do this:
public class Program
{
public static string ReadFile(string filename)
{
//A BCL method that throws various exceptions
return System.IO.File.ReadAllText(filename);
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
Console.Write(ReadFile("name.txt"));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("An error occured when retrieving the name! {0}", e.Message);
}
try
{
Console.Write(ReadFile("age.txt"));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("An error occured when retrieving the age! {0}", e.Message);
}
}
}
You could implement a "Try..." method, using the ref or out keyword as appropriate:
public class Program
{
public static bool TryReadFile(string filename, out string val)
{
try
{
val = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(filename);
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
return false;
}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
string name, age;
Console.WriteLine(TryReadFile("name.txt", out name) ? name : "An error occured when retrieving the name!");
Console.WriteLine(TryReadFile("age.txt", out age) ? age: "An error occured when retrieving the age!");
}
}
The downside to this approach is that you can't act upon a specific exception, but in the case of simply determining if an operation has or has not succeeded, I find this to be a syntactically clean approach.

Preserving exceptions from dynamically invoked methods

Related
Related
I want to dynamically invoke a MethodInfo object and have any exceptions that get thrown from inside of it pass outward as if it were called normally.
I have two options it seems. They're outlined below.
Option 1 maintains the type of the exception thrown by MyStaticFunction, but the StackTrace is ruined because of the throw.
Option 2 maintains the StackTrace of the exception, but the type of the exception is always TargetInvocationException. I can pull out the InnerException and its type, but that means that I can't write this for example:
try { DoDynamicCall(); }
catch (MySpecialException e) { /* special handling */ }
Option 1:
void DoDynamicCall()
{
MethodInfo method = /*referencing MyClass method void MyStaticFunction(int x)*/;
try
{
method.Invoke(null, new object[] { 5 });
}
catch (TargetInvocationException e)
{
throw e.InnerException;
}
}
Option 2:
void DoDynamicCall()
{
MethodInfo method = /*referencing MyClass method void MyStaticFunction(int x)*/;
method.Invoke(null, new object[] { 5 });
}
What I really want is for callers to DoDynamicCall to receive exceptions as if they had called this:
void DoDynamicCall()
{
MyClass.MyStaticFunction(5);
}
Is there a way to get the benefits of both Option 1 and Option 2?
Edit:
The option I wish I had (invented special new C# keyword rethrow on the spot):
void DoDynamicCall()
{
MethodInfo method = /*referencing MyClass method void MyStaticFunction(int x)*/;
try
{
method.Invoke(null, new object[] { 5 });
}
catch (TargetInvocationException e)
{
//Magic "rethrow" keyword passes this exception
//onward unchanged, rather than "throw" which
//modifies the StackTrace, among other things
rethrow e.InnerException;
}
}
This would also eliminate the need for this weirdo, because you could use rethrow e; instead:
try { ... }
catch (Exception e)
{
if (...)
throw;
}
In general, it would be a way to decouple throw; from the requirement "I have to be directly in a catch block."

Here's the solution I came up with. It gets the job done. I'm still interested in other answers as there might be something easier or cleaner.
When you want the functionality of throw; but the exception you want to pass on is not the exception of the current catch block, use throw Functional.Rethrow(e);
Replace try...catch... with Functional.TryCatch
Replace try...catch...finally... with Functional.TryCatchFinally
Here's the code:
//Need a dummy type that is throwable and can hold an Exception
public sealed class RethrowException : Exception
{
public RethrowException(Exception inner) : base(null, inner) { }
}
public static Functional
{
public static Exception Rethrow(Exception e)
{
return new RethrowException(e);
}
public static void TryCatch(Action _try, Action<Exception> _catch)
{
try { _try(); }
catch (RethrowException e) { _catch(e.InnerException); }
catch (Exception e) { _catch(e); }
}
public static T TryCatch<T>(Func<T> _try, Func<Exception, T> _catch)
{
try { return _try(); }
catch (RethrowException e) { return _catch(e.InnerException); }
catch (Exception e) { return _catch(e); }
}
public static void TryCatchFinally(
Action _try, Action<Exception> _catch, Action _finally)
{
try { _try(); }
catch (RethrowException e) { _catch(e.InnerException); }
catch (Exception e) { _catch(e); }
finally { _finally(); }
}
public static T TryCatchFinally<T>(
Func<T> _try, Func<Exception, T> _catch, Action _finally)
{
try { return _try(); }
catch (RethrowException e) { return _catch(e.InnerException); }
catch (Exception e) { return _catch(e); }
finally { _finally(); }
}
}
Update
In .NET 4.5 there is the new System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo class. This can be used to capture an exception:
var capturedException = ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(e);
And then later this is used to resume throwing the exception:
capturedException.Throw();

No, I don't believe there is a way to have the benefits of both. However, throwing e.InnerException will still allow you to get the original stacktrace, because you can simply use e.InnerException.StackTrace to get the original stack trace. So, in short, you should use option 1.

The best option is Option 3: don't use reflection at all, but instead use Expression<T>.Compile().
Instead of doing this:
static void CallMethodWithReflection(MethodInfo method)
{
try
{
method.Invoke(null, new object[0]);
}
catch (TargetInvocationException exp)
{
throw exp.InnerException;
}
}
Try to aim for this:
private static void CallMethodWithExpressionCompile(MethodInfo method)
{
Expression.Lambda<Action>(Expression.Call(method)).Compile()();
}
The caveat is that you need to know the method signature, although you can write code that dynamically builds the expression to fit one of several signatures.
You may not always be able to use this technique, but when you do it is the best option. For all intents and purposes it is like calling any other delegate. It is also faster than reflection if you make multiple calls (in this case compile only once and keep a handle on the compiled delegate).

I had a similar issue and came up with this:
/// <summary>
/// Attempts to throw the inner exception of the TargetInvocationException
/// </summary>
/// <param name="ex"></param>
[DebuggerHidden]
private static void ThrowInnerException(TargetInvocationException ex)
{
if (ex.InnerException == null) { throw new NullReferenceException("TargetInvocationException did not contain an InnerException", ex); }
Exception exception = null;
try
{
//Assume typed Exception has "new (String message, Exception innerException)" signature
exception = (Exception) Activator.CreateInstance(ex.InnerException.GetType(), ex.InnerException.Message, ex.InnerException);
}
catch
{
//Constructor doesn't have the right constructor, eat the error and throw the inner exception below
}
if (exception == null ||
exception.InnerException == null ||
ex.InnerException.Message != exception.Message)
{
// Wasn't able to correctly create the new Exception. Fall back to just throwing the inner exception
throw ex.InnerException;
}
throw exception;
}
An Example of it's use is below:
try
{
return typeof(MyType).GetMethod(methodName, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static)
.MakeGenericMethod(new[] { myType) })
.Invoke(null, parameters);
}
catch (TargetInvocationException ex)
{
ThrowInnerException(ex);
throw new Exception("Throw InnerException didn't throw exception");
}