We Keep Coding

Should methods handle nulls? best practice in this case?

I have the following situation in code, whats the best way to manage it, the comments contains the situations, and please recommend the best practice.
try
{
string errorMessage = AccountClient.GetAccount(id, out accountDetails);
// FIRST WAY : REMOVE THIS NULL CHECK AT ALL AND LEAVE GetAccountDetails to control
// the Null situation?
if (accountDetails == null)
{
// Second Way: This way? Throw exception here?
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(accountDetails));
//Third way? break the function?
break;
}
// GetAccount Details already has null control
Subscription subscription = AccountProcessor.GetAccountDetails(accountDetails);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw;
}

First of all, the costruction
catch (Exception e) {
throw;
}
is redundant one and can be eliminated. Now about nulls. There're two
cases:
null is an erroneous value and so it should be signalled
null is an expected, ordinary value and thus it should be proceeded
And so you have (null is an error)
string errorMessage = AccountClient.GetAccount(id, out accountDetails);
// What's wrong: it's id which doesn't correspond to any detail
// (we expect id being s.t. AccountClient.GetAccount(id...) returns not null detail)
if (accountDetails == null)
throw new ArgumentException($"Incorrect id {id} which doesn't have any detail.",
nameof(id));
Subscription subscription = AccountProcessor.GetAccountDetails(accountDetails);
Or (null is an expected outcome)
string errorMessage = AccountClient.GetAccount(id, out accountDetails);
if (accountDetails == null)
return null; // or any reasonable value, or just return, or create new Subscription
Subscription subscription = AccountProcessor.GetAccountDetails(accountDetails);

If you can do anything about null input then handle it.
try
{
string errorMessage = AccountClient.GetAccount(id, out accountDetails);
if (accountDetails == null)
{
// do something about it. Maybe write some logs, substitute with a default value
// or throw appropriate exception ...
}
Subscription subscription = AccountProcessor.GetAccountDetails(accountDetails);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw;
}
if you can't then let GetAccountDetails decide what should happen.
try
{
string errorMessage = AccountClient.GetAccount(id, out accountDetails);
Subscription subscription = AccountProcessor.GetAccountDetails(accountDetails);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw;
}
Also there is no need to catch an exception, doing nothing and then throw it so you can remove the whole try catch block.

It depends on where this ID is coming from. If the user typed the ID, then I wouldn't generate an Exception, since it is not a error in your program. Just treat the user input and show a proper message. Exceptions are costly, so I usually use them only when i have a real programa failure. Besides that, if you write a custom Exception Handler, it wouldn`t make sense to log a error caused by wrong user input. So i would make it like this:
if (AccountClient.AccountExists(id))
{
AccountDetails details = AccountClient.GetAccount(id);
Subscription subscription = AccountProcessor.GetAccountDetails(accountDetails);
}
Anyway, its good to treat the input on the same way, even if you had treated like above, in case there is any other non treated call to it:
public AccountDetails GetAccount(int id)
{
if (Exists(id))
GetTheAccount(id);
else
throw new Exception(String.Format("Account {0} doesn't exists", id));
}
In this case I would use an Exception because it could really represent an error, if the caller function is passing a wrong value, for instance.

Single method executer and error handler

I've written what I initially thought was a generic method executer and error handler for any method I add or might add in the future but after many hours of struggling and googling, I have resorted to going to forums.
Aim: To try and get away from individual error handling in a method and handle all errors in one single method. (hope this makes sense).
Code for Generic method executer and error handler:
internal static Tuple<SystemMessage, object> ExecuteAndHandleAnyErrors<T,TArg1>(this object callingMethod, params object[] args)
{
dynamic methodToExecute;
if (callingMethod.GetType() == typeof(Func<T, TArg1>))
{
methodToExecute = (callingMethod as Func<T,TArg1>);
}
else
{
methodToExecute = (callingMethod as Action<T, TArg1>);
}
try
{
var result = methodToExecute.DynamicInvoke(args);
return new Tuple<SystemMessage, object>(null,result);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return new Tuple<SystemMessage, object>(new SystemMessage
{
MessageText = ex.Message,
MessageType = SystemMessage.SystemMessageType.Error
}, null);
}
}
//This is the code for a sample method:
internal QuestionAnswerSet LoadQuestions(DataWrapper dataWrapper)
{
var taskExecuter = new Func<DataWrapper, QuestionAnswerSet> (InternalDeserializeObject<QuestionAnswerSet>);
var questionAnswerSet = taskExecuter.ExecuteAndHandleAnyErrors<DataWrapper, QuestionAnswerSet>(dataWrapper);
return questionAnswerSet.Item2 as QuestionAnswerSet;
}
my question is this: Is it possible that if the LoadQuestions method falls over, how do I catch the error and defer the error handling to the ExecuteAndHandleAnyErrors method without manually adding a try...catch statement to the LoadQuestions method?
Hope this makes sense.
thank u.
charles

You could wrap every call of LoadQuestions in its own call to ExecuteAndHandleAnyErrors.
However, this seems to be missing part of the point of exception handling. When using exceptions to communicate error, one usually doesn't "handle all errors in one single method". That one single method usually cannot deal with any possible exception sensibly. For example, could your method handle a ThreadAbortedException? What about an ArgumentException? Nor does one add a lot of try ... catch block all over the place.
In general, try to write try ... catch blocks that handle specific exceptions when your code can handle the failure sensibly (e.g., catching FileNotFoundException near where you open a file and triggering a dialog box or attempting to open a default file at a different path).
Often, an application will have one top-level try ... catch block in Main() to log any otherwise unhandled exceptions. Then it rethrows the exception/crashes the program/exits the program.

I solved it.
What I was doing was is seeing the first time the exception is thrown and not stepping further down by pressing F10.
THanks for all the help

What are best practices for handling exceptions in C#?

I have following code in my web page:
btnTest_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
...
bool ret=myFunc(...);
if (ret)
{...}
else
{
lblStatus.Text="Some Text";
lblStatus.Visible=true;
}
}
private bool myFunc(...)
{
bool ret=false;
try
{
...
ret=true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
lblStatus.Text="Other Text";
lblStatus.Visible=true;
}
return ret;
}
If an exception occurs in myFunc, the lblStatus always shows "Some Text" not "Other Text". That means the catch block in myFunc doesn't really mean anything. I wonder how to fix this code to handle the exception better?
update: maybe my example is not very good. But I main purpose is to ask best practices for exceptions handling between calling and being called functions.

Why is your called function setting the label text on exception and the caller setting it on success?
That's something of a mixed metaphor. Let one party be responsible for UI (separation of concerns) while the other is responsible for doing work. If you want your called function to be fault tolerant try something like this:
private bool myFunc(...)
{
bool ret ;
try
{
...
ret=true;
}
catch
{
ret = false ;
}
return ret;
}
Then your caller can do something like:
bool success = myFunc(...) ;
lblStatus.Text = success ? "Some Text" : "Other Text" ;
lblStatus.Visible = success ;
if ( success )
{
// do something useful
}

Your catch clause is doing a lot. It catches every exception and "forgets it" suppressing it to the rest of the call stack. This can be perfectly fine but i'll try to explain your options:
You usually have 3 options:
Do not care about exceptions and let code above you handle it
Care to log the exception and let it propagate
The exception has its meaning in a given context and should not be propagated (this is your scenario)
I use all of them.
Option 1
You can just implement your function and if an exception occurs then it means some fault occurred and you just want your application to fail (at least to a certain level)
Option 2
Some exception occurs and you'll want to do one of two (or even both)
log the error
change the exception to another one more meaningful to the caller
Option 3
The exception is expected and you know how to completely react to it. For instance, in your case, i tend to believe you do not care about the type of exception but want a "good default" by setting some controls to a given text.
conclusion
There are no silver bullets. Use the best option for each scenario.
Nevertheless catching and "suppressing" catch(Exception ex) is rare and if seen often it usually means bad programming.

It displays "Some Text" because, when an exception occurs in myFunc, it returns false. Then you go into the else block of the btnTest_Click method, where you set lblStatus.Text to "Some Text" again.
So, basically, you're setting the label's text to "Other text" and then to "Some Text".

The exception handling is just fine. The problem with your code is that you are putting the "Some Text" string in the label if the return value is false, and that is when there was an exception, so it will replace the message from the catch block.
Switch the cases:
if (ret) {
// it went well, so set the text
lblStatus.Text="Some Text";
lblStatus.Visible=true;
} else {
// an exception occured, so keep the text set by the catch block
}

This is a complex question so I will try to break it down
In terms of functions I would try to stick to the Single Responsibility Principal. It should do one, well defined thing.
Exceptions should be that, exceptional. It is then preferable to try not to incur exceptions but obviously to deal with them as and when. For example it is better to test a variable as being null before attempting to use it (which would throw an exception). Exceptions can be slow (especially if a lot are thrown)
I would say that the question of WHERE you handle the exception is down to whose responsibility the exception is. If myFunc were to access a remote server and return a status of true or false you'd expect it to handle its own IO exception. It would probably not handle (or rethrow) any parameter problems. This relates to point 1. It is the functions responsibility deal with the connection process, not to provide the correct parameters. Hiding certain exceptions can cause problems if other people (or a forgetful you) tries to use the code at a later date. For example in this myFunc which makes a connection, should you hide parameter exceptions you may not realise you have passed in bad parameters

If you want to be informed of encountering a specific type of error inside one of your functions, I'd recommend inheriting Exception and creating your own exception class. I'd put a try-catch block inside your btnTest_Click() handler, and then I'd look to catch your custom exception class. That way, you won't lose the opportunity to detect any errors happening inside your myFunc() function.

I usually setup an error handling system. Here's a simple way, but this can be wrapped up into a base class. I can show you that if you need.
List<string> _errors;
void init()
{
_errors = new List<string>();
}
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
init();
}
btnTest_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
...
var result = myFunc(...);
if (result)
{...}
else
{
if (_errors.Count > 0)
{
var sb = new StringBuilder("<ul>");
foreach (string err in _errors)
{
sb.AppendLine(string.Format("<li>{0}</li>", err));
}
sb.AppendLine("</ul>");
lblStatus.Text=sb.ToString();//Make this a Literal
}
}
}
private bool myFunc(...)
{
var result = true;
try
{
...
...
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
result = false;
_errors.Add(ex.Message);
}
return result;
}

Get name of last called method

I have the following code:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
try
{
this.CheckValue(true); // call method
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// how to get here name of last called method
}
}
public int CheckValue(bool sender)
{
var qwe = int.Parse("qwe"); // invoke an exception
return 0;
}
}
I need to get in "catch block" name of last called method (in this case "CheckValue"), but it return that called method is "StringToNumber".
I try to get it using StackTrace:
stackTrace.GetFrame(1).GetMethod().Name; -> "Main"
MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod(); -> "Void .ctor()"
ex.TargetSite.Name; -> "StringToNumber"
It's possible to do this?

Short Answer:
Yes, You can!!!
I'd just play around with Extension Methods and the trick here, is to get the last frame of the desired class, otherwise it would get methods of mscorlib assembly. So here it go:
public static string GetLastCalledMethod<T>(this Exception ex)
{
var stackTrace = new System.Diagnostics.StackTrace(ex);
var lastFrame = stackTrace.GetFrames().FirstOrDefault(frame => frame.GetMethod().DeclaringType.FullName == typeof(T).FullName);
string methodName = string.Empty;
if (lastFrame != null)
methodName = lastFrame.GetMethod().Name;
return methodName;
}

Short Answer:
You can't.
Long Answer:
If you really need to do that, you will need to perform logging code in all the methods you want to track.
You can create a global variable (ugh) to store a MethodInfo with the last called method, and inside every method, set it to MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod(). Then whenever you want, you can examine that variable to see which method set it last.
In your case, you probably are trying to determine which method the exception was thrown in. You are looking at TargetSite, which returns the lowest method in the hierarchy, whereas you seem to want the one immediately below the current method. If simply examining Exception.StackTrace doesn't provide enough information, you might be able to parse out information from StackTrace and use reflection to get a MethodInfo. Usually, the StackTrace is good enough.
You may also be able to throw a new exception in the top-level method, so you can get the TargetSite from the new one.
Summary:
If Exception.StackTrace doesn't provide enough information, then you will either have to:
Perform logging code in each method you want to check for.
Parse out what information you can get from the Exception.
Change the exception throwing scheme to throw a new exception with InnerException set to the original exception.

I don't know why you want to do this.. because this is expected behaviour. The site of the exception is what you're being shown.. within the int.Parse() calls.
That being said.. if you really want to do this, you need to wrap a try.. catch in CheckValue, and re-throw the exception from there, but in a way that breaks the call stack.. like so:
public int CheckValue(bool sender) {
try {
var qwe = int.Parse("qwe"); // invoke an exception
return 0;
}
catch (Exception ex) {
throw ex; // this breaks the call stack and re-throws the exception from here..
}
}
Then, ex.TargetSite.Name == "CheckValue". I'm still not sure why you'd want to do this.. as a stack trace will actually show you where it all unwinds from after failure.

Exception with null message

I found that exception message can't be null in C#, and after trying this
var ex = new Exception(null);
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
I get the following message:
Exception of type 'System.Exception' was thrown.
But, in this case,
var ex = new Exception(string.Empty);
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
the message is just empty.
How this can be explained? Do you think this is expected behavior?

The other answers (not including the answer from chopikadze) seem to be based on a misreading of the facts. Neither example is throwing an exception.
Rather, in the first example, the constructed exception ex is providing a message because the value of the constructor's message parameter was null. The message is "an exception of type 'System.Exception' was thrown".
It's a fairly common practice to have some fallback behavior when an object reference is null, so that's "how it can be explained". Whether it is "expected", of course, depends on your expectations.
Throwing exceptions in the course of handling exceptions can be problematic, so the framework designers must have chosen this behavior to reduce this possibility. It would have been a nightmare, frankly, if we all had to cover the possibility that exception messages might be null.
EDIT
The behavior is also documented in the remarks for the Message property: "If no message was supplied to the constructor for the current instance, the system supplies a default message that is formatted using the current system culture."
I looked in the CLI spec and in the C# spec, and I found no mention of a requirement that Message have a non-null return value, so I guess that supports the view that this behavior is a framework design decision.

Actually constructor doesn't need string, you can absolutely surely use null. This is reflectored part of Exception class:
internal string _message;
public Exception(string message)
{
this.Init();
this._message = message;
}
private void Init()
{
this._message = null;
this._stackTrace = null;
this._dynamicMethods = null;
this.HResult = -2146233088;
this._xcode = -532462766;
this._xptrs = IntPtr.Zero;
this._watsonBuckets = null;
this._ipForWatsonBuckets = UIntPtr.Zero;
this._safeSerializationManager = new SafeSerializationManager();
}
public virtual string Message
{
[SecuritySafeCritical]
get
{
if (this._message != null)
{
return this._message;
}
if (this._className == null)
{
this._className = this.GetClassName();
}
return Environment.GetRuntimeResourceString("Exception_WasThrown", new object[] { this._className });
}
}
So if you use null as message in constructor, localized string like "Exception of type 'System.Exception' was thrown." will be used as Message. It means - there is still your Exception, not another one, but it's property Message returns another (calculated) value instead of null from constructor.
I think that it's defined by design (and maybe is used in another places) that Exception.Message should be always not null. So if we want to allow developers use default constructor for Exception class (for example, for using with reflection or for allowing to populate properties later) but we also want to has Message always not null - we should wrap Message with something. I think, one of the possible place of Message usage is default dialog box showed after exception occurs. This way there could be used just Message property, instead of checking - is Message property equals to null etc.

string.Empty is not null it is a constant for "".
Your first example is giving a default message, your second example is an empty string

Yes, the constructor you are using requires a string. String.Empty is not the same as null therefore it will throw an exception.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.exception.aspx