We Keep Coding

How code below the finally block execute?

I couldn't find any Microsoft official resource that shows how code below the finally block execute, the only information in regards to it is the book CLR via C#, the author says:
Code below the finally block executes if no exception is thrown within the try block or if a catch block catches the exception and doesn't throw or re-throw an exception.
Let's say we have the following code:
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
SomeMethod1();
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void SomeMethod1() {
try {
SomeMethod2();
}
finally {
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod1 finally");
}
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod1 last");
}
static void SomeMethod2() {
try {
SomeMethod3();
}
catch (DivideByZeroException e) {
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod2 caught");
}
finally {
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod2 finally");
}
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod2 last");
}
static void SomeMethod3() {
try {
SomeMethod4();
}
finally {
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod3 finally");
}
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod3 last");
}
static void SomeMethod4() {
try {
Int32 i = 0;
var c = 3 / i;
}
finally {
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod4 finally");
}
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod4 last");
}
}
and the output is:
SomeMethod4 finally
SomeMethod3 finally
SomeMethod2 caught
SomeMethod2 finally
SomeMethod2 last
SomeMethod1 finally
SomeMethod1 last
You can see that "SomeMethod4 last" and "SomeMethod3 last" doesn't get printed.
"SomeMethod4 last" doesn't get printed is easy to understand as SomeMethod4 throw an exception and there is no catch block to catch the exception, so it doesn't meet the requirement that specified by the author, fair enough.
But why "SomeMethod3 last" doesn't get printed? there is no exception thrown at SomeMethod3, just like SomeMethod1, so why "SomeMethod1 last" get printed while "SomeMethod3 last" doesn't? Is any Microsoft official resource that explain the mechanics of it?

When the exception is thrown in SomeMethod4, it is flowing up to the calling method which is SomeMethod3. Think of it as if SomeMethod4 was actually inline inside SomeMethod3 like this.
static void SomeMethod3()
{
try
{
try
{
Int32 i = 0;
var c = 3 / i;
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod4 finally");
}
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod4 last");
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod3 finally");
}
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod3 last");
}
The reason SomeMethod2 Last is being run is because it is the part that actually catches the exception.
If you add a catch to SomeMethod3, you will see that SomeMethod3 Last gets printed as well.
Exceptions break the flow of the application, and basically don't stop going back up the call stack until it reaches a catch statement. Technically the exception is being thrown inside SomeMethod1, but its being caught in SomeMethod2 which means the exception never reaches SomeMethod1.

How to resume second method after first method throws an exception C#

While looking on C# try catch tutorial, I got following question. My sample code as follows,
Inside mainMethod() , I need to call three separate methods. Inside testMethodOne(), I need to handle exception as. If testMethodOne() throws exception, without executing testMethodTwo(dt), mainMethod() throwing exception. I need to call testMethodTwo(dt); and testMethodThreee(dt); if testMethodOne() throws exception, how can I do it.
public void MainMethod(data dt){
try{
testMethodOne(dt);
testMethodTwo(dt);
testMethodThreee(dt);
}catch(Exception ex){
throw ex;
}
}
public void testMethodOne(dt){
try
{
// Block of code to try
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// Block of code to handle errors
}
}

I understood your question as follows (but I might be wrong, your questions is not very clear):
Even if one of your testMethods throws an exception, you still want to continue in the normal program flow with the other methods. If at least one of the method failed, mainMethod could then report this as AggregateException.
public void MainMethod(data dt)
{
var exceptions = new List<Exception>();
try
{
testMethodOne(dt);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
exceptions.Add(ex);
}
try
{
testMethodTwo(dt);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
exceptions.Add(ex);
}
try
{
testMethodThreee(dt);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
exceptions.Add(ex);
}
if (exceptions.Count > 0)
{
throw new AggregateException(exceptions);
}
}

It seems as if you want exceptions to alter the flow of your main method without breaking everything. One easy method is to make each 'testmethod' return a boolean.
public bool testMethodOne(dt){
try
{
// Block of code to try
return true;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// Block of code to handle errors
return false;
}
}
Then in your main code you can go
if(!testMethodOne(dt))
if(!testMethodTwo(dt))
if(!testMethodThree(dt))
//log that all methods failed
The above snippet would try each method until it finds one that succeeds. If that's not the behaviour you are looking for can you reword your question to make it clearer? If you want the opposite to happen just get rid of the ! and it will go until one fails. Alternatively you could put a throw in your catch statement in each of the testMethods, and that would stop execution once one is reached as well.

How Can I Force Execution to the Catch Block?

I am wondering can try..catch force execution to go into the catch and run code in there?
here example code:
try {
if (AnyConditionTrue) {
// run some code
}
else {
// go catch
}
} catch (Exception) {
// run some code here...
}

try{
if (AnyConditionTrue){
//run some code
}
else{
throw new Exception();
}
}
catch(){
//run some code here...
}
But like Yuck has stated, I wouldn't recommend this. You should take a step back at your design and what you're looking to accomplish. There's a better way to do it (i.e. with normal conditional flow, instead of exception handling).

Rather than throwing an Exception in the else, I would recommend extracting the code from your catch into a method and call that from your else
try
{
if (AnyConditionTrue)
{
MethodWhenTrue();
}
else
{
HandleError();
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
HandleError();
}

Yes, you have to throw exception :
try
{
throw new Exception("hello");
}
catch (Exception)
{
//run some code here...
}

An effective way to throw an Exception and also jump to Catch as so:
try
{
throw new Exception("Exception Message");
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// after the throw, you will land here
}

if(conditiontrue)
{
}
else{
throw new Exception();
}

Yes, if you throw the exception that you intend to catch from within the try, it will be caught in the catch section.
I have to ask you why you would want to do this though? Exception handling is not meant to be a substitute for control flow.

I think what you want is a finally block: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zwc8s4fz(v=vs.80).aspx
see this
try
{
doSomething();
}
catch
{
catchSomething();
throw an error
}
finally
{
alwaysDoThis();
}
This is different if/when you do this:
try
{
doSomething();
}
catch
{
catchSomething();
throw an error
}
alwaysDoThis();// will not run on error (in the catch) condition
the the this last instance, if an error occurs, the catch will execute but NOT the alwaysDoThis();. Of course you can still have multiple catch as always.

As cadrel said, but pass through an Exception to provide more feedback, which will be shown in the innerException:
try
{
if (AnyConditionTrue)
{
MethodWhenTrue();
}
else
{
HandleError(new Exception("AnyCondition is not true"));
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
HandleError(ex);
}
...
private void HandleError(Exception ex) {
throw new ApplicationException("Failure!", ex);
}

public class CustomException: Exception
{
public CustomException(string message)
: base(message) { }
}
//
if(something == anything)
{
throw new CustomException(" custom text message");
}
you can try this

You could throw an exception to force a catch
throw new Exception(...);

why are you catching an exception? Why not just run the code in your "else" block? If you MUST do it that way, just throw a new exception
throw new Exception();

Slight resurrection, but I wanted to add both a sample (primarily like others) and a use case.
public int GetValueNum(string name)
{
int _ret = 0;
try
{
Control c = (extendedControls.Single(s => s.ValueName == name) as Control);
if (c.GetType() == typeof(ExtendedNumericUpDown))
_ret = (int)((ExtendedNumericUpDown)c).Value;
else
throw new Exception();
}
catch
{
throw new InvalidCastException(String.Format("Invalid cast fetching .Value value for {0}.\nExtendedControllerListener.GetValueNum()", name));
}
return _ret;
}
In my case, I have custom controls - a handful of controls that use a base Windows.Forms control, but add two bools and a string for tracking, and also automatically get registered to a Singleton List<T> so they can be properly fetched without drilling down through control containers (it's a tabbed form).
In this case, I'm creating some methods to easily get values (.Value, .Text, .Checked, .Enabled) by a name string. In the case of .Value, not all Control objects have it. If the extended control is not of type ExtendedNumericUpDown, it IS an InvalidCastException as the method should not be called against that type of control. This isn't flow, but the prescribed usage of invalid cast. Since Control doesn't naturally have a .Value property, Visual Studio won't let me just force an attempt and fail after.

Resuming execution of code after exception is thrown and caught

How is it possible to resume code execution after an exception is thrown?
For example, take the following code:
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class Test
{
public void s()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
string #class = "" ;
Console.WriteLine(#class);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
new Test().s();
}
catch (ArgumentException x)
{
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
}
}
After catching the exception when stepping through, the program will stop running. How can I still carry on execution?
EDIT: What I specifically mean is the line Console.WriteLine(#class); does not seem to be hit, because when I run to it when in debug mode, the program exits from debug mode. I want to run to this line and stop at it.
Thanks

Well, you don't have any code after the catch blocks, so the program would stop running. Not sure what you're trying to do.
The following should be proof that the program doesn't simply "stop" after the catch blocks. It will execute code after the catch blocks if there is code to be executed:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
new Test().s();
}
catch (ArgumentException x)
{
Console.WriteLine("ArgumentException caught!");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Exception caught!");
}
Console.WriteLine("I am some code that's running after the exception!");
}
The code will print the appropriate string depending on the exception that was caught. Then, it will print I am some code that's running after the exception! at the end.
UPDATE
In your edit you asked why Console.WriteLine(#class); does not seem to be hit. The reason is that you are explicitly throwing an exception in the very first line of your s() method; anything that follows is ignored. When an exception is encountered, execution stops and the exception is propagated up the call stack until the appropriate handler can handle it (this may be a catch block that corresponds to the try that wraps the statement in question within the same method, or it may be a catch block further up the call-stack. If no appropriate handler is found, the program will terminate with a stacktrace [at least in Java - not sure if the same happens in C#]).
If you want to hit the Console.WriteLine line, then you shouldn't be explicitly throwing an exception at the beginning of the method.

It sounds like you're wanting resumeable exceptions. C# doesn't do resumeable exceptions, and I'm doubtful that CLR supports them.
The purpose of throwing an exception is to abort a function and an entire operation (call stack) if/when something in the call environment (parameters, object state, global state) makes the function's operation impossible or invalid. Passing a zero param to a function that needs to divide a quantity by that param, for example. Division by zero won't produce a meaningful result, and if that's the sole purpose of the function, then the function can't return a meaningful result either. So, throw an exception. This will cause execution to jump to the nearest catch or finally block on the call stack. There is no returning to the function that threw the exception.
If you want to step into your code in the debugger to trace the Console.WriteLine() calls, you need to remove the throw new NotSupportedException() line from your code and recompile.

If you're worried that an exception will be thrown in the method but you want the method to continue, add an error handler inside the method.
class Test
{
public void s()
{
try
{
// Code that may throw an exception
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Handle the exception - log?, reset some values?
}
string #class = "" ;
Console.WriteLine(#class);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
You could also return a bool or some other value to indicate the state.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that you actually do this.
You can mimic the old VB style On Error Resume Next with the following code.
public static class ControlFlow
{
public static Exception ResumeOnError(Action action)
{
try
{
action();
return null;
}
catch (Exception caught)
{
return caught;
}
}
}
And then it could be used like the following.
public static void Main()
{
ControlFlow.ResumeOnError(() => { throw new NotSupportedException(); });
ControlFlow.ResumeOnError(() => { Console.WriteLine(); });
ControlFlow.ResumeOnError(() => { Console.ReadLine(); });
}

Some simple code I put together to catch exceptions that are thrown inside a catch block:
try
{
//do code here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
try { SomeMethod1(); }
catch { }
try { SomeMethod2(); }
catch { }
try { SomeMethod3(); }
catch { }
}
finally
{
//cleanup goes here
}

Execution is still carying on but there is no code after the exception is caught. If you want to repeatedly call s then consider wrapping the try/catch block in a while loop.

The program stops running because there is no following code to be executed in the Main() method! You can add the following line to your code to keep the program running until there is a console input:
Console.ReadLine();

For that code, you can't. If you break the tasks up to smaller chunks, you can resume at the next chunk. But normally it's easier to have a different mechanism than exceptions to report non-fatal errors, such as a callback function which returns whether or not to continue.

You can use the "step-over" feature in debugging to achieve this on a per-run basis.

Instead of thowing the NotSupportedException, you could track that an exception was encountered, use a default value, and throw the exception at the end of the method call:
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class Test
{
public void s()
{
bool exceptionEncountered = false;
if(someConditionNotSupported){//stub condition
exceptionEncountered=true
#class="DefaultValue";
}
Console.WriteLine(#class);
Console.ReadLine();
if(exceptionEncountered){
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
new Test().s();
}
catch (ArgumentException x)
{
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
}
}

public static void Main()
{
for (int j = 0; j <= 100000; j++)
{
try
{
// TODO: Application logic...
}
catch
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}

Exception handling problem

I'm trying to write some code that catches a particular exception and throw a more useful one for something higher up the call stack to deal with but also catch more general exceptions and handle them.
The code is something like this:
try
{
// Do stuff
}
catch (SomeException e)
{
throw new SomeExceptionWithContextInfo();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// Handle unexpected exception gracefully
}
The problem I'm having is that the general exception is catching my new exception. is there a way to avoid this?
My current solution involves checking the type of the exception and throwing it again if it's type is what I just created.

The code you've posted should work, as shown in this test app:
using System;
class OtherException : Exception {}
class Test
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
Foo();
}
catch (OtherException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Caught OtherException");
}
}
static void Foo()
{
try
{
string x = null;
int y = x.Length;
}
catch (NullReferenceException)
{
throw new OtherException();
}
catch (Exception)
{
Console.WriteLine("Caught plain Exception");
}
}
}
This just prints "Caught OtherException" not "Caught plain Exception". Are you sure you don't have a nested try block in your real code? Could you post a short but complete example which shows your problem?
Do you really need to catch Exception in your method though? That's very rarely a good idea.

You're doing it right. The general exception will not catch the specific one.

The code you posted is the way to do it (catch for more specific exception must appear first).
I suggest looking again at the code, as either they are not in that order, or the code isn't actually throwing that exception type.
Here is a link on msdn about try-catch: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0yd65esw(VS.80).aspx

Don't catch general exceptions might be the answer? Find out which Exceptions that can be thrown and catch them separately.
try { // Outer try/catch
DoSomething();
try {
/* */
} catch(NotGeneralException e) {
/* */
} catch(AnotherNotGeneralException e) {
throw new SomeOtherException("Exception message");
}
} catch(SomeOtherException e) {
/* */
}
Alternatively only catch a general exception and rethrow SomeOtherExcepion
try {
} catch(Exception e) {
throw new SomeOtherException("Exception message");
}