We Keep Coding

Logging exception without catching it

I want to log an unhandled exception in my domain layer without catching it.
I mean that the exception should be thrown after logging to be caught again in upper levels. As you know, throwing has an overhead that I want to avoid.
Any idea in Dotnet platform (C#) ?

public static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
throw new System.Exception("some exception");
}
catch (System.Exception ex) when (LogUsingSerilogOrNLogOrBla(ex)) { }
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("exception logged, but not handled :), there is no need to throw");
}
}
public static bool LogUsingSerilogOrNLogOrBla(System.Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex);
return false;
}

How to override exception message in ASP.NET Web API

I'm having quite a bit of difficulty in getting a custom exception message to return from my Web Api solution. It's a bit more complicated than that:
I want to override the read only property of the exception with my own:
public class CustomException : Exception
{
public CustomException(string message)
: base(message)
{
}
public CustomException(string message, Exception inner)
: base(message, inner)
{
}
}
However, I also have a global exception handler:
public class GlobalExceptionLogger : ExceptionLogger
{
public override void Log(ExceptionLoggerContext context)
{
if (context.Exception.Message == "Password has already been used in the past...1")
{
throw new CustomException("some msg", context.Exception);
}
NLogger.LogError("Global Error Handler", context.Exception);
}
}
When I throw the error I do so like:
if (some condition)) throw new CustomException("some msg");
And then I catch it in the method like:
catch (CustomException ex)
{
throw ex;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
NLogger.LogError(ex);
throw;
}
How can I set the message to be "some msg"? What I'm trying to do is have the api return 1-2 use case related error messages with customErrors mode set to on.

throw new HttpResponseException(
new HttpResponseMessage
{
StatusCode = code,
ReasonPhrase = phrase,
Content = new StringContent(body)
});

How to handle thrown exception in NUnit

I have written a unit test class in C# for my MVC project.
The Test Method is following
[Test]
public void To_Add_DocumentStatusIsNull_ThrowsInvalidOperationException_ServiceTest()
{
try
{
_IDocumentStatusRepositoryMock = new Mock<IDocumentStatusRepository>();
_unitOfWorkMock = new Mock<IUnitOfWork>();
DocumentStatusService documentStatusService = new
DocumentStatusService(_unitOfWorkMock.Object,
_IDocumentStatusRepositoryMock.Object);
DocumentStatus documentStatus;
documentStatus = null;
_IDocumentStatusRepositoryMock.Setup(m => m.Add(documentStatus));
documentStatusService.Add(documentStatus);
Assert.Pass();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw new Exception(e.Message);
}
}
And the Service Method is following
public virtual void Add(TEntity entity)
{
try
{
if (entity == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("entity");
}
_repository.Add(entity);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw new Exception(e.Message);
}
}
Now This test method only not passed due to the service class thrown ArgumentNullException.So how to handle the ArgumentNullException or How to make this test pass?
Please anybody help

If you are trying to check that the ArgumentNullException is working (which: it isn't currently). then it sounds like you want:
[Test, ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentNullException), ExpectedMessage = #"Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: entity")]
public void To_Add_DocumentStatusIsNull_ThrowsInvalidOperationException_ServiceTest()
{
_IDocumentStatusRepositoryMock = new Mock<IDocumentStatusRepository>();
_unitOfWorkMock = new Mock<IUnitOfWork>();
DocumentStatusService documentStatusService = new
DocumentStatusService(_unitOfWorkMock.Object,
_IDocumentStatusRepositoryMock.Object);
DocumentStatus documentStatus;
documentStatus = null;
_IDocumentStatusRepositoryMock.Setup(m => m.Add(documentStatus));
documentStatusService.Add(documentStatus);
}
...
public virtual void Add(TEntity entity)
{
if (entity == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("entity");
}
_repository.Add(entity);
}

Testing for the ArgumentNullException
If you remove the ill-advised
catch (Exception e)
{
throw new Exception(e.Message);
}
from your code to be tested (The current catch loses context of the error, and breaks the stack trace, see below), your test can be as simple as wrapping the invocation in an Assert.Throws<ArgumentNullException>():
[Test]
public void PassingANullEntityToAddMustThrowArgumentNullException()
{
var documentStatusService = new DocumentStatusService(...);
Assert.Throws<ArgumentNullException>(() => documentStatusService.Add(null));
}
Re: Your Exception Handler
In your service code, never catch an exception and rethrow it as you've done, as this will lose the stack trace (e.g. _repository.Add(entity); could throw as well.). You also aren't adding any value by throwing e.Message as this is already in the original exception (with additional info like stack trace and inner exception)
Bad:
catch (Exception e)
{
throw new Exception(e.Message);
}
Better: If you do catch and rethrow with some value, wrap the original as an inner exception:
catch (SqlException ex)
{
throw new Exception("Some value add here", ex);
}
or if you are just intercepting and allow to propagate:
catch (SqlException)
{
// Do some logging
throw;
}
Best to me would to let the exception propagate, unless you either adding value, or handling it.

I am assuming: Looking at the code this unit test should not pass. Adding a NULL to a list is in most cases not an intended behaviour.
I see 2 options:
A) You should add a try/catch to you Test metod.
try
{
_IDocumentStatusRepositoryMock.Setup(m => m.Add(documentStatus));
documentStatusService.Add(documentStatus);
}
catch (Exception )
{
Assert.Fail(); // or nothing is expected behaviour
}
B) Remove the try/catch block from the Test Method so you do not swallow the exception. (Every Test that does not fails or an Assert or thows an unhandeled exception automatically passes)

User made Exception Class

I have to make my own Exception Class for .NET project. Could somebody please help how can I use it in the code? I just to show to MessageBox to user that the images were not found. But I don't know where to do it. Hoping for a good answer.
class RijException : Exception
{
public RijException()
: base() { }
public RijException(string message)
: base(message) { }
public RijException(string format, params object[] args)
: base(string.Format(format, args)) { }
public RijException(string message, Exception innerException)
: base(message, innerException) { }
public RijException(string format, Exception innerException, params object[] args)
: base(string.Format(format, args), innerException) { }
}
Now I want to use it:
try
{
afbeeldingPictureBox.BackgroundImage =
Image.FromFile(#"..\..\Borden\Stilstaan en parkeren\Parkeren toegelaten.png");
}
catch (FileNotFoundException)
{
throw new RijException("Can't find the images");
}
Edit
try
{
try
{
afbeeldingPictureBox.BackgroundImage = Image.FromFile(#"..\..\Borden\Stilstaan en parkeren\Parkeren toegelaten.png");
}
catch (FileNotFoundException)
{
throw new RijException("ImageNotFound");
//MessageBox.Show("Afbeeldingen konden niet worden geladen");
}
}
catch (RijException)
{
MessageBox.Show("Not able to load the image...");
}

Your example could be improved, but before that let's take a more useful example.
Imagine that you have the following code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
var processor = new FileProcessor();
processor.Run();
}
catch (RijException exception)
{
//what will I get here.
}
}
}
Which uses the following classes:
public class FileProcessor
{
private string _myFileName;
public void Run()
{
try
{
var fileLoader = new FileLoader();
Process(fileLoader.Load(_myFileName));
}
catch (FileNotFoundException)
{
throw new RijException("Can't find requested file");
}
}
private void Process(object file)
{
//some logic
}
}
public class FileLoader
{
public object Load(string myFileName)
{
//throws FileNotFoundException
}
}
So the call stack will be like this:
If we modify the code in the main method to print the stack trace, what do you think that we get?
try
{
var processor = new FileProcessor();
processor.Run();
}
catch (RijException exception)
{
Console.WriteLine(exception.StackTrace);
}
The correct answer is:
See? The stack trace shows that the error happened in FileProcessor while it really happened in FileLoader. The reason to that is this code:
catch (FileNotFoundException)
{
throw new RijException("Can't find requested file");
}
When you catch an exception and throw another one you must always include the original exception as the inner exception. Otherwise it will be hard to understand where the exception originally occurred.
catch (FileNotFoundException ex)
{
throw new RijException("Can't find requested file", ex); //includes inner
}
Another problem is the exception message: "Can't find requested file". Ask yourself. If you get that message in a log file, would you be able to figure out what went wrong? At least give some context information.
Finally you have another problem. Best practices for designing exceptions says that they should be able to get serialized. To do that you need to include the serialization constructor and mark the exception as serializable:
[Serializable]
public class RijException : Exception
{
public RijException(string message) : base(message)
{
}
public RijException(string message, Exception inner) : base(message, inner)
{
}
//serialization constructor
protected RijException(
SerializationInfo info,
StreamingContext context) : base(info, context)
{
}
Finally I would therefore write your exercise like this:
try
{
var filename = #"..\..\Borden\Stilstaan en parkeren\Parkeren toegelaten.png";
try
{
afbeeldingPictureBox.BackgroundImage = Image.FromFile(filename);
}
catch (FileNotFoundException exception)
{
throw new RijException("Failed to load " + filename, exception);
}
}
catch (RijException)
{
MessageBox.Show("Not able to load the image...");
//now you would have all information required
//to figure out where and why something went wrong.
}
Summary
Always include inner exceptions
Provide useful context information so that you can figure out what went wrong
Make sure that exceptions can be serialized.

It is generally not a great idea to catch an exception that you cannot do much about. Just catching the FileNotFoundException and then throwing a new RijException that essentially conveys the same information is not usually done.
I just to show to MessageBox to user that the images were not found. But I don't know where to do it.
The most direct way to restructure your code to show the message box is
catch (FileNotFoundException)
{
MessageBox.Show("Can't find the images.");
//Don't do this: throw new RijException("Can't find the images");
}
You really do not want your custom RijException to take on the responsibility of displaying the MessageBox.

What is the best practice in C# to propagate an exception thrown in a finally block without losing an exception from a catch block?

When an exception is possible to be thrown in a finally block how to propagate both exceptions - from catch and from finally?
As a possible solution - using an AggregateException:
internal class MyClass
{
public void Do()
{
Exception exception = null;
try
{
//example of an error occured in main logic
throw new InvalidOperationException();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
exception = e;
throw;
}
finally
{
try
{
//example of an error occured in finally
throw new AccessViolationException();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (exception != null)
throw new AggregateException(exception, e);
throw;
}
}
}
}
These exceptions can be handled like in following snippet:
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
new MyClass().Do();
}
catch (AggregateException e)
{
foreach (var innerException in e.InnerExceptions)
Console.Out.WriteLine("---- Error: {0}", innerException);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine("---- Error: {0}", e);
}
Console.ReadKey();
}

I regularly come into the same situation and have not found a better solution yet. But I think the solution suggested by the OP is eligible.
Here's a slight modification of the original example:
internal class MyClass
{
public void Do()
{
bool success = false;
Exception exception = null;
try
{
//calling a service that can throw an exception
service.Call();
success = true;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
exception = e;
throw;
}
finally
{
try
{
//reporting the result to another service that also can throw an exception
reportingService.Call(success);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (exception != null)
throw new AggregateException(exception, e);
throw;
}
}
}
}
IMHO it will be fatal to ignore one or the other exception here.
Another example: Imagin a test system that calibrates a device (DUT) and therefore has to control another device that sends signals to the DUT.
internal class MyClass
{
public void Do()
{
Exception exception = null;
try
{
//perform a measurement on the DUT
signalSource.SetOutput(on);
DUT.RunMeasurement();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
exception = e;
throw;
}
finally
{
try
{
//both devices have to be set to a valid state at end of the procedure, independent of if any exception occurred
signalSource.SetOutput(off);
DUT.Reset();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (exception != null)
throw new AggregateException(exception, e);
throw;
}
}
}
}
In this example, it is important that all devices are set to a valid state after the procedure. But both devices also can throw exceptions in the finally block that must not get lost or ignored.
Regarding the complexity in the caller, I do not see any problem there either. When using System.Threading.Tasks the WaitAll() method, for example, can also throw AgregateExceptions that have to be handled in the same way.
One more note regarding #damien's comment: The exception is only caught to wrap it into the AggregateException, in case that the finally block throws. Nothing else is done with the exception nor is it handled in any way.
For those who want to go this way you can use a little helper class I created recently:
public static class SafeExecute
{
public static void Invoke(Action tryBlock, Action finallyBlock, Action onSuccess = null, Action<Exception> onError = null)
{
Exception tryBlockException = null;
try
{
tryBlock?.Invoke();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
tryBlockException = ex;
throw;
}
finally
{
try
{
finallyBlock?.Invoke();
onSuccess?.Invoke();
}
catch (Exception finallyBlockException)
{
onError?.Invoke(finallyBlockException);
// don't override the original exception! Thus throwing a new AggregateException containing both exceptions.
if (tryBlockException != null)
throw new AggregateException(tryBlockException, finallyBlockException);
// otherwise re-throw the exception from the finally block.
throw;
}
}
}
}
and use it like this:
public void ExecuteMeasurement(CancellationToken cancelToken)
{
SafeExecute.Invoke(
() => DUT.ExecuteMeasurement(cancelToken),
() =>
{
Logger.Write(TraceEventType.Verbose, "Save measurement results to database...");
_Db.SaveChanges();
},
() => TraceLog.Write(TraceEventType.Verbose, "Done"));
}

As the comments have suggested this may indicate "unfortunately" structured code. For example if you find yourself in this situation often it might indicate that you are trying to do too much within your method. You only want to throw and exception if there is nothing else you can do (your code is 'stuck' with a problem you can't program around. You only want to catch an exception if there is a reasonable expectation you can do something useful. There is an OutOfMemoryException in the framework but you will seldom see people trying to catch it, because for the most part it means you're boned :-)
If the exception in the finally block is a direct result of the exception in the try block, returning that exception just complicates or obscures the real problem, making it harder to resolve. In the rare case where there is a validate reason for returning such as exception then using the AggregateException would be the way to do it. But before taking that approach ask yourself if it's possible to separate the exceptions into separate methods where a single exception can be returned and handled (separately).