We Keep Coding

How to Call a method from a Class Library Variably

I am trying to find a solution that allows me to write one method in my forms project that can variably call multiple different methods from my class library project.
The reason for this being that I want to implement retry logic around these methods and prevent myself from repeating it for each different variety of method. The only consistent thing about the class library methods are that they all return Task<bool> so its easy to await on and perform logic with.
So far I have the following:
public async Task Runner(string methodName, params object[] parameters)
{
ThreadTimer.Start();
var tries = 0;
var ok = false;
while (tries <= 180)
{
try
{
var parameterTypes = (from p in parameters select p.GetType()).ToArray();
var mi = typeof(string).GetMethod(methodName, parameterTypes); //Currently returns null
var result = (Task<bool>)mi.Invoke(null, parameters);
ok = await result;
if (ok) break;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (ex.InnerException == null)
{
ExceptionLabel2.Text = ex.Message;
}
else
{
ExceptionLabel1.Text = ex.Message;
ExceptionLabel2.Text = ex.InnerException.Message;
}
}
finally
{
tries++;
}
}
if (ok)
{
ThreadTimer.Dispose();
}
else
{
CShellControls.ExitWindowsEx(0, 0); //Logoff
}
}
The idea behind this is to declare a method name in a string and pass an array of parameters with it. I then used .GetMethod() to try and fetch the desired method info but unfortunately this returns null.
I have tried a few different methods but I'm open to suggestions and critique. As far as optimizing code goes I haven't really thought much into it, I just want to try and get this working first before approaching a more efficient method.
Thank you in advance!

Is there a way of getting the compiler to initialize a string with the enclosing method name?

Our C# codebase have several methods that create error messages that include the method's name. Can I get the compiler to statically insert the method name for me? I know I could do something with reflection, but I'd rather not.
Amongst other things, I'm seeing quite a few copy-paste errors where the exception handling from one method is copied to another, without the method name changing.
public void Method1()
{
try
{
DoStuff();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
HandleError("Method1", details);
}
}
Rather than include the string "Method1" (and "Method2" up to "Methodn") is there a way of telling the compiler to insert the current method name there?

In NET 4.5 you can use the CallerMemberName attribute. Your HandleError method would then look like so:
void HandleError(YourDetailsClass details,
[CallerMemberName] callingMethod = null)
and you'd simply use
HandleError(details);

you can use MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod which returns MethodInfo
using System.Reflection;
and then
catch (Exception e)
{
HandleError(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name, details);
}

Yes, you can try with this:
System.Diagnostics.StackTrace st = new System.Diagnostics.StackTrace();
string methodName = st.GetFrame(0).GetMethod().Name;
And you will have the name of your running method.

One way is to use the StackTrace and StackFrame classes in System.Diagnostics to retrieve the method name:
private void HandleError(Exception ex) {
var st = new StackTrace ();
var sf = st.GetFrame (1); // get the previous method that called this
// (not this method)
var previousMethod = sf.GetMethod ();
var errorMessage = string.Format("Error in method {0} with Exception {1}",
previousMethod.Name,
ex.Message);
}
Example:
void MyMethod() {
HandleError(new Exception("Error here"));
}
errorMessage would contain: Error in method MyMethod with Exception Error here.

.NET error handling

I have been writing .NET applications and have been impressed with the error handling included in the framework.
When catching an error that has been throw by the processes or somewhere in the code I like to include the message (ex.Message, which is usually pretty general) but also the stacktrace (ex.stacktrace) which helps to trace the problem back to a specific spot.
For a simple example let's say for instance that we are recording numbers to a log in a method:
public void ExampleMethod(int number){
try{
int num = number
...open connection to file
...write number to file
}
catch(Exception ex){
.... deal with exception (ex.message,ex.stacktrace etc...)
}
finally{
...close file connection
}
}
Is there any way to see the method called (in this case ExampleMethod) with the specific number that was passed that potentially crashed the method call? I believe you could log this perhaps in the catch block but I am interested essentially in catching the method call and parameters that caused the system to throw the exception.
Any ideas?

I suggest stuffing the parameter values into the exception's Data dictionary, e.g.
public void ExampleMethod(int number) {
try {
int num = number
...open connection to file
...write number to file
}
catch(Exception ex) {
ex.Data["number"] = number;
//.... deal with exception (ex.message,ex.stacktrace etc...)
}
finally {
//...close file connection
}
Another advantage of this method is that you can stuff the parameters in the catch block, then re-throw the exception and log it somewhere else without losing the stack trace, e.g.
catch(Exception ex) {
ex.Data["number"] = number;
throw;
}

If you want to know the value of the parameters in your method, then there is only one way, IMO, to do it - you need to repackage the exception with data.
For example:
int param1 = 10;
string param2 = "Hello World";
try
{
SomeMethod(param1, param2)
}
catch(SomeExpectedException e)
{
throw new MyParameterSensitiveException(e, param1, param2);
}
You basically repackage the original exception as the inner exception of another exception, and additionally supply the parameters you used to call the method. Then you could inspect that in some way to figure out what went wrong.

The accepted answer and many of the solutions described will work fine but what you're doing is littering your source with a slightly different blob of code depending on what parameters are in your method signature.
When it comes time to add a new parameter you need to remember to update your handler to add that new parameter. Or if you remove a parameter then you need to remember to remove the parameter from your exception handler.
What if you have a two or more try..catch blocks? Then you now have two blocks of code to keep up to date. Definitely not refactor friendly.
Another approach is to remove the logging code use a technique called Aspect Oriented Programming.
One such tool to facilitate this is a product called PostSharp.
With PostSharp you can write a logger than is invoked whenever an exception is thrown without the need for messy method and parameter specific code. For example (using version 1.5 of PostSharp):
LoggerAttribute.cs -
[Serializable]
public class LoggerAttribute : OnExceptionAspect
{
public override void OnException(MethodExecutionEventArgs eventArgs)
{
Console.WriteLine(eventArgs.Method.DeclaringType.Name);
Console.WriteLine(eventArgs.Method.Name);
Console.WriteLine(eventArgs.Exception.StackTrace);
ParameterInfo[] parameterInfos = eventArgs.Method.GetParameters();
object[] paramValues = eventArgs.GetReadOnlyArgumentArray();
for (int i = 0; i < parameterInfos.Length; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(parameterInfos[i].Name + "=" + paramValues[i]);
}
eventArgs.FlowBehavior = FlowBehavior.Default;
}
}
You then decorate your classes with the LoggerAttribute:
[Logger]
public class MyClass
{
public void MyMethod(int x, string name)
{
// Something that throws an exception
}
}
Anything that throws an exception in MyMethod will cause the OnException method to be executed.
There are two versions of PostSharp. Version 1.5 is free and open sourced under the GPL and is targeted at .NET 2.0. PostSharp 2.0 is not entirely free but its community edition will support the basic functionality described above.

In order to do this:
public void MyProblematicMethod(int id, string name)
{
try
{
object o = null;
int hash = o.GetHashCode(); // throws NullReferenceException
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
string errorMessage = SummarizeMethodCall(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod(), id, name);
// TODO: do something with errorMessage
}
}
...and get this:
"MyProblematicMethod invoked: id = 1, name = Charlie"
...you could do something like this:
public static string SummarizeMethodCall(MethodBase method, params object[] values)
{
var output = new StringBuilder(method.Name + " invoked: ");
ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();
for (int i = 0; i < parameters.Length; i++)
{
output.AppendFormat("{0} = {1}",
parameters[i].Name,
i >= values.Length ? "<empty>" : values[i]
);
if (i < parameters.Length - 1)
output.Append(", ");
}
return output.ToString();
}

You could make a class that inherits Exception and add some arguments to it so you could pass the number to it.

You can get the method name and the parameters like this,
try
{
int a = 0;
int i = 1 / a;
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
StackTrace s = new StackTrace(exception);
StackFrame stackFrame = s.GetFrame(s.FrameCount - 1);
if (stackFrame != null)
{
StringBuilder stackBuilder = new StringBuilder();
MethodBase method = stackFrame.GetMethod();
stackBuilder.AppendFormat("Method Name = {0}{1}Parameters:{1}", method.Name, Environment.NewLine);
foreach (ParameterInfo parameter in method.GetParameters())
{
stackBuilder.AppendFormat("{0} {1}", parameter.ParameterType.FullName, parameter.Name);
stackBuilder.AppendLine();
}
// or use this to get the value
//stackBuilder.AppendLine("param1 = " + param1);
//stackBuilder.AppendLine("param2 = " + param2);
}
}
I am not sure whether you can get the parameter values directly off the stack like a debugger.

The Automatic Exception Handling from Crypto Obfuscator can do what you need.
The exception reports include all pertinent information including full stack trace info along with the values of all method arguments and local variables, plus the system information, the time of the exception, the build number, and optional developer defined custom data like log files, screenshots, etc.
DISCLAIMER: I work for LogicNP Software, the developer of Crypto Obfuscator.

What is the best way to execute sequential methods?

Working on a project where a sequential set of methods must be run every x seconds. Right now I have the methods contained within another "parent method", and just sequentially call them right after another.
class DoTheseThings()
{
DoThis();
NowDoThat();
NowDoThis();
MoreWork();
AndImSpent();
}
Each method must run successfully without throwing an exception before the next step can be done. So now I wrapped each of those methods with a while and try..catch, then in the catch execute that method again.
while( !hadError )
{
try
{
DoThis();
}
catch(Exception doThisException )
{
hadError = true;
}
}
This seems smelly and not very dry. Is there a better way to do this so I'm not wrapping any new functionality in the same methods. Isn't some kind of Delegate collection the proper way to implement this?
Is there a more "proper" solution?

Action[] work=new Action[]{new Action(DoThis), new Action(NowDoThat),
new Action(NowDoThis), new Action(MoreWork), new Action(AndImSpent)};
int current =0;
while(current!=work.Length)
{
try
{
work[current]();
current++;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// log the error or whatever
// maybe sleep a while to not kill the processors if a successful execution depends on time elapsed
}
}

Isn't some kind of Delegate collection the proper way to implement this?
Delegate is a possible way to solve this problem.
Just create a delegate something like:
public delegate void WorkDelegate();
and put them in arraylist which you can iterate over.

I have a personal religious belief that you shouldn't catch System.Exception, or more accurately, you should only catch the exceptions you know how to handle.
That being said, I am going to assume that each one of the methods that you are calling are doing something different, and could result in different exceptions being thrown. Which means you would likely need to have different handlers for each method.
If you follow my religion as well, and the second statement is true, then you are not repeating code unnecessarily. Unless you have other requirements, my recommendations to improve your code would be:
1) Put the try-catch in each method, not around each method call.
2) Have the catches within each method catch ONLY the exceptions you know about.
http://blogs.msdn.com/fxcop/archive/2006/06/14/631923.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/14/352949.aspx
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
HTH ...

your example seems ok.. its a dry one but will do the job well!! actually if this methods execute db access.. you can use transaction to ensure integrity...
if your dealing with shared variables for multi threader programs.. it is cleaner to use synchronization.. the most important thing in coding is that you write the proper code... that has less bugs.. and will do the task correctly..

public void DoTheseThings()
{
SafelyDoEach( new Action[]{
DoThis,
NowDoThat,
NowDoThis,
MoreWork,
AndImSpent
})
}
public void SafelyDoEach( params Action[] actions )
{
try
{
foreach( var a in actions )
a();
}
catch( Exception doThisException )
{
// blindly swallowing every exception like this is a terrible idea
// you should really only be swallowing a specific MyAbortedException type
return;
}
}

What would be the reason that an error was occuring?
If this were a resource issue, such as access to something like a connection or object, then you might want to look at using monitors, semaphores, or just locking.
lock (resource)
{
Dosomething(resource);
}
This way if a previous method is accessing the resource, then you can wait until it releases the resource to continue.
Ideally, you shouldn't have to run a loop to execute something each time it fails. It is failing at all, you would want to know about the issue and fix it. Having a loop to always just keep trying is not the right way to go here.

I'd do what Ovidiu Pacurar suggests, only I'd use a foreach loop and leave dealing with array indexes up to the compiler.

Simple delegate approach:
Action<Action> tryForever = (action) => {
bool success;
do {
try {
action();
success = true;
} catch (Exception) {
// should probably log or something here...
}
} while (!success);
};
void DoEverything() {
tryForever(DoThis);
tryForever(NowDoThat);
tryForever(NowDoThis);
tryForever(MoreWork);
tryForever(AndImSpent);
}
Stack approach:
void DoEverything() {
Stack<Action> thingsToDo = new Stack<Action>(
new Action[] {
DoThis, NowDoThat, NowDoThis, MoreWork, AndImSpent
}
);
Action action;
while ((action = thingsToDo.Pop()) != null) {
bool success;
do {
try {
action();
success = true;
} catch (Exception) {
}
} while (!success);
}

Event-based async in C#; any generic refactoring possible?

Some APIs, like the WebClient, use the Event-based Async pattern. While this looks simple, and probably works well in a loosely coupled app (say, BackgroundWorker in a UI), it doesn't chain together very well.
For instance, here's a program that's multithreaded so the async work doesn't block. (Imagine this is going in a server app and called hundreds of times -- you don't want to block your ThreadPool threads.) We get 3 local variables ("state"), then make 2 async calls, with the result of the first feeding into the second request (so they can't go parallel). State could mutate too (easy to add).
Using WebClient, things end up like the following (or you end up creating a bunch of objects to act like closures):
using System;
using System.Net;
class Program
{
static void onEx(Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
}
static void Main() {
var url1 = new Uri(Console.ReadLine());
var url2 = new Uri(Console.ReadLine());
var someData = Console.ReadLine();
var webThingy = new WebClient();
DownloadDataCompletedEventHandler first = null;
webThingy.DownloadDataCompleted += first = (o, res1) => {
if (res1.Error != null) {
onEx(res1.Error);
return;
}
webThingy.DownloadDataCompleted -= first;
webThingy.DownloadDataCompleted += (o2, res2) => {
if (res2.Error != null) {
onEx(res2.Error);
return;
}
try {
Console.WriteLine(someData + res2.Result);
} catch (Exception ex) { onEx(ex); }
};
try {
webThingy.DownloadDataAsync(new Uri(url2.ToString() + "?data=" + res1.Result));
} catch (Exception ex) { onEx(ex); }
};
try {
webThingy.DownloadDataAsync(url1);
} catch (Exception ex) { onEx(ex); }
Console.WriteLine("Keeping process alive");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Is there an generic way to refactor this event-based async pattern? (I.e. not have to write detailed extension methods for each API thats like this?) BeginXXX and EndXXX make it easy, but this event way doesn't seem to offer any way.

In the past I've implemented this using an iterator method: every time you want another URL requested, you use "yield return" to pass control back to the main program. Once the request finishes, the main program calls back into your iterator to execute the next piece of work.
You're effectively using the C# compiler to write a state machine for you. The advantage is that you can write normal-looking C# code in the iterator method to drive the whole thing.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Net;
class Program
{
static void onEx(Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
}
static IEnumerable<Uri> Downloader(Func<DownloadDataCompletedEventArgs> getLastResult) {
Uri url1 = new Uri(Console.ReadLine());
Uri url2 = new Uri(Console.ReadLine());
string someData = Console.ReadLine();
yield return url1;
DownloadDataCompletedEventArgs res1 = getLastResult();
yield return new Uri(url2.ToString() + "?data=" + res1.Result);
DownloadDataCompletedEventArgs res2 = getLastResult();
Console.WriteLine(someData + res2.Result);
}
static void StartNextRequest(WebClient webThingy, IEnumerator<Uri> enumerator) {
if (enumerator.MoveNext()) {
Uri uri = enumerator.Current;
try {
Console.WriteLine("Requesting {0}", uri);
webThingy.DownloadDataAsync(uri);
} catch (Exception ex) { onEx(ex); }
}
else
Console.WriteLine("Finished");
}
static void Main() {
DownloadDataCompletedEventArgs lastResult = null;
Func<DownloadDataCompletedEventArgs> getLastResult = delegate { return lastResult; };
IEnumerable<Uri> enumerable = Downloader(getLastResult);
using (IEnumerator<Uri> enumerator = enumerable.GetEnumerator())
{
WebClient webThingy = new WebClient();
webThingy.DownloadDataCompleted += delegate(object sender, DownloadDataCompletedEventArgs e) {
if (e.Error == null) {
lastResult = e;
StartNextRequest(webThingy, enumerator);
}
else
onEx(e.Error);
};
StartNextRequest(webThingy, enumerator);
}
Console.WriteLine("Keeping process alive");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}

You might want to look into F#. F# can automate this coding for you with its «workflow» feature. The '08 PDC presentation of F# dealt with asynchronous web requests using a standard library workflow called async, which handles the BeginXXX/EndXXX pattern, but you can write a workflow for the event pattern without much difficulty, or find a canned one. And F# works well with C#.