We Keep Coding

What is the purpose of using the following try-catch block? c# [duplicate]

I'm looking at the article C# - Data Transfer Object on serializable DTOs.
The article includes this piece of code:
public static string SerializeDTO(DTO dto) {
try {
XmlSerializer xmlSer = new XmlSerializer(dto.GetType());
StringWriter sWriter = new StringWriter();
xmlSer.Serialize(sWriter, dto);
return sWriter.ToString();
}
catch(Exception ex) {
throw ex;
}
}
The rest of the article looks sane and reasonable (to a noob), but that try-catch-throw throws a WtfException... Isn't this exactly equivalent to not handling exceptions at all?
Ergo:
public static string SerializeDTO(DTO dto) {
XmlSerializer xmlSer = new XmlSerializer(dto.GetType());
StringWriter sWriter = new StringWriter();
xmlSer.Serialize(sWriter, dto);
return sWriter.ToString();
}
Or am I missing something fundamental about error handling in C#? It's pretty much the same as Java (minus checked exceptions), isn't it? ... That is, they both refined C++.
The Stack Overflow question The difference between re-throwing parameter-less catch and not doing anything? seems to support my contention that try-catch-throw is-a no-op.
EDIT:
Just to summarise for anyone who finds this thread in future...
DO NOT
try {
// Do stuff that might throw an exception
}
catch (Exception e) {
throw e; // This destroys the strack trace information!
}
The stack trace information can be crucial to identifying the root cause of the problem!
DO
try {
// Do stuff that might throw an exception
}
catch (SqlException e) {
// Log it
if (e.ErrorCode != NO_ROW_ERROR) { // filter out NoDataFound.
// Do special cleanup, like maybe closing the "dirty" database connection.
throw; // This preserves the stack trace
}
}
catch (IOException e) {
// Log it
throw;
}
catch (Exception e) {
// Log it
throw new DAOException("Excrement occurred", e); // wrapped & chained exceptions (just like java).
}
finally {
// Normal clean goes here (like closing open files).
}
Catch the more specific exceptions before the less specific ones (just like Java).
References:
MSDN - Exception Handling
MSDN - try-catch (C# Reference)

First, the way that the code in the article does it is evil. throw ex will reset the call stack in the exception to the point where this throw statement is losing the information about where the exception actually was created.
Second, if you just catch and re-throw like that, I see no added value. The code example above would be just as good (or, given the throw ex bit, even better) without the try-catch.
However, there are cases where you might want to catch and rethrow an exception. Logging could be one of them:
try
{
// code that may throw exceptions
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// add error logging here
throw;
}

Don't do this,
try
{
...
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
You'll lose the stack trace information...
Either do,
try { ... }
catch { throw; }
OR
try { ... }
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new Exception("My Custom Error Message", ex);
}
One of the reason you might want to rethrow is if you're handling different exceptions, for
e.g.
try
{
...
}
catch(SQLException sex)
{
//Do Custom Logging
//Don't throw exception - swallow it here
}
catch(OtherException oex)
{
//Do something else
throw new WrappedException("Other Exception occured");
}
catch
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Eeep! an error, not to worry, will be handled higher up the call stack");
throw; //Chuck everything else back up the stack
}

C# (before C# 6) doesn't support CIL "filtered exceptions", which VB does, so in C# 1-5 one reason for re-throwing an exception is that you don't have enough information at the time of catch() to determine whether you wanted to actually catch the exception.
For example, in VB you can do
Try
..
Catch Ex As MyException When Ex.ErrorCode = 123
..
End Try
...which would not handle MyExceptions with different ErrorCode values. In C# prior to v6, you would have to catch and re-throw the MyException if the ErrorCode was not 123:
try
{
...
}
catch(MyException ex)
{
if (ex.ErrorCode != 123) throw;
...
}
Since C# 6.0 you can filter just like with VB:
try
{
// Do stuff
}
catch (Exception e) when (e.ErrorCode == 123456) // filter
{
// Handle, other exceptions will be left alone and bubble up
}

My main reason for having code like:
try
{
//Some code
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw;
}
is so I can have a breakpoint in the catch, that has an instantiated exception object. I do this a lot while developing/debugging. Of course, the compiler gives me a warning on all the unused e's, and ideally they should be removed before a release build.
They are nice during debugging though.

A valid reason for rethrowing exceptions can be that you want to add information to the exception, or perhaps wrap the original exception in one of your own making:
public static string SerializeDTO(DTO dto) {
try {
XmlSerializer xmlSer = new XmlSerializer(dto.GetType());
StringWriter sWriter = new StringWriter();
xmlSer.Serialize(sWriter, dto);
return sWriter.ToString();
}
catch(Exception ex) {
string message =
String.Format("Something went wrong serializing DTO {0}", DTO);
throw new MyLibraryException(message, ex);
}
}

Isn't this exactly equivalent to not
handling exceptions at all?
Not exactly, it isn't the same. It resets the exception's stacktrace.
Though I agree that this probably is a mistake, and thus an example of bad code.

You don't want to throw ex - as this will lose the call stack. See Exception Handling (MSDN).
And yes, the try...catch is doing nothing useful (apart from lose the call stack - so it's actually worse - unless for some reason you didn't want to expose this information).

This can be useful when your programming functions for a library or dll.
This rethrow structure can be used to purposefully reset the call stack so that instead of seeing the exception thrown from an individual function inside the function, you get the exception from the function itself.
I think this is just used so that the thrown exceptions are cleaner and don't go into the "roots" of the library.

A point that people haven't mentioned is that while .NET languages don't really make a proper distinction, the question of whether one should take action when an exception occurs, and whether one will resolve it, are actually distinct questions. There are many cases where one should take action based upon exceptions one has no hope of resolving, and there are some cases where all that is necessary to "resolve" an exception is to unwind the stack to a certain point--no further action required.
Because of the common wisdom that one should only "catch" things one can "handle", a lot of code which should take action when exceptions occur, doesn't. For example, a lot of code will acquire a lock, put the guarded object "temporarily" into a state which violates its invariants, then put it object into a legitimate state, and then release the lock back before anyone else can see the object. If an exception occurs while the object is in a dangerously-invalid state, common practice is to release the lock with the object still in that state. A much better pattern would be to have an exception that occurs while the object is in a "dangerous" condition expressly invalidate the lock so any future attempt to acquire it will immediately fail. Consistent use of such a pattern would greatly improve the safety of so-called "Pokemon" exception handling, which IMHO gets a bad reputation primarily because of code which allows exceptions to percolate up without taking appropriate action first.
In most .NET languages, the only way for code to take action based upon an exception is to catch it (even though it knows it's not going to resolve the exception), perform the action in question and then re-throw). Another possible approach if code doesn't care about what exception is thrown is to use an ok flag with a try/finally block; set the ok flag to false before the block, and to true before the block exits, and before any return that's within the block. Then, within finally, assume that if ok isn't set, an exception must have occurred. Such an approach is semantically better than a catch/throw, but is ugly and is less maintainable than it should be.

While many of the other answers provide good examples of why you might want to catch an rethrow an exception, no one seems to have mentioned a 'finally' scenario.
An example of this is where you have a method in which you set the cursor (for example to a wait cursor), the method has several exit points (e.g. if () return;) and you want to ensure the cursor is reset at the end of the method.
To do this you can wrap all of the code in a try/catch/finally. In the finally set the cursor back to the right cursor. So that you don't bury any valid exceptions, rethrow it in the catch.
try
{
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
// Test something
if (testResult) return;
// Do something else
}
catch
{
throw;
}
finally
{
Cursor.Current = Cursors.Default;
}

One possible reason to catch-throw is to disable any exception filters deeper up the stack from filtering down (random old link). But of course, if that was the intention, there would be a comment there saying so.

It depends what you are doing in the catch block, and if you are wanting to pass the error on to the calling code or not.
You might say Catch io.FileNotFoundExeption ex and then use an alternative file path or some such, but still throw the error on.
Also doing Throw instead of Throw Ex allows you to keep the full stack trace. Throw ex restarts the stack trace from the throw statement (I hope that makes sense).

In the example in the code you have posted there is, in fact, no point in catching the exception as there is nothing done on the catch it is just re-thown, in fact it does more harm than good as the call stack is lost.
You would, however catch an exception to do some logic (for example closing sql connection of file lock, or just some logging) in the event of an exception the throw it back to the calling code to deal with. This would be more common in a business layer than front end code as you may want the coder implementing your business layer to handle the exception.
To re-iterate though the There is NO point in catching the exception in the example you posted. DON'T do it like that!

Sorry, but many examples as "improved design" still smell horribly or can be extremely misleading. Having try { } catch { log; throw } is just utterly pointless. Exception logging should be done in central place inside the application. exceptions bubble up the stacktrace anyway, why not log them somewhere up and close to the borders of the system?
Caution should be used when you serialize your context (i.e. DTO in one given example) just into the log message. It can easily contain sensitive information one might not want to reach the hands of all the people who can access the log files. And if you don't add any new information to the exception, I really don't see the point of exception wrapping. Good old Java has some point for that, it requires caller to know what kind of exceptions one should expect then calling the code. Since you don't have this in .NET, wrapping doesn't do any good on at least 80% of the cases I've seen.

In addition to what the others have said, see my answer to a related question which shows that catching and rethrowing is not a no-op (it's in VB, but some of the code could be C# invoked from VB).

Most of answers talking about scenario catch-log-rethrow.
Instead of writing it in your code consider to use AOP, in particular Postsharp.Diagnostic.Toolkit with OnExceptionOptions IncludeParameterValue and
IncludeThisArgument

Rethrowing exceptions via throw is useful when you don't have a particular code to handle current exceptions, or in cases when you have a logic to handle specific error cases but want to skip all others.
Example:
string numberText = "";
try
{
Console.Write("Enter an integer: ");
numberText = Console.ReadLine();
var result = int.Parse(numberText);
Console.WriteLine("You entered {0}", result);
}
catch (FormatException)
{
if (numberText.ToLowerInvariant() == "nothing")
{
Console.WriteLine("Please, please don't be lazy and enter a valid number next time.");
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("Freed some resources.");
}
Console.ReadKey();
However, there is also another way of doing this, using conditional clauses in catch blocks:
string numberText = "";
try
{
Console.Write("Enter an integer: ");
numberText = Console.ReadLine();
var result = int.Parse(numberText);
Console.WriteLine("You entered {0}", result);
}
catch (FormatException) when (numberText.ToLowerInvariant() == "nothing")
{
Console.WriteLine("Please, please don't be lazy and enter a valid number next time.");
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("Freed some resources.");
}
Console.ReadKey();
This mechanism is more efficient than re-throwing an exception because
of the .NET runtime doesn’t have to rebuild the exception object
before re-throwing it.

Find out specific Exception

Apologies for the lack of information...
Is there a way to find out what is the specific Exception that is causing a call to throw the Exception?
Currently, I am catching all the Exceptions by doing catch(Exception e) but I know this is not good practices at all.
Is there a way to know from the Exception what is the specific one that caused the issue so I can be more granular?

You can get more information for the particular exception using different methods on it. Here I'm using the System.Diagnostics.Debug class to print in Visual Studio's output console. In your catch block:
using System.Diagnostics;
try
{
// do stuff
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Debug.WriteLine(e.GetType()); // Displays the type of exception
Debug.WriteLine(e.Message()); // Displays the exception message
}
You can see more here: Exception methods &
Exception properties

Option 1 - Documentation
Read the documentation of the method you are calling, if it is a Framework Class type (like SqlConnection.Open) the thrown exceptions are well documented.
Option 2 - Discover them at Run Time
If its a 3rd party library and documentation is limited then check the Exception at runtime using exception.GetType() and then add known exceptions you want to handle as catch blocks.
Personally I prefer to not add catch blocks at all where I am not sure if an Exception will materialize or not. If/When it does the debugger will break (if it is set to break) or you have a global catch all that logs and rethrows. Then you get the type and update your code accordingly. Where you add such a global Exception logger depends on the type of application you are developing. If you go the route of a global logger do take note that you 1) rethrow the Exception so the app breaks at runtime and not swallow it and 2) rethrow using throw; syntax (not throw ex;).

You can catch different types of exceptions. With this solution you are able to handle the different types easily.
try
{
//Try something
}
catch (StackOverflowException soe)
{
//Handle StackOverFlowException
}
catch (FormatException fe)
{
//Handle FormatException
}
//... Other exceptions

If you want to make it more specific for logging errors, try something like:
e.GetType()
Or, if you need some more information like the StackTrace or message:
e.ToString()
If you only want to catch a specific type of exception, you need to do something like:
try {
// someCode
} catch (SpecificExceptionType e) {
// someCode (e.g. Console.WriteLine(e.ToString()); )
}
catch (AnotherSpecificExceptionType e) {
// someCode (e.g. Console.WriteLine(e.ToString()); )
}

How to return an exception thrown in one project to another?

is there any way to catch and return an exception thrown from one project to another?
For example, i'm keeping codes in different projects . Say A and B. If A is the engine part and B is the UI part, then an exception occurred in the engine should be caught in UI as well.Please help.

The only reason you'd want to catch the exception in your engine code is if you thought you could handle it, or you needed to do some logging or something like that. There isn't much (any) benefit in catching simply to rethrow. However, assuming you have a valid reason, then in your UI code you can have
try
{
engine.Start();
}
catch (SpecificException se)
{
// Do stuff with specific exception
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// Show the user something unexpected happened
}
In your Engine code, you can have;
public void Start()
{
try
{
if (this.HasNoOil)
{
throw new SpecificException("Can't go without oil. We'll do some damage");
}
// Other stuff
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// Log details of exception and throw it up the stack
throw;
}
}

If you want to catch exceptions at the UI level you can not catch them at your engine level.
For the running application there is no difference in which assembly (every project creates an assembly) the exception was thrown.
If you really have to catch and re-throw the exception at your engine level re-throw correctly
catch(Exception ex)
{
// whatever logic
throw;
}
or wrap it
catch(Exception ex)
{
// whatever logic
throw new YourEngineException("Some Message", ex);
}
If you just want to log it, don't do it, if it does not cross process boundaries.
Catch, log, re-throw is an anti pattern in my opinion. It just creates a bazillion log entries, catching at the highest possible level should be enough if you don't destroy the stack trace.
Use wrapping if you can provide extra information to the exception. For Example if you have one method which loads data, changes and saves it you could wrap the exception and add "Error '{0}' when saving" or something else. However don't forget to include the originating exception as inner exception.

In my view it is not possible, until unless these two application share same App domain. To make them part of single app domain you need do remoting or wcF kind of stuff, where you can share the objects between two projects.

Handling exceptions, is this a good way?

We're struggling with a policy to correctly handle exceptions in our application. Here's our goals for it (summarized):
Handle only specific exceptions.
Handle only exceptions that you can correct
Log only once.
We've come out with a solution that involves a generic Application Specific Exception and works like this in a piece of code:
try {
// Do whatever
}
catch(ArgumentNullException ane)
{
// Handle, optinally log and continue
}
catch(AppSpecificException)
{
// Rethrow, don't log, don't do anything else
throw;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
// Log, encapsulate (so that it won't be logged again) and throw
Logger.Log("Really bad thing", e.Message, e);
throw new AppSpecificException(e)
}
All exception is logged and then turned to an AppSpecificException so that it won't be logged again. Eventually it will reach the last resort event handler that will deal with it if it has to.
I don't have so much experience with exception handling patterns... Is this a good way to solve our goals? Has it any major drawbacks or big red warnings?
Note: One of the drawbacks of this is that after the first catch you lose the ability to handle an specific exception (if you call a method that calls another method and the second one throws an exception you're not able to handle it) but I've found I've never done this any way ... I only handle exceptions with one level of depth ...

If you log the exception too near the time it is first thrown, you won't be logging the full stack trace.
Handle exceptions (that is, fix them), as close as possible to when they were thrown. Gather information about the context as soon as possible to when they were thrown. But allow exceptions to propagate up to where they can actually be handled. Logging is a last-resort sort of handling, so it should occur in the outer layers of application subsystems.
This should eliminate the need for an application-specific exception used as a marker to not log an exception which shouldn't have been caught to begin with.

Don't log an exception and then re-throw it - it is the callers responsibility to handle / log any exceptions that you generate.
Only catch an exception to handle it (for example to log it), or add context specific information.

This is a quite common approach to solve the exception handling problem (from more specific to less specific).
Just bear in mind that having one generic ApplicationSpecific exception to catch everything that happens in that application/method is not a great idea if you want to catch specific problems.
Eventually try extending it with more specific exceptions.
Rethrowing exceptions is good, better is declaring the method to throw certain exceptions and let callers handle them. This way you'll have to create less code and you could centralize some controls.

First option to solve the stack trace problem:
class AppSpecificException : ApplicationException
{
public string SpecificTrace { get; private set; }
public string SpecificMessage { get; private set; }
public AppSpecificException(string message, Exception innerException)
{
SpecificMessage = message;
SpecificTrace = innerException.StackTrace;
}
}
I had to write an example to understand the question and check the stacktrace problem, this is the code to me, put attention to the button2_click method, finally my textbox show the crash string and the stacktrace:
private String internalValue;
private void Operation1(String pField)
{
if (pField == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("pField");
internalValue = pField;
}
private void Operation2(Object pField)
{
if (pField == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("pField");
internalValue = Convert.ToInt32(pField).ToString();
}
private void Operation3(String pField)
{
if (pField == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("pField");
internalValue = pField;
Operation2(-1);
}
/// <exception cref="AppSpecificException"><c>AppSpecificException</c>.</exception>
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Operation1("One");
Operation2("Two");
Operation3("Three");
MessageBox.Show(internalValue);
}
catch (ArgumentNullException ex)
{
textBoxException.Text = ex.Message + (char) 13 + (char) 10 + ex.StackTrace;
}
catch (AppSpecificException ex)
{
//textBoxException.Text = ex.Message + (char)13 + (char)10 + ex.StackTrace;
throw;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
textBoxException.Text = ex.Message + (char)13 + (char)10 + ex.StackTrace;
throw new AppSpecificException("crash", ex);
}
}
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
button1_Click(sender, e);
}
catch (AppSpecificException ex)
{
textBoxException.Text = ex.SpecificMessage + (char) 13 + (char) 10 + ex.SpecificTrace;
}
}

Try to avoid creating a new exception and and rethrowing, since throwing an exception sets the stack trace to where the exception was thrown. Just do a plain throw. See Too Much Reuse on Eric Lippert's Blog.

I'd recommend putting more thought into what patterns you want to use for "handing"
If your handling patterns come down to log or rethrow, then the rethrown error will eventually be logged. So in the end, it's just error logging. If you're using ASP.NET use elmah so at least your code isn't covered with try/catch-and-log boiler plate.
There are only a few ways to "handle" errors that don't end in mere logging.
Re-try. (Watch out for infinite loops)
Wait and re-try.
Try different but equivalent technique (Can't connect on http? try connecting on https).
Establish the missing conditions (create the folder that threw the FolderNotFoundException)
Ignore the error-- think twice about this, it makes sense only when the error isn't really a problem, like if a 3rd party library is warning you about a condition that doesn't apply.

A good solution about exception handling is using Interception. However you must validate if this pattern can be applied to your application depending on the architecture : Interception requires a container.
The principle is to factorise your exception handling outside the methods by using attributes (custom) on them and then use the container to initialize your instances. The container will proxy theses instances by reflection : its called instances interceptors.
You'll just have to call your methods as usual via theses instances and let interception mechanism do the job you coded before or after the method.
Note that you can add try catch in the methods to manage specific exception that are unmanaged in your interceptors.
Unity interception : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd140045.aspx

The difference between re-throwing parameter-less catch and not doing anything?

Suppose I have the following two classes in two different assemblies:
//in assembly A
public class TypeA {
// Constructor omitted
public void MethodA
{
try {
//do something
}
catch {
throw;
}
}
}
//in assembly B
public class TypeB {
public void MethodB
{
try {
TypeA a = new TypeA();
a.MethodA();
}
catch (Exception e)
//Handle exception
}
}
}
In this case, the try-catch in MethodA just elevates the exception but doesn't really handle it. Is there any advantage in using try-catch at all in MethodA? In other words, is there a difference between this kind of try-catch block and not using one at all?

In your example, there is no advantage to this. But there are cases where it is desirable to just bubble up a specific exception.
public void Foo()
{
try
{
// Some service adapter code
// A call to the service
}
catch (ServiceBoundaryException)
{
throw;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new AdapterBoundaryException("some message", ex);
}
}
This allows you to easily identify which boundary an exception occurred in. In this case, you would need to ensure your boundary exceptions are only thrown for code specific to the boundary.

Yes there is a difference. When you catch an exception, .NET assumes you are going to handle it in some way, the stack is unwound up to the function that is doing the catch.
If you don't catch it will end up as an unhandled exception, which will invoke some kind of diagnostic (like a debugger or a exception logger), the full stack and its state at the actual point of failure will be available for inspection.
So if you catch then re-throw an exception that isn't handled elsewhere you rob the diagnostic tool of the really useful info about what actually happened.

With the code the way you've written it for MethodA, there is no difference. All it will do is eat up processor cycles. However there can be an advantage to writing code this way if there is a resource you must free. For example
Resource r = GetSomeResource();
try {
// Do Something
} catch {
FreeSomeResource();
throw;
}
FreeSomeResource();
However there is no real point in doing it this way. It would be much better to just use a finally block instead.

Just rethrowing makes no sense - it's the same as if you did not do anything.
However it gets useful when you actually do something - most common thing is to log the exception. You can also change state of your class, whatever.

Taken as-is, the first option would seem like a bad (or should that be 'useless'?) idea. However, it is rarely done this way. Exceptions are re-thrown from within a Catch block usually under two conditions :
a. You want to check the exception generated for data and conditionally bubble it up the stack.
try
{
//do something
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Check ex for certain conditions.
if (ex.Message = "Something bad")
throw ex;
else
//Handle the exception here itself.
}
b. An unacceptable condition has occurred within a component and this information needs to be communicated to the calling code (usually by appending some other useful information or wrapping it in another exception type altogether).
try
{
//do something
}
catch (StackOverflowException ex)
{
//Bubble up the exception to calling code
//by wrapping it up in a custom exception.
throw new MyEuphemisticException(ex, "Something not-so-good just happened!");
}

Never do option A. As Anton says, it eats up the stack trace. JaredPar's example also eats up the stacktrace. A better solution would be:
SomeType* pValue = GetValue();
try {
// Do Something
} finally {
delete pValue;
}
If you got something in C# that needs to be released, for instance a FileStream you got the following two choices:
FileStream stream;
try
{
stream = new FileStream("C:\\afile.txt");
// do something with the stream
}
finally
{
// Will always close the stream, even if there are an exception
stream.Close();
}
Or more cleanly:
using (FileStream stream = new FileStream("c:\\afile.txt"))
{
// do something with the stream
}
Using statement will Dispose (and close) the stream when done or when an exception is closed.

When you catch and throw, it allows you to set a breakpoint on the throw line.

Re-throwing exceptions can be used to encapsulate it into generic exception like... consider following example.
public class XmlException: Exception{
....
}
public class XmlParser{
public void Parse()
{
try{
....
}
catch(IOException ex)
{
throw new XmlException("IO Error while Parsing", ex );
}
}
}
This gives benefit over categorizing exceptions. This is how aspx file handlers and many other system code does exception encapsulation which determines their way up to the stack and their flow of logic.

The assembly A - try catch - block does not make any sense to me. I believe that if you are not going to handle the exception, then why are you catching those exceptions.. It would be anyway thrown to the next level.
But, if you are creating a middle layer API or something like that and handling an exception ( and hence eating up the exception) in that layer does not make sense, then you can throw your own layer ApplicationException. But certainly rethrowing the same exception does not make sense.

Since the classes are in 2 different assemblies, you may want o simply catch the exception for logging it and then throw it back out to the caller, so that it can handle it the way it sees fit. A throw instead of a throw ex will preserve contextual information about where the exception originated. This can prove useful when your assembly is an API/framework where in you should never swallow exceptions unless its meaningful to do so but helpful nonetheless in trouble shooting if it's logged for example to the EventLog.

You can use try{} catch(ex){} block in Method A only if you could catch the specific exception which can be handled in MethodA() (for eg: logging ).
Another option is chain the exception using the InnerException property and pass it to the caller. This idea will not kill the stack trace.