I have
void foo1()
{
using(...){...}
}
void foo2()
{
using(...){...}
}
void foo3()
{
using(...){...}
}
and I have
void foo()
{
...
backgroundWorker.DoWork += (s, ev) =>
{
try
{
foo1();
foo2();
foo3();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// log ex
}
};
...
}
and I just read that using blocks swallow exceptions. It there an elegant way to handle exceptions from foo1(), foo2() and foo3() in foo(). I don't want to have a try/catch inside of each using block in the methods. I did stumble into this post where an extension method is suggested but I'm just checking to see if there is anything better.
FYI, Network disconnection causes the logic inside the using block to throw an exception and that's what I'm trying to handle in one common place.
Thanks,
I think I understand the confusion. Here's some pseudo-code (it may actually execute?) explaining your scenario more simply:
public class Foo
{
public void DoStuff()
{
using (var x = new Thing())
{
throw new ApplicationException("This code breaks");
}
}
private class Thing : IDisposable
{
public override Dispose()
{
throw new ApplicationException("Help, I can't dispose!");
}
}
}
This code can be thought of as the same as this code:
public class Foo
{
public void DoStuff()
{
var x = new Thing();
try
{
throw new ApplicationException("This code breaks");
x.Dispose();
}
catch (Exception err)
{
x.Dispose();
rethrow;
}
}
private class Thing : IDisposable
{
public override Dispose()
{
throw new ApplicationException("Help, I can't dispose!");
}
}
}
By using a using block, you are essentially saying, "No matter what you do, execute Dispose() on this object before moving on." However, the using block doesn't gracefully handle the case when Dispose() fails. Because of this, it never gets around to throwing the inside exception because there was another exception that pre-empted it, even if it occurred afterwards.
Does this make sense? Did I even answer your question? I'm not sure if you're looking for help understanding this or what.
My fear is that Microsoft went down the same rabbit hole here as they did with WCF.
See Avoiding Problems with the Using Statement.
Maybe they should follow their own guidelines.
In almost every (other) case a using block is a best practice.
Youcan try this code to bubble-up and exception from a using statement
Exception exc = null;
using (var x = new object())
{
try
{
// do something x, that causes an exception to be thrown
}
catch(Exception ex) { exc = ex; } // bubble-up the exception
}
if(exc != null) { throw exc; } // throw the exception if it is not null
Related
Is there any reason to use specific expetion classes MyException1 and MyException2 in this case?
public static void Main()
{
try
{
TestMethod();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.Writeline(ex);
}
}
private static void TestMethod()
{
// This method can throw Exception1 and Exception2
}
public class MyException1 : Exception {}
public class MyException2 : Exception {}
I know that it makes sense in case when we have several catch blocks for each exception type. But in this case MyException1 and MyException2 are similar empty. These throwed exceptions will be casted to Exception class in the Main method. Maybe is it better not to create two similar Exception classes with such handling?
The concept behind a catch block is that you handle the exception. If a certain type of exception requires a certain type of handling, it is helpful when that exception has its own class, so it can have its own catch block.
For example, if MyException1 can be safely swallowed while MyException2 is fatal, you could write:
try
{
DoSomethingHard();
}
catch (MyException1 exception1)
{
_log.Write("Warning: small exception, no worries. {0}", exception1.Message);
continue;
}
catch (MyException2 exception2)
{
_log.Write("Fatal: big exception, gotta bail out now. {0}", exception2.Message);
break;
}
Exceptions should be wide rather than deep. Have a different exception for each, erm... exception.
Your example doesn't really show a good example. Perhaps if it was more like:
public static void Main()
{
try
{
TestMethod();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.Writeline(ex);
}
}
private static void TestMethod()
{
if(..bad configuration)
throw new ConfigurationException("configuration item");
if(missing file)
throw new FileMissingException("filename");
// This method can throw Exception1 and Exception2
}
public class ConfigurationException : Exception {}
public class FileMissingException : Exception {}
If you are using ASP.NET, its so common that you create and use your own Exception handler, in that case, you can to consider specific behavior for each exception in only one method (not catch block in every error prone code blocks), look at this simple example:
public class MyExceptionHandler : ExceptionHandler
{
public override void Handle(ExceptionHandlerContext context)
{
if (context.Exception is SqlException)
{
//do something...
}
else if (context.Exception is HttpListenerException)
{
//do something...
}
else
{
//do something else...
}
}
}
I recently ran into a problem with exception handling in using statement. The problem is that exceptions which throws inside 'using block' could swallowed, for example look at code:
class DisposableObject : IDisposable
{
public void Dispose()
{
throw new Exception("dispose");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
try
{
using (var obj = new DisposableObject())
{
throw new Exception("using");
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
}
}
In this example you will see 'dispose' in output, first exception will be ignored and you will never know about it. After some searching i found article https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa355056(v=vs.110).aspx about common mistakes about use using block. But my question isn't about how to avoid exception swallowing, i' want to know why MS decided to unwrap using block to
try
{
...
}
finally
{
}
and not the otherwise, for example they could unwrap using to something like this:
//this code prevents exception swallowing
try
{
...
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
try
{
if (obj != null)
obj.Dispose();
}
catch (Exception disposeEx)
{
throw new AggregateException(ex, disposeEx);
}
throw;
}
if(obj != null)
obj.Dispose();
Because AggregateException didn't exist when the using() block was created.
Also because Dispose() is really not supposed to throw.
Finally, because there are subtle semantic differences between your example and a finally block, with regard to exception filters, stack unwinding, and critical regions.
This question already has answers here:
Is there a way to catch all unhandled exceptions thrown by a given class?
(6 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have a lot of classes (WCF services) that contain several function. Now I need to handle errors, but I don't want to create a block try ... catch within each function (for error handling).
How can I make try...catch in any class (or something else) so that we catch errors but did not write the same block within each method?
There will always be some duplication of code but you can reduce it to one line
public static class ExceptionHandler
{
public static void Run(Action action)
{
try
{
a();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
//Do Something with your exception here, like logging
}
}
}
and then just call
ExceptionHandler.Run(yourAction);
you can add overloads for functions and what not but this approach is not ideal. As you may want to catch specific exceptions in certain cases.
Since you did not provide code specifically, I will write some sample code to make it more obvious. If you have this:
public class MyClass
{
public void Method1ThatCanThrowException()
{
try
{
// the Method1 code that can throw exception
}
catch (MySpecificException ex)
{
// some specific error handling
}
}
public object Method2ThatCanThrowException()
{
try
{
// the Method2 code that can throw exception
}
catch (MySpecificException ex)
{
// the same specific error handling
}
}
}
So, if you intend to have single place error handling, you can use lambda, and the help of a private method:
private T CheckAndCall<T>(Func<T> funcToCheck)
{
try
{
return funcToCheck();
}
catch (MySpecificException ex)
{
// the old specific error handling
}
}
Notice the use of the Func<T> delegate. This is because you may need to wrap the try-catch logic around some code that can return a value.
Then you can rewrite the above methods like this:
public void Method1ThatCanThrowException()
{
CheckAndCall(
() =>
{
// the Method1 code that can throw exception
return null;
});
}
public object Method2ThatCanThrowException()
{
return CheckAndCall(
() =>
{
// the Method2 code that can throw exception
return someObject;
});
}
For example, rather than having to do this:
public class Program
{
public static string ReadFile(string filename)
{
//A BCL method that throws various exceptions
return System.IO.File.ReadAllText(filename);
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
Console.Write(ReadFile("name.txt"));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("An error occured when retrieving the name! {0}", e.Message);
}
try
{
Console.Write(ReadFile("age.txt"));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("An error occured when retrieving the age! {0}", e.Message);
}
}
}
You could implement a "Try..." method, using the ref or out keyword as appropriate:
public class Program
{
public static bool TryReadFile(string filename, out string val)
{
try
{
val = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(filename);
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
return false;
}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
string name, age;
Console.WriteLine(TryReadFile("name.txt", out name) ? name : "An error occured when retrieving the name!");
Console.WriteLine(TryReadFile("age.txt", out age) ? age: "An error occured when retrieving the age!");
}
}
The downside to this approach is that you can't act upon a specific exception, but in the case of simply determining if an operation has or has not succeeded, I find this to be a syntactically clean approach.
I have some questions about using the using keyword. I have the following code:
try {
using (System.Net.WebResponse response = httpWebRequest.GetResponse()) {
throw new Exception("Example");
}
}
catch ( Exception ex ) {
}
My question is, when the exception occurs will it close the connection? Or do I have to close the connection inside the catch?
Yes, it will close the connection.
The entire point of a using is that it will dispose the object when you leave the scope of the using, even if it is through an exception.
a using block is, under the hood, implemented using a try/finally block.
This is easy enough to test experimentally as well:
public class Foo : IDisposable
{
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("I was disposed!");
}
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
using (var foo = new Foo())
throw new Exception("I'm mean");
}
catch { }
}
And the output is:
I was disposed!
I am making a class for using in a winforms application in VC#
My question is how to return a catched exception to the caller out of the class? Take this as an example:
Public Class test
{
private int i = 0;
public test() { }
public SetInt()
{
try
{
i = "OLAGH"; //This is bad!!!
return i;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
}
And imagine calling this method in another place while referencing to this class. Is that a good idea? Or how it should be done?
You have several options.
You could not handle the exception at all :
public SetInt()
{
i = "OLAGH"; //This is bad!!!
return i;
}
Then the caller will need to handle the exception.
If you want to handle the exception you can catch the error and handle it.
public SetInt()
{
try
{
i = "OLAGH"; //This is bad!!!
return i;
}
catch (FailException ex)
{
return FAIL;
}
}
Note that it is bad practice to just catch the base Exception class. You should anticipate which errors may occur and try to handle them. Unanticipated errors and the result of bugs and should make a big noise so that you can be alerted to other problems and fix them.
If you want to raise your own kind of exception, you could do :
public SetInt()
{
try
{
i = "OLAGH"; //This is bad!!!
return i;
}
catch (FailException ex)
{
throw new SetIntFailException ( ex );
}
}
Then it is the callers responsibility to handle the SetIntFailException rather than a CastFailException or whatever hundreds of other kind of exceptions your code may throw..
If you want the caller to handle the exception, but you have some clean up you want to do, you can use finally :
public SetInt()
{
try
{
i = "OLAGH"; //This is bad!!!
return i;
}
finally
{
// Cleanup.
}
}
The code in the finally block will always be called, even when there is an exception, but the error still gets raised to the caller.
I am assuming that in your real code, it will at least compile! ;-)
In the first place, the code won't compile.
public class test
{
private int i = 0;
public test(){}
public SetInt(object obj)
{
try
{
i = (int) obj;
return i;
}
catch(exception ex)
{
throw; // This is enough. throwing ex resets the stack trace. This maintains it
}
}
}
If you want to throw an exception do this:
throw new Exception ("My exception");
You can make a class derived from Exception if you want to hold some exception specific details.