We Keep Coding

How to throw exeption from some method using c# [duplicate]

What are the best practices to consider when catching exceptions and re-throwing them? I want to make sure that the Exception object's InnerException and stack trace are preserved. Is there a difference between the following code blocks in the way they handle this?
try
{
//some code
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
Vs:
try
{
//some code
}
catch
{
throw;
}

The way to preserve the stack trace is through the use of the throw; This is valid as well
try {
// something that bombs here
} catch (Exception ex)
{
throw;
}
throw ex; is basically like throwing an exception from that point, so the stack trace would only go to where you are issuing the throw ex; statement.
Mike is also correct, assuming the exception allows you to pass an exception (which is recommended).
Karl Seguin has a great write up on exception handling in his foundations of programming e-book as well, which is a great read.
Edit: Working link to Foundations of Programming pdf. Just search the text for "exception".

If you throw a new exception with the initial exception you will preserve the initial stack trace too..
try{
}
catch(Exception ex){
throw new MoreDescriptiveException("here is what was happening", ex);
}

Actually, there are some situations which the throw statment will not preserve the StackTrace information. For example, in the code below:
try
{
int i = 0;
int j = 12 / i; // Line 47
int k = j + 1;
}
catch
{
// do something
// ...
throw; // Line 54
}
The StackTrace will indicate that line 54 raised the exception, although it was raised at line 47.
Unhandled Exception: System.DivideByZeroException: Attempted to divide by zero.
at Program.WithThrowIncomplete() in Program.cs:line 54
at Program.Main(String[] args) in Program.cs:line 106
In situations like the one described above, there are two options to preseve the original StackTrace:
Calling the Exception.InternalPreserveStackTrace
As it is a private method, it has to be invoked by using reflection:
private static void PreserveStackTrace(Exception exception)
{
MethodInfo preserveStackTrace = typeof(Exception).GetMethod("InternalPreserveStackTrace",
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
preserveStackTrace.Invoke(exception, null);
}
I has a disadvantage of relying on a private method to preserve the StackTrace information. It can be changed in future versions of .NET Framework. The code example above and proposed solution below was extracted from Fabrice MARGUERIE weblog.
Calling Exception.SetObjectData
The technique below was suggested by Anton Tykhyy as answer to In C#, how can I rethrow InnerException without losing stack trace question.
static void PreserveStackTrace (Exception e)
{
var ctx = new StreamingContext (StreamingContextStates.CrossAppDomain) ;
var mgr = new ObjectManager (null, ctx) ;
var si = new SerializationInfo (e.GetType (), new FormatterConverter ()) ;
e.GetObjectData (si, ctx) ;
mgr.RegisterObject (e, 1, si) ; // prepare for SetObjectData
mgr.DoFixups () ; // ObjectManager calls SetObjectData
// voila, e is unmodified save for _remoteStackTraceString
}
Although, it has the advantage of relying in public methods only it also depends on the following exception constructor (which some exceptions developed by 3rd parties do not implement):
protected Exception(
SerializationInfo info,
StreamingContext context
)
In my situation, I had to choose the first approach, because the exceptions raised by a 3rd-party library I was using didn't implement this constructor.

When you throw ex, you're essentially throwing a new exception, and will miss out on the original stack trace information. throw is the preferred method.

The rule of thumb is to avoid Catching and Throwing the basic Exception object. This forces you to be a little smarter about exceptions; in other words you should have an explicit catch for a SqlException so that your handling code doesn't do something wrong with a NullReferenceException.
In the real world though, catching and logging the base exception is also a good practice, but don't forget to walk the whole thing to get any InnerExceptions it might have.

Nobody has explained the difference between ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture( ex ).Throw() and a plain throw, so here it is. However, some people have noticed the problem with throw.
The complete way to rethrow a caught exception is to use ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture( ex ).Throw() (only available from .Net 4.5).
Below there are the cases necessary to test this:
1.
void CallingMethod()
{
//try
{
throw new Exception( "TEST" );
}
//catch
{
// throw;
}
}
2.
void CallingMethod()
{
try
{
throw new Exception( "TEST" );
}
catch( Exception ex )
{
ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture( ex ).Throw();
throw; // So the compiler doesn't complain about methods which don't either return or throw.
}
}
3.
void CallingMethod()
{
try
{
throw new Exception( "TEST" );
}
catch
{
throw;
}
}
4.
void CallingMethod()
{
try
{
throw new Exception( "TEST" );
}
catch( Exception ex )
{
throw new Exception( "RETHROW", ex );
}
}
Case 1 and case 2 will give you a stack trace where the source code line number for the CallingMethod method is the line number of the throw new Exception( "TEST" ) line.
However, case 3 will give you a stack trace where the source code line number for the CallingMethod method is the line number of the throw call. This means that if the throw new Exception( "TEST" ) line is surrounded by other operations, you have no idea at which line number the exception was actually thrown.
Case 4 is similar with case 2 because the line number of the original exception is preserved, but is not a real rethrow because it changes the type of the original exception.

You should always use "throw;" to rethrow the exceptions in .NET,
Refer this,
http://weblogs.asp.net/bhouse/archive/2004/11/30/272297.aspx
Basically MSIL (CIL) has two instructions - "throw" and "rethrow":
C#'s "throw ex;" gets compiled into MSIL's "throw"
C#'s "throw;" - into MSIL "rethrow"!
Basically I can see the reason why "throw ex" overrides the stack trace.

A few people actually missed a very important point - 'throw' and 'throw ex' may do the same thing but they don't give you a crucial piece of imformation which is the line where the exception happened.
Consider the following code:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
TestMe();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
string ss = ex.ToString();
}
}
static void TestMe()
{
try
{
//here's some code that will generate an exception - line #17
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//throw new ApplicationException(ex.ToString());
throw ex; // line# 22
}
}
When you do either a 'throw' or 'throw ex' you get the stack trace but the line# is going to be #22 so you can't figure out which line exactly was throwing the exception (unless you have only 1 or few lines of code in the try block). To get the expected line #17 in your exception you'll have to throw a new exception with the original exception stack trace.

You may also use:
try
{
// Dangerous code
}
finally
{
// clean up, or do nothing
}
And any exceptions thrown will bubble up to the next level that handles them.

I would definitely use:
try
{
//some code
}
catch
{
//you should totally do something here, but feel free to rethrow
//if you need to send the exception up the stack.
throw;
}
That will preserve your stack.

FYI I just tested this and the stack trace reported by 'throw;' is not an entirely correct stack trace. Example:
private void foo()
{
try
{
bar(3);
bar(2);
bar(1);
bar(0);
}
catch(DivideByZeroException)
{
//log message and rethrow...
throw;
}
}
private void bar(int b)
{
int a = 1;
int c = a/b; // Generate divide by zero exception.
}
The stack trace points to the origin of the exception correctly (reported line number) but the line number reported for foo() is the line of the throw; statement, hence you cannot tell which of the calls to bar() caused the exception.

C# Cannot catch exceptions from another project within same solution

Got a strange problem: in a complex camera control program I'm working on, I use an SDK with a C# wrapper that was programmed by someone else. I include the wrapper as a separate project within the same solution. My own code is a WPF project that uses numerous calls into the SDK.
Everything synchronous works fine. However, depending on camera responses, the SDK occasionally sends asynchronous responses, usually in the form of throwing a custom exception with info about an error the camera reports. I implemented this using
try { ... } catch (ThisExceptionType) { ... }
However, NO exception ever gets caught. When an exception situation occurs, VisualStudio breaks, shows me the code where the SDK throws it and reports "ThisExceptionType was unhandled by user code", also showing the details of the exception condition (meaning it was apparently thrown properly). I verified that the exception corresponds with the error condition I created, so I'm sure I'm not looking at the wrong part of my code.
For testing purposes, I also replaced the line in the SDK where it throws ThisExceptionType with a standard exception, such as throw new ArgumentException("Test"); Same result: when changing my catch to catch (ArgumentException), I still cannot catch the condition and get a similar unhandled-by-user-code error.
Here's how the SDK throws the exception:
void CallEntryPoint( ...)
{
eNkMAIDResult result = _md3.EntryPoint(...);
switch (result)
{
// Note: Ignore these return values
case eNkMAIDResult.kNkMAIDResult_NoError:
case eNkMAIDResult.kNkMAIDResult_Pending:
break;
default:
throw new NikonException(...);
}
}
What am I missing here? Sorry if this is a simple issue - I'm pretty experienced in general programming but have not worked much with VisualStudio, and not a whole lot in C#, either.
UPDATE: According to the wrapper's author (this is actually Thomas Dideriksen's Nikon SDK wrapper), "when you're writing WPF or WinForms application, the C# wrapper relies on the inherent windows message queue to fire events on the UI thread."
He also states that the wrapper processes all camera tasks sequentially, so I guess my statement was incorrect about the wrapper throwing asynchronous exceptions - all code examples for the wrapper use the same try { ... } catch (ThisExceptionType) { ... } approach. For good measure, I tried some of your suggestions, for instance by hooking a handler to AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException, but that approach failed to catch the exception, as well.
Any other ideas why this may be happening?

This article on MSDN may help. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997415(v=vs.110).aspx
There are differences in handling exceptions using Tasks in C#. Hopefully that will give a run down on different techniques you can use to handle the exceptions appropriately.
From the MSDN article:
Unhandled exceptions that are thrown by user code that is running
inside a task are propagated back to the calling thread, except in
certain scenarios that are described later in this topic. Exceptions
are propagated when you use one of the static or instance Task.Wait or
Task.Wait methods, and you handle them by enclosing the call
in a try/catch statement. If a task is the parent of attached child
tasks, or if you are waiting on multiple tasks, multiple exceptions
could be thrown.
And there are a couple solutions provided:
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
public class Example
{
public static void Main()
{
var task1 = Task.Run( () => { throw new CustomException("This exception is expected!"); } );
try
{
task1.Wait();
}
catch (AggregateException ae)
{
foreach (var e in ae.InnerExceptions) {
// Handle the custom exception.
if (e is CustomException) {
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
// Rethrow any other exception.
else {
throw;
}
}
}
}
}
public class CustomException : Exception
{
public CustomException(String message) : base(message)
{}
}
// The example displays the following output:
// This exception is expected!
Or you can do this:
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
public class Example
{
public static void Main()
{
var task1 = Task.Run( () => { throw new CustomException("This exception is expected!"); } );
while(! task1.IsCompleted) {}
if (task1.Status == TaskStatus.Faulted) {
foreach (var e in task1.Exception.InnerExceptions) {
// Handle the custom exception.
if (e is CustomException) {
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
// Rethrow any other exception.
else {
throw e;
}
}
}
}
}
public class CustomException : Exception
{
public CustomException(String message) : base(message)
{}
}
// The example displays the following output:
// This exception is expected!
I hope that helps!

c# how to catch exception and resume execution

Good day!
i write simple console program. It have func Main () and class Adapter;
some simple code that explains how it works:
void Main()
{
try
{
Work(array);
//subcribing at some events;
Application.Run();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//write to log;
}
}
class Adapter
{
....
public void GetSomething()
{
try
{
...some work and exception goes here;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//catch exception and do Work:
Work(array);
}
}
}
When exception goes- it catches at GetSomething. So,i write some values.But i need that the program still running after exception.
But after catch in GetSomething method it goes to Exception ex at Main func and program exits;
How to do that program will still running after catch exception in GetSomething method?
Thank you!

If what you want is to catch an exception and continue execution at the point of failure (which might be several layers down in the call stack) and possibly retrying the failed statement, you're pretty much out of luck.
Once your catch clause is invoked, the stack has been unwound up to that point. You can deal with the exception in some way and then choose zero or one of
Continuing the exceptio via throw ;
Re-throwing the exception via throw e;
Throwing a new exception via throw new SomeException();
If didn't choose one of the above, execution continues at the point following the try/catch/finally block. For example:
try
{
DoSomethingThatMightThrowAnException() ;
}
catch ( Exception e )
{
DoSomethingToHandleTheExceptionHere() ;
// Then, choose zero or one of the following:
throw ; // current exception is continue with original stack trace
throw e ; // current exception is re-thrown with new stack trace originating here
throw new Exception() ; // a new exception is thrown with its stack trace originating here
throw new Exception(e) ; // a new exception is thrown as above, with the original exception as the inner exception
}
finally
{
// regardless of whether or not an exception was thrown,
// code in the finally block is always executed after the try
// (and the catch block, if it was invoked)
}
// if you didn't throw, execution continues at this point.
If you don't do one of the above, execution continues at the statement following the try/catch/finally block.
The best you can do as far as retrying is something like this:
// retry operation at most 3
int number_of_retries = 5 ;
for ( int i = 0 ; i < number_of_retries ; ++i )
{
try
{
DoSomethingThatMightThrowAnException() ;
break ; // exit the loop on success
}
catch( Exception e )
{
Log.Error("well...that didn't work") ;
ExecuteRecoveryCode() ;
}
}

This behavior is not possible in .NET. When an exception is thrown, control exits the current point and continues onto the first catch statement it can find in the call stack, or exits the program, thus eliminating execution of the call stack up to that point. This is part of the definition of exceptional behavior.
You can instead break down the process being done by Work and process each item one at a time to enable the same effect as what you're asking. In other words, instead of Work(array), try
foreach(var item in array)
{
try { WorkSingle(item); }
catch { continue; }
}

You can use try, catch and finally:
http://www.dotnetperls.com/finally
http://msdn.microsoft.com/es-es/library/dszsf989.aspx

How to catch the original (inner) exception in C#?

i'm calling a function that throws a custom exception:
GetLockOwnerInfo(...)
This function in turn is calling a function that throws an exception:
GetLockOwnerInfo(...)
ExecuteReader(...)
This function in turn is calling a function that throws an exception:
GetLockOwnerInfo(...)
ExecuteReader(...)
ExecuteReader(...)
And so on:
GetLockOwnerInfo(...)
ExecuteReader(...)
ExecuteReader(...)
ExecuteReaderClient(...)
Fill(...)
One of these functions throws an SqlException, although that code has no idea what an SqlException is.
Higher levels wrap that SqlException into another BusinessRuleException in order to include some special properties and additional details, while including the "original" exception as InnerException:
catch (DbException ex)
{
BusinessRuleExcpetion e = new BusinessRuleException(ex)
...
throw e;
}
Higher levels wrap that BusinessRuleException into another LockerException in order to include some special properties and additional details, while including the "original" exception as InnerException:
catch (BusinessRuleException ex)
{
LockerException e = new LockerException(ex)
...
throw e;
}
The problem now is that i want to catch the origianl SqlException, to check for a particular error code.
But there's no way to "catch the inner exception":
try
{
DoSomething();
}
catch (SqlException e)
{
if (e.Number = 247)
{
return "Someone";
}
else
throw;
}
i thought about catching SqlException right when it's thrown, and copy various values to the re-thrown exception - but that code is not dependant on Sql. It is experiencing an SqlException, but it has no dependency on SqlException.
i thought about catching all exceptions:
try
{
DoSomething(...);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
SqlException ex = HuntAroundForAnSqlException(e);
if (ex != null)
{
if (e.Number = 247)
{
return "Someone";
}
else
throw;
}
else
throw;
}
But that's horrible code.
Given that .NET does not let you alter the Message of an Exception to include additional information, what is the intended mechanism to catch original exceptions?

You need c# 6 / visual studio 2015 in order to do this using a predicate:
catch (ArgumentException e) when (e.ParamName == “…”)
{
}
Official C# Try/Catch Documentation

I hate to have to tell you this, but you cannot catch an inner exception.
What you can do is inspect one.
I suggest you catch your high-level exception (I believe it was LockerException) and inspect the InnerException property of that exception. Check the type, and if it's not a SqlException, check the InnerException of that exception. Walk each one until you find a SqlException type, then get the data you need.
That said, I agree with dasblinkenlight that you should consider -- if possible -- a heavy refactor of your exception framework.

Checking the error code of a wrapped exception is not a good practice, because it hurts encapsulation rather severely. Imagine at some point rewriting the logic to read from a non-SQL source, say, a web service. It would throw something other than SQLException under the same condition, and your outer code would have no way to detect it.
You should add code to the block catching SQLException to check for e.Number = 247 right then and there, and throw BusinessRuleException with some property that differentiates it from BusinessRuleException thrown in response to non-SQLException and SQLException with e.Number != 247 in some meaningful way. For example, if the magic number 247 means you've encountered a duplicate (a pure speculation on my part at this point), you could do something like this:
catch (SQLException e) {
var toThrow = new BusinessRuleException(e);
if (e.Number == 247) {
toThrow.DuplicateDetected = true;
}
throw toThrow;
}
When you catch BusinessRuleException later, you can check its DuplicateDetected property, and act accordingly.
EDIT 1 (in response to the comment that the DB-reading code cannot check for SQLException)
You can also change your BusinessRuleException to check for SQLException in its constructor, like this:
public BusinessRuleException(Exception inner)
: base(inner) {
SetDuplicateDetectedFlag(inner);
}
public BusinessRuleException(string message, Exception inner)
: base(message, inner) {
SetDuplicateDetectedFlag(inner);
}
private void SetDuplicateDetectedFlag(Exception inner) {
var innerSql = inner as SqlException;
DuplicateDetected = innerSql != null && innerSql.Number == 247;
}
This is less desirable, because it breaks encapsulation, but at least it does it in a single place. If you need to examine other types of exceptions (e.g. because you've added a web service source), you could add it to the SetDuplicateDetectedFlag method, and everything would work again.

Having an outer application layer care about the details of a wrapped exception is a code smell; the deeper the wrapping, the bigger the smell. The class which you now have wrapping the SqlException into a dbException is presumably designed to expose an SqlClient as a generic database interface. As such, that class should include a means of distinguishing different exceptional conditions. It may, for example, define a dbTimeoutWaitingForLockException and decide to throw it when it catches an SqlException and determines based upon its error code that there was a lock timeout. In vb.net, it might be cleaner to have a dbException type which exposes an ErrorCause enumeration, so one could then say Catch Ex as dbException When ex.Cause = dbErrorCauses.LockTimeout, but unfortunately exception filters are not usable in C#.
If one has a situation where the inner-class wrapper won't know enough about what it's doing to know how it should map exceptions, it may be helpful to have the inner-class method accept an exception-wrapping delegate which would take an exception the inner class has caught or would "like" to throw, and wrap it in a way appropriate to the outer class. Such an approach would likely be overkill in cases where the inner class is called directly from the outer class, but can be useful if there are intermediate classes involved.

Good question and good answers!
I just want to supplement the answers already given with some further thoughts:
On one hand I agree with dasblinkenlight and the other users. If you catch one exception to rethrow an exception of a different type with the original exception set as the inner exception then you should do this for no other reason than to maintain the method's contract. (Accessing the SQL server is an implementation detail that the caller is not/must not/cannot be aware of, so it cannot anticipate that a SqlException (or DbException for that matter) will be thrown.)
Applying this technique however has some implications that one should be aware of:
You are concealing the root cause of the error. In your example you are reporting to the caller that a business rule was invalid(?), violated(?) etc., when in fact there was a problem accessing the DB (which would be immediately clear if the DbException were allowed to bubble up the call stack further).
You are concealing the location where the error originally occurred. The StackTrace property of the caught exception will point to a catch-block far away from the location the error originally occurred. This can make debugging notoriously difficult unless you take
great care to log the stack traces of all the inner exceptions as well. (This is especially true once the software has been deployed into production and you have no means to attach a
debugger...)
Given that .NET does not let you alter the Message of an Exception to include additional information, what is the intended mechanism to catch original exceptions?
It is true that .NET does not allow you to alter the Message of an Exception. It provides another mechanism however to supply additional information to an Exception via the Exception.Data dictionary. So if all you want to do is add additional data to an exception, then there is no reason to wrap the original exception and throw a new one. Instead just do:
public void DoStuff(String filename)
{
try {
// Some file I/O here...
}
catch (IOException ex) {
// Add filename to the IOException
ex.Data.Add("Filename", filename);
// Send the exception along its way
throw;
}
}

As other peeps say, you cannot catch an the InnerException. A function such as this could help you get the InnerException out of the tree though:
public static bool TryFindInnerException<T>(Exception top, out T foundException) where T : Exception
{
if (top == null)
{
foundException = null;
return false;
}
Console.WriteLine(top.GetType());
if (typeof(T) == top.GetType())
{
foundException = (T)top;
return true;
}
return TryFindInnerException<T>(top.InnerException, out foundException);
}

I agree with the other comments that this is a code smell 🦨 and should be avoided. But if a refactor is not possible you could try something like this...
Create an extension method...
public static bool HasInnerException(this Exception ex, Func<Exception, bool> match)
{
if (ex.InnerException == null)
{
return false;
}
return match(ex.InnerException) || HasInnerException(ex.InnerException, match);
}
And use it like...
catch (Exception ex) when (ex.HasInnerException(e => e is MyExceptionThatIsHidden))
{
...
But really you should be solving for 👇
var exception = new Exception("wrapped exception 3",
new Exception("wrapped exception 2",
new Exception("wrapped exception 1",
new MyExceptionThatIsHidden("original exception")))); // <--- ???

Can't catch exception thrown by Invoke on a compiled expression

In the class:
private Func<T, object> pony;
In my function:
object newValue;
try {
newValue = pony.Invoke(model as T); // This is the line where I get an exception!
} catch (Exception exception) {
// This code is never run, even though I get an exception two lines up!
if(exception is DivideByZeroException) throw new DivideByZeroException("Division by zero when calculating member " + GetMemberName(), exception);
throw;
}
I expect to get exceptions when I throw them, but I get a DivideByZeroException on the line newValue = pony.Invoke(model as T);. Why is this? Can I do something about it?
This is in a asp.net mvc2-application running in Cassini at the moment.
If I select Start debugging in Visual Studio 2008, the error gets caught and rethrown with the extra information!
The problem was that I obviously haven't understood how inner exceptions work. The exception gets caught but then only the inner exception is shown, and that's a totally other issue.

Exceptions thrown from a compiled expression are handled normally by the try .. catch construct, so I'd expect that there is some other issue in your code. If you try for example the following code, it behaves as expected:
Expression<Func<int, int>> f = x => 10 / x;
Func<int, int> fcompiled = f.Compile();
try {
Console.WriteLine(fcompiled(0));
} catch (DivideByZeroException e) {
Console.WriteLine("Divison by zero");
}
As a side note, you should probably handle DivideByZeroException using a separate catch (as I did in my example). This is a cleaner and recommended way to catch different types of exceptions.
Can you check whether the exception is really unhandled when running the application without debugging (for example by adding some debug print to the catch block)? What exception is printed when you run the application (afterall, your code rethrows some exception in any case, so the output may not be clear).

The following code worked for me (this is in a C# console app, although I don't know why that would work differently from ASP.NET):
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var foo = new Foo<int>();
try
{
Console.WriteLine("Calling function");
foo.DoStuff(5);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Caught exception: " + ex.ToString());
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("In finally block");
}
}
}
class Foo<T>
{
private Func<T, object> pony;
public Foo()
{
this.pony = m =>
{
throw new DivideByZeroException("Exception!");
};
}
public object DoStuff(T o)
{
return this.pony.Invoke(o);
}
}
This prints out the contents of the exception to the command line, as expected.

Well, the code executed in the compiled expression obviously generates the DivideByZeroException, right. Something tries to divide by zero in that. So what else would you expect?
Note that the debugger (especially VS) may break on exceptions, so that you should make sure to continue running the application, it should reach your catch block just fine.