Develop Reference

Catching exceptions with "catch, when"

I came across this new feature in C# which allows a catch handler to execute when a specific condition is met.
int i = 0;
try
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(i));
}
catch (ArgumentNullException e)
when (i == 1)
{
Console.WriteLine("Caught Argument Null Exception");
}
I am trying to understand when this may ever be useful.
One scenario could be something like this:
try
{
DatabaseUpdate()
}
catch (SQLException e)
when (driver == "MySQL")
{
//MySQL specific error handling and wrapping up the exception
}
catch (SQLException e)
when (driver == "Oracle")
{
//Oracle specific error handling and wrapping up of exception
}
..
but this is again something that I can do within the same handler and delegate to different methods depending on the type of the driver. Does this make the code easier to understand? Arguably no.
Another scenario that I can think of is something like:
try
{
SomeOperation();
}
catch(SomeException e)
when (Condition == true)
{
//some specific error handling that this layer can handle
}
catch (Exception e) //catchall
{
throw;
}
Again this is something that I can do like:
try
{
SomeOperation();
}
catch(SomeException e)
{
if (condition == true)
{
//some specific error handling that this layer can handle
}
else
throw;
}
Does using the 'catch, when' feature make exception handling faster because the handler is skipped as such and the stack unwinding can happen much earlier as when compared to handling the specific use cases within the handler? Are there any specific use cases that fit this feature better which people can then adopt as a good practice?

Catch blocks already allow you to filter on the type of the exception:
catch (SomeSpecificExceptionType e) {...}
The when clause allows you to extend this filter to generic expressions.
Thus, you use the when clause for cases where the type of the exception is not distinct enough to determine whether the exception should be handled here or not.
A common use case are exception types which are actually a wrapper for multiple, different kinds of errors.
Here's a case that I've actually used (in VB, which already has this feature for quite some time):
try
{
SomeLegacyComOperation();
}
catch (COMException e) when (e.ErrorCode == 0x1234)
{
// Handle the *specific* error I was expecting.
}
Same for SqlException, which also has an ErrorCode property. The alternative would be something like that:
try
{
SomeLegacyComOperation();
}
catch (COMException e)
{
if (e.ErrorCode == 0x1234)
{
// Handle error
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
which is arguably less elegant and slightly breaks the stack trace.
In addition, you can mention the same type of exception twice in the same try-catch-block:
try
{
SomeLegacyComOperation();
}
catch (COMException e) when (e.ErrorCode == 0x1234)
{
...
}
catch (COMException e) when (e.ErrorCode == 0x5678)
{
...
}
which would not be possible without the when condition.

From Roslyn's wiki (emphasis mine):
Exception filters are preferable to catching and rethrowing because
they leave the stack unharmed. If the exception later causes the stack
to be dumped, you can see where it originally came from, rather than
just the last place it was rethrown.
It is also a common and accepted form of “abuse” to use exception
filters for side effects; e.g. logging. They can inspect an exception
“flying by” without intercepting its course. In those cases, the
filter will often be a call to a false-returning helper function which
executes the side effects:
private static bool Log(Exception e) { /* log it */ ; return false; }
… try { … } catch (Exception e) when (Log(e)) { }
The first point is worth demonstrating.
static class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A(1);
}
private static void A(int i)
{
try
{
B(i + 1);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (ex.Message != "!")
Console.WriteLine(ex);
else throw;
}
}
private static void B(int i)
{
throw new Exception("!");
}
}
If we run this in WinDbg until the exception is hit, and print the stack using !clrstack -i -a we'll see the just the frame of A:
003eef10 00a7050d [DEFAULT] Void App.Program.A(I4)
PARAMETERS:
+ int i = 1
LOCALS:
+ System.Exception ex # 0x23e3178
+ (Error 0x80004005 retrieving local variable 'local_1')
However, if we change the program to use when:
catch (Exception ex) when (ex.Message != "!")
{
Console.WriteLine(ex);
}
We'll see the stack also contains B's frame:
001af2b4 01fb05aa [DEFAULT] Void App.Program.B(I4)
PARAMETERS:
+ int i = 2
LOCALS: (none)
001af2c8 01fb04c1 [DEFAULT] Void App.Program.A(I4)
PARAMETERS:
+ int i = 1
LOCALS:
+ System.Exception ex # 0x2213178
+ (Error 0x80004005 retrieving local variable 'local_1')
That information can be very useful when debugging crash dumps.

When an exception is thrown, the first pass of exception handling identifies where the exception will get caught before unwinding the stack; if/when the "catch" location is identified, all "finally" blocks are run (note that if an exception escapes a "finally" block, processing of the earlier exception may be abandoned). Once that happens, code will resume execution at the "catch".
If there is a breakpoint within a function that's evaluated as part of a "when", that breakpoint will suspend execution before any stack unwinding occurs; by contrast, a breakpoint at a "catch" will only suspend execution after all finally handlers have run.
Finally, if lines 23 and 27 of foo call bar, and the call on line 23 throws an exception which is caught within foo and rethrown on line 57, then the stack trace will suggest that the exception occurred while calling bar from line 57 [location of the rethrow], destroying any information about whether the exception occurred in the line-23 or line-27 call. Using when to avoid catching an exception in the first place avoids such disturbance.
BTW, a useful pattern which is annoyingly awkward in both C# and VB.NET is to use a function call within a when clause to set a variable which can be used within a finally clause to determine whether the function completed normally, to handle cases where a function has no hope of "resolving" any exception that occurs but must nonetheless take action based upon it. For example, if an exception is thrown within a factory method which is supposed to return an object that encapsulates resources, any resources that were acquired will need to be released, but the underlying exception should percolate up to the caller. The cleanest way to handle that semantically (though not syntactically) is to have a finally block check whether an exception occurred and, if so, release all resources acquired on behalf of the object that is no longer going to be returned. Since cleanup code has no hope of resolving whatever condition caused the exception, it really shouldn't catch it, but merely needs to know what happened. Calling a function like:
bool CopySecondArgumentToFirstAndReturnFalse<T>(ref T first, T second)
{
first = second;
return false;
}
within a when clause will make it possible for the factory function to know
that something happened.

When does the catch arguments get checked in a try/catch block c#

I'm having an issue with a try/catch block, but I can't seem to find out exactly how try/catch works when it's running that I think might have my answer. I have the following try/catch block:
try
{
...
}
catch (MyException e)
{
Log.Error("oh no!");
throw;
}
Now when I run this code I'm getting a System.TypeLoadException: Could not load type SDK.MyException from assembly "SDKSampleLibrary, Version... etc error.
I'm wondering 2 things. First, when does the computer check to see if MyException is there. Is it when it gets to the try or when it gets to the catch? Second, the SDKSampleLibrary.dll is there. How do I tell why it's not seeing it?

If the class MyException gets thrown within the try area, it will get handled inside the catch, See my example below where i throw a new exception which would get handled by the catch statement. However any other kinds of exceptions would not be handled/
try
{
throw(new MyException()); // handled by the catch
throw(new ParseException()); //not handled.
int test = "test" //not handled
}
catch (MyException e)
{
Log.Error("oh no!");
throw;
}
can also catch general exceptions to catch ALL exceptions like:
try
{
throw(new MyException()); // handled by the catch
throw(new ParseException()); //handled.
int test = "test" //handled
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Log.Error("oh no!");
throw;
}

The compiler sees the class since it is blue and does not give compile errors. The problems is happening when you are running the code. I think the problem is in de code that throws the exception which cannot create it. You could try to use the normal Exception type in the catch block and then set a break point.

The problem is not with the try/catch block but rather the problem is the type of exception that you are trying to catch as specified by the exception that your code is throwing. This exception occurs when the runtime tries to load the MyException object. You should make sure that the MyException inherits either from the Exception base class or from any of its children.

Can I execute multiple Catch blocks?

This is a bit abstract, but is there any possible way to throw an exception and have it enter multiple catch blocks? For example, if it matches a specific exception followed by a non-specific exception.
catch(Arithmetic exception)
{
//do stuff
}
catch(Exception exception)
{
//do stuff
}

It is perfectly acceptable to have multiple catch blocks of differring types. However, the behavior is that the first candidate block handles the exception.
It will not enter BOTH catch blocks. The first catch block that matches the exception type will handle that specific exception, and no others, even if it's rethrown in the handler. Any subsequent ones will be skipped once an exception enters a catch block.
In order to have an exception caught in BOTH blocks, you would need to either nest blocks like so:
try
{
try
{
// Do something that throws ArithmeticException
}
catch(ArithmeticException arithException)
{
// This handles the thrown exception....
throw; // Rethrow so the outer handler sees it too
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// This gets hit as well, now, since the "inner" block rethrew the exception
}
Alternatively, you could filter in a generic exception handler based on the specific type of exception.

No. It isn't possible to execute the code in both catch blocks for a single exception.
I would probably refactor the code in the generic exception block into something that can be called from either.
try
{
// blah blah blah
{
catch(Arithmetic ae)
{
HandleArithmeticException( ae );
HandleGenericException( ae );
}
catch(Exception e)
{
HandleGenericException( e );
}

Like others said the exception will be caught by the most specific catch block.
This brings up a frustration of mine though with exception handling. I wish you could do something like
catch (ArgumentNullExcpetion, ArugmentOutOfRangeException ex)
{
}
Instead of having to do
catch (ArgumentNullExcpetion e)
{
}
catch (ArugmentOutOfRangeException outOfRange)
{
}
I understand the reasoning against this that you probably do different things for different exceptions but sometimes I want combine them.

You can't have more than one exception block handle the same exception. But what you can do is catch the general exception, then attempt to cast to the more specific, like this:
catch (Exception exception)
{
var aex = exception as ArithmeticException
if (aex != null)
{
// do stuff specific to this exception type
}
// then do general stuff
}

If you were using VB.NET you could abstract your error handler in the Arithmetic exception into a function or method call that always returns false.
Then you could write something like:
Catch ex as Arithmetic When HandleArithmetic()
Catch ex as Exception
End Try
Not that I would advocate such usage, though I have seen it recommended for logging purposes before. I don't believe there is a C# equivalent.

This is known as exception filtering and isn't supported in C# (I'm told it is possible in VB.NET).
One work around would be to catch the general exception and then check the exception type in the catch block and do any specific processing on that before carrying on with the rest of the block.

What happens if both catch and finally blocks throw exception?

What happens if both catch and finally blocks throw exception?

When the finally block throws an exception, it will effectively hide the exception thrown from the catch block and will be the one ultimately thrown. It is therefore important to either log exceptions when caught, or make sure that the finally block does not itself throw an exception, otherwise you can get exceptions being thrown that are stifled and never seen.

When catch throws an exception, finally block will be run and then exit with an exception.
If the finally block throws an exception, the block will exit with an exception.

The last exception thrown is thrown.

Its already been answered well by adrianbanks, but the following post should be interesting:
Interesting Exception Results: Throwing Exceptions From the Finally Block

HI Nwaman i think you answer is wrong i have tested it in windows appliaction, i found if u write a program like the below one
try
{
string s = "hu";
int i = int.Parse(s);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
string s = "hu";
int i = int.Parse(s);
throw new Exception();
}
finally
{
MessageBox.Show("hi");
}
and this will not result finally to excute,

Exception.Data and Exception Handling Questions

I have a couple questions about exceptions.
1) when you hit a catch block, swallowing means what exactly? I thought it was always rethrow or the existing exceptions is passed up to the next catch block.
2) If you add Exception.Data values to an excepction, I notice I have to do another throw; to grab that data futher up in another catch block later. Why?

Swallowing an exception means catching it and not doing anything useful with it. A common thing you might see is this:
try
{
DoSomeOperationThatMightThrow();
}
catch (Exception ex) // don't do this!
{
// exception swallowed
}
You usually don't want to catch a base Exception at all, it's better to catch and handle specific Exception types, and ideally you should only catch exception types that you can do something useful with at the level of code you're in. This can be tricky in complex applications, because you might be handling different errors at different levels in the code. The highest level of code might just catch serious/fatal exceptions, and lower levels might catch exceptions that can be dealt with with some error handling logic.
If you do catch an exception and need to rethrow it, do this:
try
{
DoSomething();
}
catch (SomeException ex)
{
HandleError(...);
// rethrow the exception you caught
throw;
// Or wrap the exception in another type that can be handled higher up.
// Set ex as the InnerException on the new one you're throwing, so it
// can be viewed at a higher level.
//throw new HigherLevelException(ex);
// Don't do this, it will reset the StackTrace on ex,
// which makes it harder to track down the root issue
//throw ex;
}

Swallowing an exception normally means having a handling block for the exception, but not doing anything in the block. For example:
try { 3/0; } catch DivideByZeroException { //ignore } //Note: I know this really wont' compile because the compiler is smart enough to not let you divide by a const of 0.
You have to rethrow because the first handler for an exception is the only one that will execute.
If you want the exception to bubble up you either don't handle it or you rethrow it. By the way, it's important to note that in .NET by just saying "throw" you'll preserve the stack trace. If you "throw Exception" you'll lose your stack trace.

Ok, you can handle the exception up to call stack you can do some thing like this:
public class A
{
public void methodA()
{
try
{
}
catch(Exception e)
{
throw new Exception("Some description", e);
}
}
}
public class B
{
public void methodB()
{
try
{
A a = new A();
a.methodA();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
//...here you get exceptions
}
}
}