Related
In code which regularly needs debug logging, I end up with large blocks of code such as:
int someVar = 1;
bool anotherVar = true;
//...
string lastVar = "foo";
// littered through the code
Log._Debug(
"arbitrary message string",
$"{nameof(someVar)} = {someVar} " +
$"{nameof(anotherVar)} = {anotherVar} " +
// ...
$"{nameof(lastVar)} = {lastVar} "
);
These debug blocks can sometimes be huge (20+ vars being logged) and they can occur dozens of times in a class making the whole thing completely unreadable. Sadly they're necessary - sometimes we need to send debug builds to users (they can't run debugger, it's easier just to get them to run the debug build and send us the logs). It's also old code base which is why it's such a freaking mess.
I'm trying to find a way to debloat the debug chunks in the code, just to make it less depressing to maintain lol.
In my quest to find cleaner syntax, I found https://stackoverflow.com/a/9801735 which shows how to get member name from a lambda function. Which made me wonder, is it possible to create something a bit like this...?
Log._Dump(
"arbitrary message string",
() => somevar,
() => anotherVar,
// ...
() => lastVar
);
So I tried creating a method using params as follows:
[Conditional("DEBUG")]
public static void _Dump(string message, params Func[] vars) {
// ^ what <T> do I use?
}
private static string GetMemberName<T>(Expression<Func<T>> memberExpression) {
// this would eventually return $"{memberName} = {memberValue}"
// which, btw, I have no idea if that's even possible yet
// but I didn't get that far as still trying to work out how to do
// the _Dump() method params above :/
MemberExpression expressionBody = (MemberExpression)memberExpression.Body;
return expressionBody.Member.Name;
}
I don't know how to do params array of functions with varying return types.
I could potentially just make the params a string array and do the GetMemberName manually for each lambda, for example:
private string NV<T>(Expression<Func<T>> memberExpression) {
// ...code...
return $"{memberName} = {memberValue}";
}
Log._Dump(
"arbitrary message string",
NV(() => somevar),
NV(() => anotherVar),
// ...
NV(() => lastVar)
);
But that's adding boilerplate to the code again which is what I'm trying to avoid. Is there any way I can get it working without that extra NV() wrapper?
EDIT: It's really old codebase and we're stuck with .Net Framework 3.5 so limited to C# 6 or something like that.
C# 10 introduced [CallerArgumentExpression] (docs), a way to pass a string representation of the callers source code. So you could write a helper method;
public void Log<T>(T value, [CallerArgumentExpression("value")] string name=null)
=> Log($"{name} = {value}");
But you could also combine this with another new feature, [InterpolatedStringHandler] (docs) to log the name of any variable inside an interpolated string.
[InterpolatedStringHandler]
public ref struct DebugLogHandler
{
private readonly StringBuilder sb;
public DebugLogHandler(int literalLen, int formattedCount)
{
sb = new StringBuilder(literalLen);
}
public void AppendLiteral(string s) => sb.Append(s);
public void AppendFormatted<T>(T value, [CallerArgumentExpression("value")] string name=null)
{
sb.Append(name);
sb.Append("=");
sb.Append(value?.ToString());
}
public string BuildMessage() => sb.ToString();
}
public static void Log(string message) { ...TODO... }
public static void Log(DebugLogHandler builder)
=> Log(builder.BuildMessage());
var variableName = "value";
Log($"Something {variableName}");
I would like to either prevent or handle a StackOverflowException that I am getting from a call to the XslCompiledTransform.Transform method within an Xsl Editor I am writing. The problem seems to be that the user can write an Xsl script that is infinitely recursive, and it just blows up on the call to the Transform method. (That is, the problem is not just the typical programmatic error, which is usually the cause of such an exception.)
Is there a way to detect and/or limit how many recursions are allowed? Or any other ideas to keep this code from just blowing up on me?
From Microsoft:
Starting with the .NET Framework
version 2.0, a StackOverflowException
object cannot be caught by a try-catch
block and the corresponding process is
terminated by default. Consequently,
users are advised to write their code
to detect and prevent a stack
overflow. For example, if your
application depends on recursion, use
a counter or a state condition to
terminate the recursive loop.
I'm assuming the exception is happening within an internal .NET method, and not in your code.
You can do a couple things.
Write code that checks the xsl for infinite recursion and notifies the user prior to applying a transform (Ugh).
Load the XslTransform code into a separate process (Hacky, but less work).
You can use the Process class to load the assembly that will apply the transform into a separate process, and alert the user of the failure if it dies, without killing your main app.
EDIT: I just tested, here is how to do it:
MainProcess:
// This is just an example, obviously you'll want to pass args to this.
Process p1 = new Process();
p1.StartInfo.FileName = "ApplyTransform.exe";
p1.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false;
p1.StartInfo.WindowStyle = ProcessWindowStyle.Hidden;
p1.Start();
p1.WaitForExit();
if (p1.ExitCode == 1)
Console.WriteLine("StackOverflow was thrown");
ApplyTransform Process:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException += new UnhandledExceptionEventHandler(CurrentDomain_UnhandledException);
throw new StackOverflowException();
}
// We trap this, we can't save the process,
// but we can prevent the "ILLEGAL OPERATION" window
static void CurrentDomain_UnhandledException(object sender, UnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
if (e.IsTerminating)
{
Environment.Exit(1);
}
}
}
NOTE The question in the bounty by #WilliamJockusch and the original question are different.
This answer is about StackOverflow's in the general case of third-party libraries and what you can/can't do with them. If you're looking about the special case with XslTransform, see the accepted answer.
Stack overflows happen because the data on the stack exceeds a certain limit (in bytes). The details of how this detection works can be found here.
I'm wondering if there is a general way to track down StackOverflowExceptions. In other words, suppose I have infinite recursion somewhere in my code, but I have no idea where. I want to track it down by some means that is easier than stepping through code all over the place until I see it happening. I don't care how hackish it is.
As I mentioned in the link, detecting a stack overflow from static code analysis would require solving the halting problem which is undecidable. Now that we've established that there is no silver bullet, I can show you a few tricks that I think helps track down the problem.
I think this question can be interpreted in different ways, and since I'm a bit bored :-), I'll break it down into different variations.
Detecting a stack overflow in a test environment
Basically the problem here is that you have a (limited) test environment and want to detect a stack overflow in an (expanded) production environment.
Instead of detecting the SO itself, I solve this by exploiting the fact that the stack depth can be set. The debugger will give you all the information you need. Most languages allow you to specify the stack size or the max recursion depth.
Basically I try to force a SO by making the stack depth as small as possible. If it doesn't overflow, I can always make it bigger (=in this case: safer) for the production environment. The moment you get a stack overflow, you can manually decide if it's a 'valid' one or not.
To do this, pass the stack size (in our case: a small value) to a Thread parameter, and see what happens. The default stack size in .NET is 1 MB, we're going to use a way smaller value:
class StackOverflowDetector
{
static int Recur()
{
int variable = 1;
return variable + Recur();
}
static void Start()
{
int depth = 1 + Recur();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t = new Thread(Start, 1);
t.Start();
t.Join();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Note: we're going to use this code below as well.
Once it overflows, you can set it to a bigger value until you get a SO that makes sense.
Creating exceptions before you SO
The StackOverflowException is not catchable. This means there's not much you can do when it has happened. So, if you believe something is bound to go wrong in your code, you can make your own exception in some cases. The only thing you need for this is the current stack depth; there's no need for a counter, you can use the real values from .NET:
class StackOverflowDetector
{
static void CheckStackDepth()
{
if (new StackTrace().FrameCount > 10) // some arbitrary limit
{
throw new StackOverflowException("Bad thread.");
}
}
static int Recur()
{
CheckStackDepth();
int variable = 1;
return variable + Recur();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
int depth = 1 + Recur();
}
catch (ThreadAbortException e)
{
Console.WriteLine("We've been a {0}", e.ExceptionState);
}
Console.WriteLine();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Note that this approach also works if you are dealing with third-party components that use a callback mechanism. The only thing required is that you can intercept some calls in the stack trace.
Detection in a separate thread
You explicitly suggested this, so here goes this one.
You can try detecting a SO in a separate thread.. but it probably won't do you any good. A stack overflow can happen fast, even before you get a context switch. This means that this mechanism isn't reliable at all... I wouldn't recommend actually using it. It was fun to build though, so here's the code :-)
class StackOverflowDetector
{
static int Recur()
{
Thread.Sleep(1); // simulate that we're actually doing something :-)
int variable = 1;
return variable + Recur();
}
static void Start()
{
try
{
int depth = 1 + Recur();
}
catch (ThreadAbortException e)
{
Console.WriteLine("We've been a {0}", e.ExceptionState);
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Prepare the execution thread
Thread t = new Thread(Start);
t.Priority = ThreadPriority.Lowest;
// Create the watch thread
Thread watcher = new Thread(Watcher);
watcher.Priority = ThreadPriority.Highest;
watcher.Start(t);
// Start the execution thread
t.Start();
t.Join();
watcher.Abort();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void Watcher(object o)
{
Thread towatch = (Thread)o;
while (true)
{
if (towatch.ThreadState == System.Threading.ThreadState.Running)
{
towatch.Suspend();
var frames = new System.Diagnostics.StackTrace(towatch, false);
if (frames.FrameCount > 20)
{
towatch.Resume();
towatch.Abort("Bad bad thread!");
}
else
{
towatch.Resume();
}
}
}
}
}
Run this in the debugger and have fun of what happens.
Using the characteristics of a stack overflow
Another interpretation of your question is: "Where are the pieces of code that could potentially cause a stack overflow exception?". Obviously the answer of this is: all code with recursion. For each piece of code, you can then do some manual analysis.
It's also possible to determine this using static code analysis. What you need to do for that is to decompile all methods and figure out if they contain an infinite recursion. Here's some code that does that for you:
// A simple decompiler that extracts all method tokens (that is: call, callvirt, newobj in IL)
internal class Decompiler
{
private Decompiler() { }
static Decompiler()
{
singleByteOpcodes = new OpCode[0x100];
multiByteOpcodes = new OpCode[0x100];
FieldInfo[] infoArray1 = typeof(OpCodes).GetFields();
for (int num1 = 0; num1 < infoArray1.Length; num1++)
{
FieldInfo info1 = infoArray1[num1];
if (info1.FieldType == typeof(OpCode))
{
OpCode code1 = (OpCode)info1.GetValue(null);
ushort num2 = (ushort)code1.Value;
if (num2 < 0x100)
{
singleByteOpcodes[(int)num2] = code1;
}
else
{
if ((num2 & 0xff00) != 0xfe00)
{
throw new Exception("Invalid opcode: " + num2.ToString());
}
multiByteOpcodes[num2 & 0xff] = code1;
}
}
}
}
private static OpCode[] singleByteOpcodes;
private static OpCode[] multiByteOpcodes;
public static MethodBase[] Decompile(MethodBase mi, byte[] ildata)
{
HashSet<MethodBase> result = new HashSet<MethodBase>();
Module module = mi.Module;
int position = 0;
while (position < ildata.Length)
{
OpCode code = OpCodes.Nop;
ushort b = ildata[position++];
if (b != 0xfe)
{
code = singleByteOpcodes[b];
}
else
{
b = ildata[position++];
code = multiByteOpcodes[b];
b |= (ushort)(0xfe00);
}
switch (code.OperandType)
{
case OperandType.InlineNone:
break;
case OperandType.ShortInlineBrTarget:
case OperandType.ShortInlineI:
case OperandType.ShortInlineVar:
position += 1;
break;
case OperandType.InlineVar:
position += 2;
break;
case OperandType.InlineBrTarget:
case OperandType.InlineField:
case OperandType.InlineI:
case OperandType.InlineSig:
case OperandType.InlineString:
case OperandType.InlineTok:
case OperandType.InlineType:
case OperandType.ShortInlineR:
position += 4;
break;
case OperandType.InlineR:
case OperandType.InlineI8:
position += 8;
break;
case OperandType.InlineSwitch:
int count = BitConverter.ToInt32(ildata, position);
position += count * 4 + 4;
break;
case OperandType.InlineMethod:
int methodId = BitConverter.ToInt32(ildata, position);
position += 4;
try
{
if (mi is ConstructorInfo)
{
result.Add((MethodBase)module.ResolveMember(methodId, mi.DeclaringType.GetGenericArguments(), Type.EmptyTypes));
}
else
{
result.Add((MethodBase)module.ResolveMember(methodId, mi.DeclaringType.GetGenericArguments(), mi.GetGenericArguments()));
}
}
catch { }
break;
default:
throw new Exception("Unknown instruction operand; cannot continue. Operand type: " + code.OperandType);
}
}
return result.ToArray();
}
}
class StackOverflowDetector
{
// This method will be found:
static int Recur()
{
CheckStackDepth();
int variable = 1;
return variable + Recur();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
RecursionDetector();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void RecursionDetector()
{
// First decompile all methods in the assembly:
Dictionary<MethodBase, MethodBase[]> calling = new Dictionary<MethodBase, MethodBase[]>();
var assembly = typeof(StackOverflowDetector).Assembly;
foreach (var type in assembly.GetTypes())
{
foreach (var member in type.GetMembers(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Instance).OfType<MethodBase>())
{
var body = member.GetMethodBody();
if (body!=null)
{
var bytes = body.GetILAsByteArray();
if (bytes != null)
{
// Store all the calls of this method:
var calls = Decompiler.Decompile(member, bytes);
calling[member] = calls;
}
}
}
}
// Check every method:
foreach (var method in calling.Keys)
{
// If method A -> ... -> method A, we have a possible infinite recursion
CheckRecursion(method, calling, new HashSet<MethodBase>());
}
}
Now, the fact that a method cycle contains recursion, is by no means a guarantee that a stack overflow will happen - it's just the most likely precondition for your stack overflow exception. In short, this means that this code will determine the pieces of code where a stack overflow can occur, which should narrow down most code considerably.
Yet other approaches
There are some other approaches you can try that I haven't described here.
Handling the stack overflow by hosting the CLR process and handling it. Note that you still cannot 'catch' it.
Changing all IL code, building another DLL, adding checks on recursion. Yes, that's quite possible (I've implemented it in the past :-); it's just difficult and involves a lot of code to get it right.
Use the .NET profiling API to capture all method calls and use that to figure out stack overflows. For example, you can implement checks that if you encounter the same method X times in your call tree, you give a signal. There's a project clrprofiler that will give you a head start.
I would suggest creating a wrapper around XmlWriter object, so it would count amount of calls to WriteStartElement/WriteEndElement, and if you limit amount of tags to some number (f.e. 100), you would be able to throw a different exception, for example - InvalidOperation.
That should solve the problem in the majority of the cases
public class LimitedDepthXmlWriter : XmlWriter
{
private readonly XmlWriter _innerWriter;
private readonly int _maxDepth;
private int _depth;
public LimitedDepthXmlWriter(XmlWriter innerWriter): this(innerWriter, 100)
{
}
public LimitedDepthXmlWriter(XmlWriter innerWriter, int maxDepth)
{
_maxDepth = maxDepth;
_innerWriter = innerWriter;
}
public override void Close()
{
_innerWriter.Close();
}
public override void Flush()
{
_innerWriter.Flush();
}
public override string LookupPrefix(string ns)
{
return _innerWriter.LookupPrefix(ns);
}
public override void WriteBase64(byte[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
_innerWriter.WriteBase64(buffer, index, count);
}
public override void WriteCData(string text)
{
_innerWriter.WriteCData(text);
}
public override void WriteCharEntity(char ch)
{
_innerWriter.WriteCharEntity(ch);
}
public override void WriteChars(char[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
_innerWriter.WriteChars(buffer, index, count);
}
public override void WriteComment(string text)
{
_innerWriter.WriteComment(text);
}
public override void WriteDocType(string name, string pubid, string sysid, string subset)
{
_innerWriter.WriteDocType(name, pubid, sysid, subset);
}
public override void WriteEndAttribute()
{
_innerWriter.WriteEndAttribute();
}
public override void WriteEndDocument()
{
_innerWriter.WriteEndDocument();
}
public override void WriteEndElement()
{
_depth--;
_innerWriter.WriteEndElement();
}
public override void WriteEntityRef(string name)
{
_innerWriter.WriteEntityRef(name);
}
public override void WriteFullEndElement()
{
_innerWriter.WriteFullEndElement();
}
public override void WriteProcessingInstruction(string name, string text)
{
_innerWriter.WriteProcessingInstruction(name, text);
}
public override void WriteRaw(string data)
{
_innerWriter.WriteRaw(data);
}
public override void WriteRaw(char[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
_innerWriter.WriteRaw(buffer, index, count);
}
public override void WriteStartAttribute(string prefix, string localName, string ns)
{
_innerWriter.WriteStartAttribute(prefix, localName, ns);
}
public override void WriteStartDocument(bool standalone)
{
_innerWriter.WriteStartDocument(standalone);
}
public override void WriteStartDocument()
{
_innerWriter.WriteStartDocument();
}
public override void WriteStartElement(string prefix, string localName, string ns)
{
if (_depth++ > _maxDepth) ThrowException();
_innerWriter.WriteStartElement(prefix, localName, ns);
}
public override WriteState WriteState
{
get { return _innerWriter.WriteState; }
}
public override void WriteString(string text)
{
_innerWriter.WriteString(text);
}
public override void WriteSurrogateCharEntity(char lowChar, char highChar)
{
_innerWriter.WriteSurrogateCharEntity(lowChar, highChar);
}
public override void WriteWhitespace(string ws)
{
_innerWriter.WriteWhitespace(ws);
}
private void ThrowException()
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(string.Format("Result xml has more than {0} nested tags. It is possible that xslt transformation contains an endless recursive call.", _maxDepth));
}
}
This answer is for #WilliamJockusch.
I'm wondering if there is a general way to track down
StackOverflowExceptions. In other words, suppose I have infinite
recursion somewhere in my code, but I have no idea where. I want to
track it down by some means that is easier than stepping through code
all over the place until I see it happening. I don't care how hackish
it is. For example, It would be great to have a module I could
activate, perhaps even from another thread, that polled the stack
depth and complained if it got to a level I considered "too high." For
example, I might set "too high" to 600 frames, figuring that if the
stack were too deep, that has to be a problem. Is something like that
possible. Another example would be to log every 1000th method call
within my code to the debug output. The chances this would get some
evidence of the overlow would be pretty good, and it likely would not
blow up the output too badly. The key is that it cannot involve
writing a check wherever the overflow is happening. Because the entire
problem is that I don't know where that is. Preferrably the solution
should not depend on what my development environment looks like; i.e,
it should not assumet that I am using C# via a specific toolset (e.g.
VS).
It sounds like you're keen to hear some debugging techniques to catch this StackOverflow so I thought I would share a couple for you to try.
1. Memory Dumps.
Pro's: Memory Dumps are a sure fire way to work out the cause of a Stack Overflow. A C# MVP & I worked together troubleshooting a SO and he went on to blog about it here.
This method is the fastest way to track down the problem.
This method wont require you to reproduce problems by following steps seen in logs.
Con's: Memory Dumps are very large and you have to attach AdPlus/procdump the process.
2. Aspect Orientated Programming.
Pro's: This is probably the easiest way for you to implement code that checks the size of the call stack from any method without writing code in every method of your application. There are a bunch of AOP Frameworks that allow you to Intercept before and after calls.
Will tell you the methods that are causing the Stack Overflow.
Allows you to check the StackTrace().FrameCount at the entry and exit of all methods in your application.
Con's: It will have a performance impact - the hooks are embedded into the IL for every method and you cant really "de-activate" it out.
It somewhat depends on your development environment tool set.
3. Logging User Activity.
A week ago I was trying to hunt down several hard to reproduce problems. I posted this QA User Activity Logging, Telemetry (and Variables in Global Exception Handlers) . The conclusion I came to was a really simple user-actions-logger to see how to reproduce problems in a debugger when any unhandled exception occurs.
Pro's: You can turn it on or off at will (ie subscribing to events).
Tracking the user actions doesn't require intercepting every method.
You can count the number of events methods are subscribed too far more simply than with AOP.
The log files are relatively small and focus on what actions you need to perform to reproduce the problem.
It can help you to understand how users are using your application.
Con's: Isn't suited to a Windows Service and I'm sure there are better tools like this for web apps.
Doesn't necessarily tell you the methods that cause the Stack Overflow.
Requires you to step through logs manually reproducing problems rather than a Memory Dump where you can get it and debug it straight away.
Maybe you might try all techniques I mention above and some that #atlaste posted and tell us which one's you found were the easiest/quickest/dirtiest/most acceptable to run in a PROD environment/etc.
Anyway good luck tracking down this SO.
If you application depends on 3d-party code (in Xsl-scripts) then you have to decide first do you want to defend from bugs in them or not.
If you really want to defend then I think you should execute your logic which prone to external errors in separate AppDomains.
Catching StackOverflowException is not good.
Check also this question.
I had a stackoverflow today and i read some of your posts and decided to help out the Garbage Collecter.
I used to have a near infinite loop like this:
class Foo
{
public Foo()
{
Go();
}
public void Go()
{
for (float i = float.MinValue; i < float.MaxValue; i+= 0.000000000000001f)
{
byte[] b = new byte[1]; // Causes stackoverflow
}
}
}
Instead let the resource run out of scope like this:
class Foo
{
public Foo()
{
GoHelper();
}
public void GoHelper()
{
for (float i = float.MinValue; i < float.MaxValue; i+= 0.000000000000001f)
{
Go();
}
}
public void Go()
{
byte[] b = new byte[1]; // Will get cleaned by GC
} // right now
}
It worked for me, hope it helps someone.
With .NET 4.0 You can add the HandleProcessCorruptedStateExceptions attribute from System.Runtime.ExceptionServices to the method containing the try/catch block. This really worked! Maybe not recommended but works.
using System;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
using System.Runtime.ExceptionServices;
namespace ExceptionCatching
{
public class Test
{
public void StackOverflow()
{
StackOverflow();
}
public void CustomException()
{
throw new Exception();
}
public unsafe void AccessViolation()
{
byte b = *(byte*)(8762765876);
}
}
class Program
{
[HandleProcessCorruptedStateExceptions]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Test test = new Test();
try {
//test.StackOverflow();
test.AccessViolation();
//test.CustomException();
}
catch
{
Console.WriteLine("Caught.");
}
Console.WriteLine("End of program");
}
}
}
#WilliamJockusch, if I understood correctly your concern, it's not possible (from a mathematical point of view) to always identify an infinite recursion as it would mean to solve the Halting problem. To solve it you'd need a Super-recursive algorithm (like Trial-and-error predicates for example) or a machine that can hypercompute (an example is explained in the following section - available as preview - of this book).
From a practical point of view, you'd have to know:
How much stack memory you have left at the given time
How much stack memory your recursive method will need at the given time for the specific output.
Keep in mind that, with the current machines, this data is extremely mutable due to multitasking and I haven't heard of a software that does the task.
Let me know if something is unclear.
By the looks of it, apart from starting another process, there doesn't seem to be any way of handling a StackOverflowException. Before anyone else asks, I tried using AppDomain, but that didn't work:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace StackOverflowExceptionAppDomainTest
{
class Program
{
static void recrusiveAlgorithm()
{
recrusiveAlgorithm();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
if(args.Length>0&&args[0]=="--child")
{
recrusiveAlgorithm();
}
else
{
var domain = AppDomain.CreateDomain("Child domain to test StackOverflowException in.");
domain.ExecuteAssembly(Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().CodeBase, new[] { "--child" });
domain.UnhandledException += (object sender, UnhandledExceptionEventArgs e) =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Detected unhandled exception: " + e.ExceptionObject.ToString());
};
while (true)
{
Console.WriteLine("*");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}
}
}
If you do end up using the separate-process solution, however, I would recommend using Process.Exited and Process.StandardOutput and handle the errors yourself, to give your users a better experience.
You can read up this property every few calls, Environment.StackTrace , and if the stacktrace exceded a specific threshold that you preset, you can return the function.
You should also try to replace some recursive functions with loops.
Hey people when I execute this small code the console doesn't display anything
Im beginner in c# but my code seems correct :(
class Program
{
static int Factorial(int n)
{
if (n==0)
{
return 1; //base case
}
else
{
return n * Factorial(n - 1); //recursive case
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Factorial(5);
}
}
The problem is that you are not asking your program to write anything. The program is not supposed to write anything by itself, except if you are asking it to do so. To display an information, you need to use Console.WriteLine() or any other function that can write information in your standard output stream.
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the return statement. The goal of return is just to tell to the function which value it is supposed to return to the function who called it. The calling function then can store this value and treat it for additional purposes, such as printing it like you wanted to do there.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int factorialValue = Factorial(5); // factorialValue contains
// the returned value of Factorial(5)
Console.WriteLine(factorialValue);
}
Because you haven't write anything to the console, If you want to display something in the console you have to write to the console for that you can use the WriteLine() method of the Console class. Which is an overloaded method you can check the possible overloading options here with MSDN. So the changes in your code would be like the following:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int inputNum = 5;
Console.WriteLine("Factorial of {0} is {1}",inputNum,Factorial(inputNum));
}
Going from a lambda to an Expression is easy using a method call...
public void GimmeExpression(Expression<Func<T>> expression)
{
((MemberExpression)expression.Body).Member.Name; // "DoStuff"
}
public void SomewhereElse()
{
GimmeExpression(() => thing.DoStuff());
}
But I would like to turn the Func in to an expression, only in rare cases...
public void ContainTheDanger(Func<T> dangerousCall)
{
try
{
dangerousCall();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// This next line does not work...
Expression<Func<T>> DangerousExpression = dangerousCall;
var nameOfDanger =
((MemberExpression)dangerousCall.Body).Member.Name;
throw new DangerContainer(
"Danger manifested while " + nameOfDanger, e);
}
}
public void SomewhereElse()
{
ContainTheDanger(() => thing.CrossTheStreams());
}
The line that does not work gives me the compile-time error Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Func<T>' to 'System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<System.Func<T>>'. An explicit cast does not resolve the situation. Is there a facility to do this that I am overlooking?
Ooh, it's not easy at all. Func<T> represents a generic delegate and not an expression. If there's any way you could do so (due to optimizations and other things done by the compiler, some data might be thrown away, so it might be impossible to get the original expression back), it'd be disassembling the IL on the fly and inferring the expression (which is by no means easy). Treating lambda expressions as data (Expression<Func<T>>) is a magic done by the compiler (basically the compiler builds an expression tree in code instead of compiling it to IL).
Related fact
This is why languages that push lambdas to the extreme (like Lisp) are often easier to implement as interpreters. In those languages, code and data are essentially the same thing (even at run time), but our chip cannot understand that form of code, so we have to emulate such a machine by building an interpreter on top of it that understands it (the choice made by Lisp like languages) or sacrificing the power (code will no longer be exactly equal to data) to some extent (the choice made by C#). In C#, the compiler gives the illusion of treating code as data by allowing lambdas to be interpreted as code (Func<T>) and data (Expression<Func<T>>) at compile time.
private static Expression<Func<T, bool>> FuncToExpression<T>(Func<T, bool> f)
{
return x => f(x);
}
What you probably should do, is turn the method around. Take in an Expression>, and compile and run. If it fails, you already have the Expression to look into.
public void ContainTheDanger(Expression<Func<T>> dangerousCall)
{
try
{
dangerousCall().Compile().Invoke();;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// This next line does not work...
var nameOfDanger =
((MemberExpression)dangerousCall.Body).Member.Name;
throw new DangerContainer(
"Danger manifested while " + nameOfDanger, e);
}
}
public void SomewhereElse()
{
ContainTheDanger(() => thing.CrossTheStreams());
}
Obviously you need to consider the performance implications of this, and determine if it is something that you really need to do.
If you sometimes need an expression and sometimes need a delegate, you have 2 options:
have different methods (1 for each)
always accept the Expression<...> version, and just .Compile().Invoke(...) it if you want a delegate. Obviously this has cost.
NJection.LambdaConverter is a library that converts a delegate to an expression
public class Program
{
private static void Main(string[] args) {
var lambda = Lambda.TransformMethodTo<Func<string, int>>()
.From(() => Parse)
.ToLambda();
}
public static int Parse(string value) {
return int.Parse(value)
}
}
You can go the other way via the .Compile() method however - not sure if this is useful for you:
public void ContainTheDanger<T>(Expression<Func<T>> dangerousCall)
{
try
{
var expr = dangerousCall.Compile();
expr.Invoke();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Expression<Func<T>> DangerousExpression = dangerousCall;
var nameOfDanger = ((MethodCallExpression)dangerousCall.Body).Method.Name;
throw new DangerContainer("Danger manifested while " + nameOfDanger, e);
}
}
public void SomewhereElse()
{
var thing = new Thing();
ContainTheDanger(() => thing.CrossTheStreams());
}
Expression<Func<T>> ToExpression<T>(Func<T> call)
{
MethodCallExpression methodCall = call.Target == null
? Expression.Call(call.Method)
: Expression.Call(Expression.Constant(call.Target), call.Method);
return Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(methodCall);
}
JB Evain from the Cecil Mono team is doing some progress to enable this
http://evain.net/blog/articles/2009/04/22/converting-delegates-to-expression-trees
Change
// This next line does not work...
Expression<Func<T>> DangerousExpression = dangerousCall;
To
// This next line works!
Expression<Func<T>> DangerousExpression = () => dangerousCall();
What's a callback and how is it implemented in C#?
I just met you,
And this is crazy,
But here's my number (delegate),
So if something happens (event),
Call me, maybe (callback)?
In computer programming, a callback is executable code that is passed as an argument to other code.
—Wikipedia: Callback (computer science)
C# has delegates for that purpose. They are heavily used with events, as an event can automatically invoke a number of attached delegates (event handlers).
A callback is a function that will be called when a process is done executing a specific task.
The usage of a callback is usually in asynchronous logic.
To create a callback in C#, you need to store a function address inside a variable. This is achieved using a delegate or the new lambda semantic Func or Action.
public delegate void WorkCompletedCallBack(string result);
public void DoWork(WorkCompletedCallBack callback)
{
callback("Hello world");
}
public void Test()
{
WorkCompletedCallBack callback = TestCallBack; // Notice that I am referencing a method without its parameter
DoWork(callback);
}
public void TestCallBack(string result)
{
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
In today C#, this could be done using lambda like:
public void DoWork(Action<string> callback)
{
callback("Hello world");
}
public void Test()
{
DoWork((result) => Console.WriteLine(result));
DoWork(Console.WriteLine); // This also works
}
Definition
A callback is executable code that
is passed as an argument to other code.
Implementation
// Parent can Read
public class Parent
{
public string Read(){ /*reads here*/ };
}
// Child need Info
public class Child
{
private string information;
// declare a Delegate
delegate string GetInfo();
// use an instance of the declared Delegate
public GetInfo GetMeInformation;
public void ObtainInfo()
{
// Child will use the Parent capabilities via the Delegate
information = GetMeInformation();
}
}
Usage
Parent Peter = new Parent();
Child Johny = new Child();
// Tell Johny from where to obtain info
Johny.GetMeInformation = Peter.Read;
Johny.ObtainInfo(); // here Johny 'asks' Peter to read
Links
more details for C#.
A callback is a function pointer that you pass in to another function. The function you are calling will 'callback' (execute) the other function when it has completed.
Check out this link.
If you referring to ASP.Net callbacks:
In the default model for ASP.NET Web
pages, the user interacts with a page
and clicks a button or performs some
other action that results in a
postback. The page and its controls
are re-created, the page code runs on
the server, and a new version of the
page is rendered to the browser.
However, in some situations, it is
useful to run server code from the
client without performing a postback.
If the client script in the page is
maintaining some state information
(for example, local variable values),
posting the page and getting a new
copy of it destroys that state.
Additionally, page postbacks introduce
processing overhead that can decrease
performance and force the user to wait
for the page to be processed and
re-created.
To avoid losing client state and not
incur the processing overhead of a
server roundtrip, you can code an
ASP.NET Web page so that it can
perform client callbacks. In a client
callback, a client-script function
sends a request to an ASP.NET Web
page. The Web page runs a modified
version of its normal life cycle. The
page is initiated and its controls and
other members are created, and then a
specially marked method is invoked.
The method performs the processing
that you have coded and then returns a
value to the browser that can be read
by another client script function.
Throughout this process, the page is
live in the browser.
Source: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178208.aspx
If you are referring to callbacks in code:
Callbacks are often delegates to methods that are called when the specific operation has completed or performs a sub-action. You'll often find them in asynchronous operations. It is a programming principle that you can find in almost every coding language.
More info here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173172.aspx
Dedication to LightStriker:
Sample Code:
class CallBackExample
{
public delegate void MyNumber();
public static void CallMeBack()
{
Console.WriteLine("He/She is calling you. Pick your phone!:)");
Console.Read();
}
public static void MetYourCrush(MyNumber number)
{
int j;
Console.WriteLine("is she/he interested 0/1?:");
var i = Console.ReadLine();
if (int.TryParse(i, out j))
{
var interested = (j == 0) ? false : true;
if (interested)//event
{
//call his/her number
number();
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Nothing happened! :(");
Console.Read();
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyNumber number = Program.CallMeBack;
Console.WriteLine("You have just met your crush and given your number");
MetYourCrush(number);
Console.Read();
Console.Read();
}
}
Code Explanation:
I created the code to implement the funny explanation provided by LightStriker in the above one of the replies. We are passing delegate (number) to a method (MetYourCrush). If the Interested (event) occurs in the method (MetYourCrush) then it will call the delegate (number) which was holding the reference of CallMeBack method. So, the CallMeBack method will be called. Basically, we are passing delegate to call the callback method.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Probably not the dictionary definition, but a callback usually refers to a function, which is external to a particular object, being stored and then called upon a specific event.
An example might be when a UI button is created, it stores a reference to a function which performs an action. The action is handled by a different part of the code but when the button is pressed, the callback is called and this invokes the action to perform.
C#, rather than use the term 'callback' uses 'events' and 'delegates' and you can find out more about delegates here.
callback work steps:
1) we have to implement ICallbackEventHandler Interface
2) Register the client script :
String cbReference = Page.ClientScript.GetCallbackEventReference(this, "arg", "ReceiveServerData", "context");
String callbackScript = "function UseCallBack(arg, context)" + "{ " + cbReference + ";}";
Page.ClientScript.RegisterClientScriptBlock(this.GetType(), "UseCallBack", callbackScript, true);
1) from UI call Onclient click call javascript function for EX:- builpopup(p1,p2,p3...)
var finalfield= p1,p2,p3;
UseCallBack(finalfield, ""); data from the client passed to server side by using UseCallBack
2) public void RaiseCallbackEvent(string eventArgument) In eventArgument we get the passed data
//do some server side operation and passed to "callbackResult"
3) GetCallbackResult() // using this method data will be passed to client(ReceiveServerData() function) side
callbackResult
4) Get the data at client side:
ReceiveServerData(text) , in text server response , we wil get.
A callback is a function passed as an argument to another function. This technique allows a function to invoke the parameter function argument and even to pass a value back to the caller. A callback function can be designed to run before/after the function has finished and can pass a value.
It is a kind of construct where you call a long running function and ask him to call you back once it has finished with can return a parameter result to the caller.
It's like someone calls you in the middle of your work asking for status and you say "you know what give me 5 min and i will call you back" and at the end you call him to update. If you are a function the caller just added and passed another function that you invoked at the end. This can simpley be written in C# as:
public void VinodSrivastav(Action statusUpdate){
//i am still here working..working
//i have finished, calling you
statusUpdate();
}
//invokes
stackoverflow.VinodSrivastav((cam) => {
Console.Write("Is it finished");
});
The one simple example is the iterator function where the return will be multiple times, one can argue that we have yield for it:
public void IntreationLoop(int min, int max,Action<int> Callback)
{
for(int i = min;i<= max;i++)
Callback(i);
}
//call
IntreationLoop(5,50,(x) => { Console.Write(x); }); //will print 5-50 numbers
In the code above the function return type is void but it has an Action<int> callback which is called and sends each item from the loop to the caller.
The same thing can be done with if..else or try..catch block as:
public void TryCatch(Action tryFor,Action catchIt)
{
try{
tryFor();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine($"[{ex.HResult}] {ex.Message}");
catchIt();
}
}
And call it as:
TryCatch(()=>{
int r = 44;
Console.WriteLine("Throwing Exception");
throw new Exception("something is wrong here");
}, ()=>{
Console.WriteLine("It was a mistake, will not try again");
});
In 2022 we have Func & Action doing the same, please see the demo code below which shows how this can be be used:
void Main()
{
var demo = new CallbackDemo();
demo.DoWork(()=> { Console.WriteLine("I have finished the work"); });
demo.DoWork((r)=> { Console.WriteLine($"I have finished the work here is the result {r}"); });
demo.DoWork(()=> { Console.WriteLine($"This is passed with func"); return 5;});
demo.DoWork((f)=> { Console.WriteLine($"This is passed with func and result is {f}"); return 10;});
}
// Define other methods and classes here
public class CallbackDemo
{
public void DoWork(Action actionNoParameter)
{
int a = 5;
int b = 10;
//i will do th maths and call you back
int result = a + b;
//callback
actionNoParameter(); //execute
Console.WriteLine($"[The Actual Result is {result}]");
}
public void DoWork(Action<int> actionWithParameter)
{
int a = 5;
int b = 10;
//i will do th maths and call you back
int result = a + b;
//callback
actionWithParameter(result); //execute
Console.WriteLine($"[The Actual Result is {result}]");
}
public void DoWork(Func<int> funcWithReturn)
{
int a = 5;
int b = 10;
//i will do th maths and call you back
int result = a + b;
//callback
int c = funcWithReturn(); //execute
result += c;
Console.WriteLine($"[The Actual Result is {result}]");
}
public void DoWork(Func<int,int> funcWithParameter)
{
int a = 5;
int b = 10;
//i will do th maths and call you back
int result = a + b;
//callback
result += funcWithParameter(result); //execute
Console.WriteLine($"[The Actual Result is {result}]");
}
}