Develop Reference

How to be explicit about NOT throwing an exception?

This might be a broad question, but recently I ahve wondered about the following: In our C# backend we have many places that wrap some code in a try/catch block, specifically calls to external WcF services. Some of these calls are crucial for the application so in the catch block we log the error and rethrow, like:
catch(Exception ex)
{
_logger.Error("Some good error message");
throw ex;
}
On the other hand there are services we allow to fail, but we still want to log the error, so they look like:
catch(Exception ex)
{
_logger.Error("Some good error message");
}
Now reading the code of team members I can not be sure if they forgot to throw or if this is the intended behaviour.
Q: Is there a way, resp. what is the default way, to explicitly NOT rethrow (without including a comment in the code).
I have considered something like this:
catch(Exception ex)
{
_logger.Error("Some good error message");
NotThrowingHereOnPurpose();
}
// ...
// and further below a private method
// ...
private void NotThrowingHereOnPurpose(){}

One approach that may be useful here is to change the way of invoking the code that you explicitly allow to fail in such a way that it does not look like a try/catch block at all.
For example, you could write a helper method that does error reporting, and call it with actions expressed as lambdas:
void InvokeFailSafe(Action action, Action<Exception> onFailure = null) {
try {
action();
} catch (Exception e) {
if (onFailure != null) {
onFailure(e);
}
}
}
Now instead of try/catch you would write this:
InvokeFailSafe(
() => {
... The code that may fail
}
, exception => _logger.Error("Some good error message: {0}", exception)
);
or like this, if you don't want anything logged:
InvokeFailSafe(
() => {
... The code that may fail
}
);
If you code things this way, there would be no doubts about a missing throw statement.

It's an opposite solution to dasblinkenlight's answer. Instead of notifying others that the exception mustn't be rethrown it would say that it must be.
If you only want to log it then use the Error method as usual. Otherwise, you can write an extension method for your logger to log and throw exceptions.
The method would take the catched exception and rethrow it using the ExceptionDispatchInfo class. The ExceptionDispatchInfo is used to rethrow the exception with the original stack trace information and Watson information. It behaves like throw; (without the specified exception).
public static void ErrorAndThrow(this ILogger logger, string message, Exception exception)
{
var exceptionInfo = ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(exception);
logger.Error(message);
exceptionInfo.Throw();
}
And use it this way:
try
{
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// ex would be rethrown here
_logger.ErrorAndThrow("Some good error message", ex);
}

Q: Is there a way, resp. what is the default way, to explicitly NOT
rethrow (without including a comment in the code).
Ideal way would be not to catch a generic exception. Now, to throw or not that entirely depends on your case. You need to understand that Exception handling is used when you know what to do in case an exception occurs. So, only specific exceptions should be handled. Catching exceptions without knowing what you are catching will change the behavior of your application.
Now reading the code of team members I can not be sure if they forgot
to throw or if this is the intended behaviour.
This is something the author of the code can explain to you. But here is a learning to take from this. Your code should be self explanatory. In specific cases where you are unable to express yourself with the code, add a meaningful comment.
You can check this link for better understanding.

I actually found another way that kind of includes what other have suggested here, but uses a built in feature: exception filters. I was free to modify the example given in here to illustrate this:
public void MethodThatFailsSometimes()
{
try {
PerformFailingOperation();
}
catch (Exception e) when (e.LogAndBeCaught())
{
}
}
and then one could have two extension methods on Exception, say LogAndBeCaught and LogAndEscape like so:
public static bool LogAndBeCaught(this Exception e)
{
_logger.Error(#"Following exception was thrown: {e}");
return true;
}
public static bool LogAndEscape(this Exception e)
{
_logger.Error(#"Following exception was thrown: {e}");
return false;
}

How to read Google.GData.Client.GDataRequestException

I am writing a youtube upload software. Actually my question is generic here.
The Google.GData.Client produces an exception. But I don't know how to reach in order to write ?
I mean how do I access it ? I tried with E. but there is no Google.Gdata
I need to access Google.GData.Client.GDataRequestException.ResponceString

You need to change your catch clause to specify the type of exception (in your case, Google.GData.Client.GDataRequestException) so that you can access its members.
catch (Google.GData.Client.GDataRequestException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.ResponseString);
}

try {
// your GDataRequest code goes here
} catch (GDataRequestException e ) {
// your error code goes here
}

C# - Throwing exception in class

I`m writing class. Here is one of functions:
public string GetAttribute(string attrName)
{
try
{
return _config.AppSettings.Settings[attrName].Value;
} catch(Exception e)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Element not exists", attrName);
return null;
}
}
Then, I am using it in the main form MessageBox.Show(manager.GetAttribute("not_existing_element"));
Visual Studio throws an Exception at line:throw new ArgumentException("Element not exists", attrName);
but, I am want to get an Exception at line MessageBox.Show(manager.GetAttribute("not_existing_element"));
How can I do that?
P.S: Sorry for bad English.

You are misusing exception handling. In your code, if you get (for example) a NullReferenceException, you will catch it and then throw an ArgumentException.
Rewrite your method to not have any exception handling:
public string GetAttribute(string attrName)
{
return _config.AppSettings.Settings[attrName].Value;
}
This way, you are not resetting the stack trace and swallowing the original exception.
In terms of getting an exception on the calling line - you will never be able to get an exception at a line that isn't throwing an exception.

A couple of things:
First, you'll get an unreachable code warning for the return null statement in your catch, because the throw will execute before the return. You can simply delete the return null statement.
Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by getting the exception at the MessageBox line, but I think you mean you want to catch it there. Wrap the call to MessageBox in a try-catch.
try
{
MessageBox.Show(manager.GetAttribute("not_existing_element"));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}

How do I catch and ignore or handle an exception while reading data from a text file line by line

I am reading a file line by line from text file and do some processing. The problem is that if some error occurs at some line. Then an exception is generated, what I want is that I want to ignore that error and move to the next line to read.
But if an exception is generated then I cant continue reading input lines. Please help.

If I'm assuming what you're asking for correctly, here's a basic outline of what your code could look like:
using (StreamReader reader = File.OpenText("Path\to\your\file"))
{
string line = null;
while ((line = reader.ReadLine()) != null)
{
try
{
ProcessLine(line);
}
catch { /* Ignore exceptions */ }
}
}
It's generally not a good idea to blindly catch all exceptions, so if you can, you should filter the exceptions caught by your catch block to something more specific.

See exception handling. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0yd65esw(v=vs.71).aspx

If you really want to "ignore" exceptions, you can do something like:
try
{
foo(); // Something that may throw an exception
}
catch
{
}
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0yd65esw(v=vs.80).aspx for more info.
But usually, an exception means something bad happened, and you'll probably want to handle that somehow.

try
{
//put the statement throwing the exception here
}
catch
{
//will eat the exception
}
//execution will continue here

Difficult to understand what you want to achieve, but you probably are asking for something like this:
while(condition)
{
try {
//process file line here
}
catch (Exception ex) {
LogException(ex);
}
}
Not a good design decision in my opinion, by the way. Avoid it if you can.

Use a try catch and log the error. Your code would look like this:
try
{
//read lines here
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//log the exception but don't throw anything.
}
You may be tempted to do nothing in the catch, but you will likely regret it later.
Try catch article:
http://www.homeandlearn.co.uk/csharp/csharp_s5p6.html

You simply need to wrap your processing code in a try / catch block.
try
{
DoSomeProcessing(lineThatIreadFromFile);
}
catch
{
// Log or Ignore error here
}
However, please note that typically, just swallowing exceptions is never a good idea. You should either fail your program (if unrecoverable), or potentially log those somewhere so you can fix why your program is failing.

Based on the very limited information you provide there are two things you can do:
Enclose the offending line with an empty catch block. Wait for next maintainer to do bad things to you.
Understand why the exception is happening and modify the code such that the next maintainer understands why it is safe that you ignored a certain condition

This is not a good approach. You should be proactive and catch specific exceptions you can recover from. Catch them as close to the place where they are thrown from. And let the rest of them bubble up and terminate the process. By swallowing all exceptions you will get an illusion of robustness while in fact your code may be full of bugs. There is simply no 'quick and dirty' approach to exception handling. See this answer.
Avoid handling errors by catching non-specific exceptions, such as
System.Exception, System.SystemException, and so on, in application
code. There are cases when handling errors in applications is
acceptable, but such cases are rare.
An application should not handle exceptions that can result in an
unexpected or exploitable state. If you cannot predict all possible
causes of an exception and ensure that malicious code cannot exploit
the resulting application state, you should allow the application to
terminate instead of handling the exception.

You need:
using System.IO;
to get this to work.
You can try:
try
{
string path = ""; // You must add the path here. Else it won't work.
string[] lines = File.ReadAllLines(path);
foreach(string line in lines)
{
Console.WriteLine(line);
}
} catch (Exception ex, IOException ioex) {
// It's optional. You can remove "Exception ex, IOException ioex" if you want. You can delete the code below too.
Console.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine(ioex.ToString());
} finally
{
// in this "finally" section, you can place anything else. "finally" section isn't important, just shows that method has no exceptions.
// you can add something else like: Console.WriteLine("Code has no exceptions. Great!");
}
Good for advanced notepads.
EDIT: If you don't like the previous solution, this one can help you.
string path = ""; // Again, path.
string[] lines = File.ReadAllLines(path);
foreach(string line in lines)
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine(line);
} catch(Exception ex, IOException ioex)
{ /* exception */ }
}
----- or -----
string path = Console.ReadLine();
int turns = 0;
int maxturns = (File.ReadAllLines(path)).Count();
while (turns < maxturns)
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine(File.ReadLines(path).Skip(turns).Take(1).First());
} catch (Exception ex, IOException ioex) { /* exception */ }
turns++;
}

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.