I have a function "ReturnString":
public static string ReturnString(string sa, string sb)
{
try
{
...
...
return "xyz";
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new clsException(ex.Message);
}
}
it is call by more than 600 times from other more then 40 classes and win farms Mean's it has more than 600 references in more then 40 classes and win farms.
When Exception thrown by it, I want to know what is the it's last calling ref. when exception happen?
Please help me to solve this without changing function arguments.
You should initialize an instance of StackTrace class -
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.stacktrace(v=vs.110).aspx
Then, get the first StackFrame -
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.stackframe(v=vs.110).aspx
Finally, get the MethodBase of this frame; Its "Name" property is what you need -
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.reflection.methodbase(v=vs.110).aspx
Try this:
public static string ReturnString(string sa, string sb)
{
try
{
//...
//...
return "xyz";
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
StackTrace oStackTrace = new StackTrace();
string sMethodName = oStackTrace.GetFrame(1).GetMethod().Name;
//It's not a good practice to keep only the error message (you may need other exception details later)
throw new clsException(string.Format("{0}: {1}", sMethodName, ex.Message));
}
}
Your problem is here:
throw new clsException(ex.Message);
As others have mentioned, ex already contains the info you want inside the StackTrace property (check this link for more info).
But when you throw a new exception, you are only throwing the message, and ignoring all the info you want to get.
Just throw without a new exception, or include ex as the inner exception of your clsException.
I want to know what is the it's last calling ref. when exception
happen?
Then check the exception StackTrace, that will let you know the entire call stack and the latest one responsible for exception. Also the innerException property if any.
Check the documentation on Exception class. It has a property StackTrace which you should check.
In your case, the exception object should have it ex.StackTrace
You may also want to get the TargetSite property value from your exception object saying ex.TargetSite
it is allowed to use custom exception, where the exception can be thrown like below.
try
{
int foo = int.Parse(token);
}
catch (FormatException ex)
{
//Assuming you added this constructor
throw new ParserException(
$"Failed to read {token} as number.",
FileName,
LineNumber,
ex);
}
But in a normal try catch block, it says , throwing exceptions will clear the stacktrace.
try
{
ForthCall();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
So in custom exception,how it managed to use throw exception, without clear the stacktrace?
There are several ways this can be done.
As mentioned in this link In C#, how can I rethrow InnerException without losing stack trace?, you can use the ExceptionDispatchInfo Class
with code similar to
try
{
task.Wait();
}
catch(AggregateException ex)
{
ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex.InnerException).Throw();
}
Another way is to have your handler return a boolean, whether the exception was handled or not, so you can use this in your catch clause:
catch (Exception ex) {
if (!HandleException(ex)) {
throw;
}
}
where HandleException is your custom Exception handler. Gotten from this link: How to throw exception without resetting stack trace?
Whenever you use throw with an exception object, it fills in the stack trace at that point. (Compare to Java, which populates stack traces when an exception is constructed.)
If you use throw without an exception object, which you can only do in a catch clause, the caught exception object is re-throw without alteration.
Below is some logging output from a .NET application.
Error in MainFunction.
Message: Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.
InnerException:
StackTrace: at System.Text.StringBuilder.ToString()
at System.Diagnostics.StackTrace.ToString(TraceFormat traceFormat)
at System.Environment.GetStackTrace(Exception e, Boolean needFileInfo)
at System.Exception.GetStackTrace(Boolean needFileInfo)
at System.Exception.ToString(Boolean needFileLineInfo)
at System.Exception.ToString()
[the rest of the trace is removed]
Which corresponds to the following line of application code. The following is in a catch block, and returns the string to the method that actually throws:
private void MainFunction()
{
...
try
{
string doc = CreateXMLDocument(); // <- Out of Memory throws here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
CoreLogging("Error in MainFunction.", ex);
}
}
private string CreateXMLDocument()
{
try
{
//Some basic and well constrained XML document creation:
...
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return "Exception message: " + ex.ToString(); // <- This is the last line of the trace
}
}
What should I make of this? Clearly Exception.Message should be used instead of Exception.ToString(), but I'd still like to understand this. Does
at System.Text.StringBuilder.ToString()
at System.Diagnostics.StackTrace.ToString(TraceFormat traceFormat)
mean that the stack trace of the exception in CreateXMLDocument was so mammoth caused OutOfMemory? I'm curious to see how that would occur as there's definitely no circular calls in CreateXMLDocument, which is the only thing I can think of that could cause an enormous stack trace.
Has anyone else encountered a similar situation?
I little bit of guessing:
1) CLR rises a OutOfMemoryException. 2) You catch this exception and call .ToString on it
3) ToString() tries to allocate memory to the stack trace but... there is no memory and another OutOfMemoryException is rised.
In the comments you said that the XML documents have a few hundreds of kbytes, this could be a/the problem if your server run on 32bits, because of the fragmentation of the LOH.
I have a FileSystemWatch program that I'm working on and if there's an error copying a file, I want to be able to know which file it failed on. At the same time, I'd like to be able to retain the stack trace, as well as the inner exception information.
if (!found)
{
try
{
File.Copy(file, Path.Combine(watchDirectory, filename));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
WriteToLog(new Exception(
String.Format("An error occurred syncing the Vault location with the watch location. Error copying the file {0}. Error = {1}", file, ex.Message), ex.InnerException));
}
}
So, the exception that gets passed, I still want to have the stacktrace info that, the inner exception info, but I want the "message" to be my custom message that contains which file it failed on, while also displaying the "real" message that was thrown by the original exception.
I changed the new exception to accept ex as the inner exception instead of ex.InnerException. If you call ToString() on your new exception instance, it will include the full stack trace and all inner exceptions.
try
{
// ...
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
string message = String.Format("An error occurred syncing the Vault location with the watch location. Error copying the file {0}.", file);
Exception myException = new Exception(message, ex);
string exceptionString = myException.ToString(); // full stack trace
//TODO: write exceptionString to log.
throw myException;
}
What is the difference between
try { ... }
catch{ throw }
and
try{ ... }
catch(Exception e) {throw new Exception(e.message) }
regardless that the second shows a message.
throw; rethrows the original exception and preserves its original stack trace.
throw ex; throws the original exception but resets the stack trace, destroying all stack trace information until your catch block.
NEVER write throw ex;
throw new Exception(ex.Message); is even worse. It creates a brand new Exception instance, losing the original stack trace of the exception, as well as its type. (eg, IOException).
In addition, some exceptions hold additional information (eg, ArgumentException.ParamName).
throw new Exception(ex.Message); will destroy this information too.
In certain cases, you may want to wrap all exceptions in a custom exception object, so that you can provide additional information about what the code was doing when the exception was thrown.
To do this, define a new class that inherits Exception, add all four exception constructors, and optionally an additional constructor that takes an InnerException as well as additional information, and throw your new exception class, passing ex as the InnerException parameter. By passing the original InnerException, you preserve all of the original exception's properties, including the stack trace.
The first preserves the original stacktrace:
try { ... }
catch
{
// Do something.
throw;
}
The second allows you to change the type of the exception and/or the message and other data:
try { ... } catch (Exception e)
{
throw new BarException("Something broke!");
}
There's also a third way where you pass an inner exception:
try { ... }
catch (FooException e) {
throw new BarException("foo", e);
}
I'd recommend using:
the first if you want to do some cleanup in error situation without destroying information or adding information about the error.
the third if you want to add more information about the error.
the second if you want to hide information (from untrusted users).
One other point that I didn't see anyone make:
If you don't do anything in your catch {} block, having a try...catch is pointless. I see this all the time:
try
{
//Code here
}
catch
{
throw;
}
Or worse:
try
{
//Code here
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
Worst yet:
try
{
//Code here
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
throw new System.Exception(ex.Message);
}
Throwing a new Exception blows away the current stack trace.
throw; will retain the original stack trace and is almost always more useful. The exception to that rule is when you want to wrap the Exception in a custom Exception of your own. You should then do:
catch(Exception e)
{
throw new CustomException(customMessage, e);
}
None of the answers here show the difference, which could be helpful for folks struggling to understand the difference. Consider this sample code:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace ExceptionDemo
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
void fail()
{
(null as string).Trim();
}
void bareThrow()
{
try
{
fail();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw;
}
}
void rethrow()
{
try
{
fail();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw e;
}
}
void innerThrow()
{
try
{
fail();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw new Exception("outer", e);
}
}
var cases = new Dictionary<string, Action>()
{
{ "Bare Throw:", bareThrow },
{ "Rethrow", rethrow },
{ "Inner Throw", innerThrow }
};
foreach (var c in cases)
{
Console.WriteLine(c.Key);
Console.WriteLine(new string('-', 40));
try
{
c.Value();
} catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.ToString());
}
}
}
}
}
Which generates the following output:
Bare Throw:
----------------------------------------
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at ExceptionDemo.Program.<Main>g__fail|0_0() in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 12
at ExceptionDemo.Program.<>c.<Main>g__bareThrow|0_1() in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 19
at ExceptionDemo.Program.Main(String[] args) in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 64
Rethrow
----------------------------------------
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at ExceptionDemo.Program.<>c.<Main>g__rethrow|0_2() in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 35
at ExceptionDemo.Program.Main(String[] args) in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 64
Inner Throw
----------------------------------------
System.Exception: outer ---> System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at ExceptionDemo.Program.<Main>g__fail|0_0() in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 12
at ExceptionDemo.Program.<>c.<Main>g__innerThrow|0_3() in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 43
--- End of inner exception stack trace ---
at ExceptionDemo.Program.<>c.<Main>g__innerThrow|0_3() in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 47
at ExceptionDemo.Program.Main(String[] args) in C:\...\ExceptionDemo\Program.cs:line 64
The bare throw, as indicated in the previous answers, clearly shows both the original line of code that failed (line 12) as well as the two other points active in the call stack when the exception occurred (lines 19 and 64).
The output of the rethrow case shows why it's a problem. When the exception is rethrown like this the exception won't include the original stack information. Note that only the throw e (line 35) and outermost call stack point (line 64) are included. It would be difficult to track down the fail() method as the source of the problem if you throw exceptions this way.
The last case (innerThrow) is most elaborate and includes more information than either of the above. Since we're instantiating a new exception we get the chance to add contextual information (the "outer" message, here but we can also add to the .Data dictionary on the new exception) as well as preserving all of the information in the original exception (including help links, data dictionary, etc.).
throw rethrows the caught exception, retaining the stack trace, while throw new Exception loses some of the details of the caught exception.
You would normally use throw by itself to log an exception without fully handling it at that point.
BlackWasp has a good article sufficiently titled Throwing Exceptions in C#.
throw is for rethrowing a caught exception. This can be useful if you want to do something with the exception before passing it up the call chain.
Using throw without any arguments preserves the call stack for debugging purposes.
Your second example will reset the exception's stack trace. The first most accurately preserves the origins of the exception.
Also you've unwrapped the original type which is key in knowing what actually went wrong... If the second is required for functionality - e.g., to add extended information or rewrap with a special type such as a custom 'HandleableException' then just be sure that the InnerException property is set too!
Throw;: Rethrow the original exception and keep the exception type.
Throw new exception();: Rethrow the original exception type and reset the exception stack trace
Throw ex;: Reset the exception stack trace and reset the exception type
If you want you can throw a new Exception, with the original one set as an inner exception.
Most important difference is that the second expression erases the type of the exception. And the exception type plays a vital role in catching exceptions:
public void MyMethod ()
{
// both can throw IOException
try { foo(); } catch { throw; }
try { bar(); } catch(E) {throw new Exception(E.message); }
}
(...)
try {
MyMethod ();
} catch (IOException ex) {
Console.WriteLine ("Error with I/O"); // [1]
} catch (Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine ("Other error"); // [2]
}
If foo() throws an IOException, the [1] catch block will catch the exception. But when bar() throws IOException, it will be converted to plain Exception and won't be caught by the [1] catch block.
throw or throw ex, both are used to throw or rethrow the exception, when you just simply log the error information and don't want to send any information back to the caller you simply log the error in catch and leave.
But in case you want to send some meaningful information about the exception to the caller you use throw or throw ex. Now the difference between throw and throw ex is that throw preserves the stack trace and other information, but throw ex creates a new exception object and hence the original stack trace is lost.
So when should we use throw and throw e? There are still a few situations in which you might want to rethrow an exception like to reset the call stack information.
For example, if the method is in a library and you want to hide the details of the library from the calling code, you don’t necessarily want the call stack to include information about private methods within the library. In that case, you could catch exceptions in the library’s public methods and then rethrow them so that the call stack begins at those public methods.