Develop Reference

Inheritance exception on exist exception

I have some functions that throw exceptions. I want that the code block that catch them also throw exception based on the exception that throw but with more parameters like ID and Note. how can I do that?
If any one can give me even direction it will be good!
Thanks (sorry for my English...)
Example for what I want (I know is not valid code...)
catch (Exception e)
{
LogException l=e;
l.Note = "note...";
l.ID = 12;
throw l;
}

You would need to define your own exception (inherited from Exception) that had those extra properties. See here for the basic format a custom exception should take
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229064(v=vs.100).aspx
(Note that you should make the exception serializable.) you just add your extra properties.
Once you have created the exception class (LogException in your case) then your above code will work.

Try this.
try
{
//....kaboom
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
var newEX= new Exception("custom message", ex);
newEX.Data.Add("any key", "any obj");
throw newEX;
}

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.

Unhandled exception when calling throw

catch (OracleException e)
{
Cursor.Current = Cursors.Default;
_instance = null;
if (e.ErrorCode == -2147483648) // {"ORA-01017: invalid username/password; logon denied"}
{
throw new Exception("Nepravilno ime uporabnika ali geslo");
}
else
{
throw new Exception("Ne morem se povezati na podatkovno bazo. Preveri povezavo!");
}
}
but i always get Unhandled exception. Why?

At the risk of stating the obvious... Because you're not catching the Exception you throw in your catch block? Or, perhaps, something else is being thrown in the try block that isn't an OracleException.
What are you expecting to happen?
Just to be totally clear (to make sure that we're on the same page), an exception that's thrown but never caught will result in an unhandled exception (by definition). Throwing an exception from within a catch block is identical to throwing it from anywhere else; there still needs to be a try-catch somewhere to catch it. For example, this exception will be caught:
try {
throw new Exception("Out of cheese error"); // Caught below
}
catch (Exception) { }
But this one results in a new exception being propogated:
try {
throw new Exception("Out of cheese error"); // Caught below
}
catch (Exception) {
throw new Exception("418: I'm a teapot"); // Never caught
}
And this code catches both exceptions:
try {
try {
throw new Exception("Out of cheese error"); // Caught in inner catch
}
catch (Exception) {
throw new Exception("418: I'm a teapot"); // Caught in outer catch
}
}
catch (Exception e) {
Console.WriteLine(e.Message); // "418: I'm a teapot"
}

Your code does not in anyway swallow an exception. All it does is catch one type of exception and throw another type of exception. If you have an unhandled exception before you write this code, you will still have one after you write it.
--UPDATE --
Referring to your comment to another answer, if you want to display a message and stop executing code then try:-
catch (OracleException e)
{
Cursor.Current = Cursors.Default;
_instance = null;
if (e.ErrorCode == -2147483648) // {"ORA-01017: invalid username/password; logon denied"}
{
MessageBox.Show("Nepravilno ime uporabnika ali geslo");
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("Ne morem se povezati na podatkovno bazo. Preveri povezavo!");
}
// this exits the program - you can also take other appropriate action here
Environment.FailFast("Exiting because of blah blah blah");
}

I assume you call hierarchy look like this:
Main
|-YourMethod
try {}
catch (OracleException) {throw new Exception("blah blah")}
So you see, the OracleException which occured in YourMethod is being caught by catch block, but then you throw a new one which goes into Main, where nothing handles it. So you should add an exception handler on the previous level.
Also, do not hide the original OracleException, throw your exception this way throw new Exception("your message", e). This will preserve the call stack.

Because you're only handling the OracleException. Nothing is handling the Exception() you are throwing.
You're catching the OracleException which means you're prepared to handle it - what does handling it mean to you? Logging it and moving on? Setting some state and moving on? Surely, you don't want to pop up gui in a data access component right? If you're not prepared to handle it, let it bubble up and handle it at an outer layer.
You also shouldn't throw exceptions of type Exception. Create your own strongly typed exceptions so they can be handled, or, simply log and call throw; which rethrows the original.
If you throw a new type of exception ensure you're passing the original exception as the inner exception to ensure you're not hiding details.
I did a write up on some best practices with C# exceptions:
Trying to understand exceptions in C#
Hope that helps

throw-catch logic

try
{
try
{
throw new Exception("From Try");
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("From Catch");
}
finally
{
throw new Exception("From Finally");
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
The above code's output is: From Finally.
Why it's not From Catch?
-or-
How can i catch & log from outside both exceptions?

Because the finally block executes after the catch block, overriding the exception.
And when an exception happens during the handling of an earlier one, the first one is lost.
How can i catch & log from outside both exceptions?
By not throwing inside a finally block. That is always a bad idea.
If you want to log in an inner catch block use throw; or pass the first exception as InnerException of the new one. That is why InnerException exists.

This is the behaviour as it is defined by the C# language specification. Handling of the exception thrown inside the try block is aborted and instead the exception thrown in the finally block will be handled.
The relevant section 8.9.5 The throw statement explains how exceptions are propagates:
In the current function member, each try statement that encloses the throw point is examined. For each statement S, starting with the innermost try statement and ending with the outermost try statement, the following steps are evaluated:
If the try block of S encloses the throw point and if S has one or more catch clauses, the catch clauses are examined in order of appearance to locate a suitable handler for the exception. The first catch clause that specifies the exception type or a base type of the exception type is considered a match. A general catch clause (§8.10) is considered a match for any exception type. If a matching catch clause is located, the exception propagation is completed by transferring control to the block of that catch clause.
Otherwise, if the try block or a catch block of S encloses the throw point and if S has a finally block, control is transferred to the finally block. If the finally block throws another exception, processing of the current exception is terminated. Otherwise, when control reaches the end point of the finally block, processing of the current exception is continued.

Add an extra layer of try-catch blocks like the following:
try {
Exception fromCatch = null;
try {
throw new Exception("From Try");
}
catch {
try {
throw new Exception("From Catch");
}
catch (Exception e) {
// catch failed -> store exception
fromCatch = e;
}
}
finally {
try {
throw new Exception("From Finally");
}
catch (Exception e) {
// i can think of better exception merging... but this shows the idea
throw new Exception(e.Message, fromCatch);
}
// throw fromCatch, in case "From Finally did not happen"
throw fromCatch;
}
}
catch (Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
if (ex.InnerException != null) {
Console.WriteLine(ex.InnerException.Message);
}
}
Reports:
From Finally
From Catch
Edit: this is obviously the answer for question two, as the "why" is answered sufficiently :)

finally always runs; and it always runs last. So the lat thing done by the inner try was the finally and that threw something that was caught by the outer catch
not sure if i understand part2 of the question

finally happens no matter what. Regardless of whether there was an exception in the try or catch. Thus, you see "From Finally". (This actually is the entire purpose of the finally clause. So you can put code in there that will clean up resources and the like no matter what -- even if there's an exception.)

Your code throws a new Exception from each part of the try/catch/finally statement. You are essentially swallowing the previous exception when you create the new error. You can add your "From Try" message to your "From Catch" message with something like
catch(Exception ex)
{
throw new Exception(ex.Message + ":" + "From Catch");
}
I don't know know how you could chain that in the finally though.

This is a very good question, and one that is kind of tricky. Let's go through this step by step:
try
{
throw new Exception("From Try");
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("From Catch");
}
In the code above, Exception("From Try") is thrown and caught by the catch clause (pretty simple so far). The catch clause throws an exception of it's own, which normally we would expect (because the catch is nested in a larger try-catch block) to be caught immediately, but...
finally
{
throw new Exception("From Finally");
}
The finally clause, which is guaranteed to (try to) execute, comes first, and throws an exception of it's own, overwriting the Exception("From Catch") that was thrown earlier.
"A common usage of catch and finally
together is to obtain and use
resources in a try block, deal with
exceptional circumstances in a catch
block, and release the resources in
the finally block" - MSDN Article
Following this train of logic, we should try our best to refrain from writing code in our catch and finally blocks that is exception-prone. If you're worried about situations like the one you presented cropping up, I'd recommend logging the exceptions and their related information out to an external file, which you can reference for debugging.

Because the finally block is always executed.
try
{
try
{
throw new Exception("From Try");
// (1) A new exception object A is created here and thrown.
}
catch // (2) Exception object A is catched.
{
throw new Exception("From Catch");
// (3) A new exception object B is created here and thrown.
}
finally // (4) Execution is forced to continue here!
{
throw new Exception("From Finally");
// (5) A new exception object C is created here and thrown.
}
}
catch (Exception ex) // (6) Exception object C is catched.
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
Every new'd exception object in step (3) and (5) discards the previous one. Since the finally block is always executed all what remains is the exception object C from step (5).

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
}
}
}