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;
}

Correct way to pass errors back to the calling code

I have a function called connect like so:
public boolean connnect(){
{
..... connecting codde
if(connectionSuccessfull)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
This is a very basic form of error handling, I want to upgrade this function to handle errors correctly. Such as not just tell me false there was an error, but be able to say, error, Authentication failed, or Time-out error etc.
This information then needs to be sent back up the line to the Caller so it can know what happened.
What is the correct way to go about doing this?
{EDIT}
In my care its quite probable that an exception will occur I would say 50% of the time.
I have come up with this, does it look partially correct?
namespace MobileWebServices.Exceptions
{
//Timeout
public abstract class TimeOutException : Exception
{
}
public class ConnectingTimeOutException : TimeoutException
{
}
public class DissconnectingTimeOutException : TimeoutException
{
}
//Authetntication
public abstract class AuthenticationException : Exception
{
}
public class BadAuthenticationException : AuthenticationException
{
}
}

Something along the lines of:
public void Connect()
{
try
{
//code here to look-up the connection details
if(!ValidateConnectionDetails(details))
throw new InvalidOperationException("The connection details are not valid.");
//code here to establish the connection
if(SomeTestThatShowsWereNotHappyWithTheConnection())
throw new Exception("The connection is bad, for some reason");
}
catch(SocketException se)
{
//We'd only have this block if a socket exception is possible. We might just allow it to pass on up.
throw; // User now gets the exception we got, exactly.
//We might re-throw the error, but from here so the stack-trace goes to here rather than the innards of this method:
throw se;
//Most usefully we might throw a new exception that contains this as an inner exception:
throw new Exception("Connecting failed", se);
//Or even better, we might throw a more well-defined exception, that relates to this operation more specifically, with or without the inner exception, depending on whether that is likely to be useful:
throw new ConnectionException("Some message, or maybe just a default is defined in the constructor");
//OR:
throw new ConnectionException("Some message, or maybe just a default is defined in the constructor", se);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//If we get to an exception ourselves that isn't of a particular type we're expecting, we probably shouldn't catch it at all. We might though want to note the exception before re-throwing it, or throw a more specific connection with this as an inner-exception:
Log(ex);
throw;
}
}
Because you're no longer returning a value to indicate success, you could also now return an object that represents the connection you created:
public ConnectionObject Connect()
{
// Much as above, but returning the object before the end of the `try`.
}
Returning values representing failure should only be done if that failure is both likely to happen, and something you expect the calling code to be able to reasonably react to right at the point of calling. This isn't that likely with code to connect since the calling code could be code that e.g. connects and then does an operation, and the code calling that in turn is where the exception (whether from here or the subsequent operation) should be caught - it's the code that ultimately cares about the failing.
In the latter case, then returning a value indicating the failure makes a lot more sense. Here though, I'd probably still consider an exception, because it can encapsulate more information, be used by coders in the normal way they use other .NET methods, and because the calling code is probably not written thinking "try to get the connection and then if it works..." it's written thinking "get the connection and then..." with the error case being exactly that; an error case. (For comparison, a method like int.TryParse() is to answer the question "does this string represent an integer, and if so what is it?" where the method int.Parse() answers the question "what is the integer in this string?" with there not being an integer being an error condition).
To think of it another way. Are you currently using a web-browser to browse the web, or are you using it to try to browse the web? Your internet connection could die on you, stopping you from continuing to read these answers, but you'd consider that a problem in what you were trying to do.

The normal approach is to throw an exception (perhaps of a user-defined type), and then to catch those exceptions at a higher level.
If for some reason you cannot use exceptions, you could instead write a wrapper class that encompassed an error message (which would be null if no error occurred) and the bool result (which would only be relevant if the error message is null).
However, I would recommend using exceptions. (The only issue might be whether or not you need to globalise the error message string in the exception, but the consensus is that you should not.)

Here is a sample on how things should be done :
First use your connect() method to return an object (like a Socket for example).
Return a null one if it fails connecting without throwing an Exception.
In your connect() method try/catch your connecting instructions, and rethrow those catched.
Then in the calling method, catch all the Exceptions that can be thrown, and check if the returned object is null or not.
Here is an example of code using Sockets :
public static Socket connect()
{
Socket s = null;
try
{
IPEndPoint iEP = new IPEndPoint("127.0.0.1", 8080);
s = new Socket(iEP.AddressFamily, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);
s.Connect(iEP);
if(!s.Connected)
{
return null;
}
}
catch(Exception e)
{
throw e;// Rethrow the Exception to the caller
}
return s;
}
public static void Main(String[] args)
{
Socket mySocket = null;
try
{
mySocket = connect();
}
catch(SocketException e)
{
// TODO - Detailed error about a SocketException
Console.Error.WriteLine("SocketException: " + e.Message + "(" + e.ErrorCode + ")");
}
catch(SecurityException e)
{
// TODO - Detailed error about a SecurityException
Console.Error.WriteLine("SecurityException: " + e.Message);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
// TODO - Detailed error about those Exceptions :
// ArgumentNullException, ObjectDisposedException and InvalidOperationException
Console.Error.WriteLine(e.GetType() + ": " + e.Message);
}
if(mySocket == null)
{
// TODO - Error while initializing the Socket
Console.Error.WriteLine("Error while initializing the Socket");
}
// TODO - Use your Socket here
}

I think the best way is using the try catch exception surrounding your call with the exception you want :
catch(TimeoutException ex)
{
//Do something
}
catch(SqlException ex)
{
//do something
}
//....
catch(Exception ex)
{
//do something
}
Make sure of the order of your catch ( the global Exception in last)

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.

Additional try statement in catch statement - code smell?

Situation:
My application need to process the first step in the business rules (the initial try-catch statement). If an certain error occurs when the process calls the helper method during the step, I need to switch to a second process in the catch statement. The back up process uses the same helper method. If an same error occurs during the second process, I need to stop the entire process and throw the exception.
Implementation:
I was going to insert another try-catch statement into the catch statement of the first try-catch statement.
//run initial process
try
{
//initial information used in helper method
string s1 = "value 1";
//call helper method
HelperMethod(s1);
}
catch(Exception e1)
{
//backup information if first process generates an exception in the helper method
string s2 = "value 2";
//try catch statement for second process.
try
{
HelperMethod(s2);
}
catch(Exception e2)
{
throw e2;
}
}
What would be the correct design pattern to avoid code smells in this implementation?
I caused some confusion and left out that when the first process fails and switches to the second process, it will send different information to the helper method. I have updated the scenario to reflect the entire process.

If the HelperMethod needs a second try, there is nothing directly wrong with this, but your code in the catch tries to do way too much, and it destroys the stacktrace from e2.
You only need:
try
{
//call helper method
HelperMethod();
}
catch(Exception e1)
{
// maybe log e1, it is getting lost here
HelperMethod();
}

I wouldn't say it is bad, although I'd almost certainly refactor the second block of code into a second method, so keep it comprehensible. And probably catch something more specific than Exception. A second try is sometimes necessary, especially for things like Dispose() implementations that might themselves throw (WCF, I'm looking at you).

The general idea putting a try-catch inside the catch of a parent try-catch doesn't seem like a code-smell to me. I can think of other legitimate reasons for doing this - for instance, when cleaning up an operation that failed where you do not want to ever throw another error (such as if the clean-up operation also fails). Your implementation, however, raises two questions for me: 1) Wim's comment, and 2) do you really want to entirely disregard why the operation originally failed (the e1 Exception)? Whether the second process succeeds or fails, your code does nothing with the original exception.

Generally speaking, this isn't a problem, and it isn't a code smell that I know of.
With that said, you may want to look at handling the error within your first helper method instead of just throwing it (and, thus, handling the call to the second helper method in there). That's only if it makes sense, but it is a possible change.

Yes, a more general pattern is have the basic method include an overload that accepts an int attempt parameter, and then conditionally call itself recursively.
private void MyMethod (parameterList)
{ MyMethod(ParameterList, 0)l }
private void MyMethod(ParameterList, int attempt)
{
try { HelperMethod(); }
catch(SomeSpecificException)
{
if (attempt < MAXATTEMPTS)
MyMethod(ParameterList, ++attempt);
else throw;
}
}

It shouldn't be that bad. Just document clearly why you're doing it, and most DEFINITELY try catching a more specific Exception type.

If you need some retry mechanism, which it looks like, you may want to explore different techniques, looping with delays etc.

It would be a little clearer if you called a different function in the catch so that a reader doesn't think you're just retrying the same function, as is, over again. If there's state happening that's not being shown in your example, you should document it carefully, at a minimum.
You also shouldn't throw e2; like that: you should simply throw; if you're going to work with the exception you caught at all. If not, you shouldn't try/catch.
Where you do not reference e1, you should simply catch (Exception) or better still catch (YourSpecificException)

If you're doing this to try and recover from some sort of transient error, then you need to be careful about how you implement this.
For example, in an environment where you're using SQL Server Mirroring, it's possible that the server you're connected to may stop being the master mid-connection.
In that scenario, it may be valid for your application to try and reconnect, and re-execute any statements on the new master - rather than sending an error back to the caller immediately.
You need to be careful to ensure that the methods you're calling don't have their own automatic retry mechanism, and that your callers are aware there is an automatic retry built into your method. Failing to ensure this can result in scenarios where you cause a flood of retry attempts, overloading shared resources (such as Database servers).
You should also ensure you're catching exceptions specific to the transient error you're trying to retry. So, in the example I gave, SqlException, and then examining to see if the error was that the SQL connection failed because the host was no longer the master.
If you need to retry more than once, consider placing an 'automatic backoff' retry delay - the first failure is retried immediately, the second after a delay of (say) 1 second, then doubled up to a maximum of (say) 90 seconds. This should help prevent overloading resources.
I would also suggest restructuring your method so that you don't have an inner-try/catch.
For example:
bool helper_success = false;
bool automatic_retry = false;
//run initial process
try
{
//call helper method
HelperMethod();
helper_success = true;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
// check if e is a transient exception. If so, set automatic_retry = true
}
if (automatic_retry)
{ //try catch statement for second process.
try
{
HelperMethod();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
throw;
}
}

Here's another pattern:
// set up state for first attempt
if(!HelperMethod(false)) {
// set up state for second attempt
HelperMethod(true);
// no need to try catch since you're just throwing anyway
}
Here, HelperMethod is
bool HelperMethod(bool throwOnFailure)
and the return value indicates whether or not success occurred (i.e., false indicates failure and true indicates success). You could also do:
// could wrap in try/catch
HelperMethod(2, stateChanger);
where HelperMethod is
void HelperMethod(int numberOfTries, StateChanger[] stateChanger)
where numberOfTries indicates the number of times to try before throwing an exception and StateChanger[] is an array of delegates that will change the state for you between calls (i.e., stateChanger[0] is called before the first attempt, stateChanger[1] is called before the second attempt, etc.)
This last option indicates that you might have a smelly setup though. It looks like the class that is encapsulating this process is responsible for both keeping track of state (which employee to look up) as well as looking up the employee (HelperMethod). By SRP, these should be separate.
Of course, you need to a catch a more specific exception than you currently are (don't catch the base class Exception!) and you should just throw instead of throw e if you need to rethrow the exception after logging, cleanup, etc.

You could emulate C#'s TryParse method signatures:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Exception ex;
Console.WriteLine("trying 'ex'");
if (TryHelper("ex", out ex))
{
Console.WriteLine("'ex' worked");
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("'ex' failed: " + ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine("trying 'test'");
if (TryHelper("test", out ex))
{
Console.WriteLine("'test' worked");
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("'test' failed: " + ex.Message);
throw ex;
}
}
}
private static bool TryHelper(string s, out Exception result)
{
try
{
HelperMethod(s);
result = null;
return true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// log here to preserve stack trace
result = ex;
return false;
}
}
private static void HelperMethod(string s)
{
if (s.Equals("ex"))
{
throw new Exception("s can be anything except 'ex'");
}
}
}

Another way is to flatten the try/catch blocks, useful if you're using some exception-happy API:
public void Foo()
{
try
{
HelperMethod("value 1");
return; // finished
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// possibly log exception
}
try
{
HelperMethod("value 2");
return; // finished
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// possibly log exception
}
// ... more here if needed
}

An option for retry (that most people will probably flame) would be to use a goto. C# doesn't have filtered exceptions but this could be used in a similar manner.
const int MAX_RETRY = 3;
public static void DoWork()
{
//Do Something
}
public static void DoWorkWithRetry()
{
var #try = 0;
retry:
try
{
DoWork();
}
catch (Exception)
{
#try++;
if (#try < MAX_RETRY)
goto retry;
throw;
}
}

In this case you know this "exception" probably will happen so I would prefer a simple approach an leave exceptions for the unknown events.
//run initial process
try
{
//initial information used in helper method
string s1 = "value 1";
//call helper method
if(!HelperMethod(s1))
{
//backup information if first process generates an exception in the helper method
string s2 = "value 2";
if(!HelperMethod(s2))
{
return ErrorOfSomeKind;
}
}
return Ok;
}
catch(ApplicationException ex)
{
throw;
}

I know that I've done the above nested try catch recently to handle decoding data where two third party libraries throw exceptions on failure to decode (Try json decode, then try base64 decode), but my preference is to have functions return a value which can be checked.
I generally only use the throwing of exceptions to exit early and notify something up the chain about the error if it's fatal to the process.
If a function is unable to provide a meaningful response, that is not typically a fatal problem (Unlike bad input data).
It seems like the main risk in nested try catch is that you also end up catching all the other (maybe important) exceptions that might occur.

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
}
}
}