Simple, I have catch(Exception e) everywhere in my code.
However, I would like to have a type which wouldn't be caught by this catch..
I looked up all the types and try most of them and they seem to all be caught... SystemException, etc.
How could I throw an error that skip this catch?
In C# 6.0 you can define exception filters which would allow you to do what you want, although if you are needing to do this, you probably need to address the real source of the issue.
try
{
...
}
catch (Exception ex) if (ex.GetType() != typeof(YourExceptionToIgnore))
{
...
}
FYI, catching an exception of type Exception is advised against in the framework guidelines - as mentioned elsewhere in this post, you should be only catching the specific exception types you expect to be raised.
You can't. However, you can code in such a way that the catch block does nothing or you can place things that have to happen into the finally block
I would like to have a type which wouldn't be caught by this catch
Catch the more specific "type" you want before the catch(Exception e). That way, you could specifically handle the more specific "type" of Exception
As others suggesting you should only catch specific type exception as recommended practice. Though you can use exception filters which are available in latest version of C# 6.
try
{
// Some exception
}
catch (Exception e) if (e.Getype() != typeof(YourCustomException))
{
// handle exception except of type YourCustomException
}
You could try an empty catch, or a switch-case within your catch.
Related
I have there piece of code
//Code 1 Code 2 Code 3
try try try
{ { {
//Exp occur //Exp occur //Exp occur
} } }
catch (Exception e) catch (Exception) catch
{ { {
//Handle exp //Handle exp //Handle exp
} } }
What is the difference between all of three codes
P.S. I'm new to C# and as far as Java or Objective-C is concerned this syntax throws error
Code 1
Its catching Exception in an object e which can be later used for exception handling. For example you can log the Message property or view stack trace using e.Message or e.StackTrace
Code 2
You are catching all the exception of the base type Exception but since you don't have any object related to it, you can only throw that exception so that it can bubble up or you may ignore the exception. If in that code you had :
catch(InvalidCastException)
Then all the InvalidCastException will be handled in the block without the exception object
Code 3
You are catching all type of exceptions irrespective of their type, which is similar to your code 2 with base class Exception
try-catch - MSDN
Although the catch clause can be used without arguments to catch any
type of exception, this usage is not recommended. In general, you
should only catch those exceptions that you know how to recover from.
Its always better if you catch specific exceptions before catching the base one. Something like.
try
{
}
catch(InvalidCastException ex)
{
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
}
try - catch - MSDN
It is possible to use more than one specific catch clause in the same
try-catch statement. In this case, the order of the catch clauses is
important because the catch clauses are examined in order. Catch the
more specific exceptions before the less specific ones. The compiler
produces an error if you order your catch blocks so that a later block
can never be reached.
Code 1 - fairly normal catch, hopefully doesn't need explanation
Code 2 - You want to execute a particular piece of code when a particular exception occurs, but you have no intention of actually interacting with the exception object. Should almost always have a throw; statement at the end, so that someone else higher up the stack who does care can catch it.
Code 3 - You want the code to execute for any exception(*) (except for any caught by earlier catch clauses of the same try). Again, should almost always include a throw; so that higher code can catch and actually process the exception.
At some level (possibly just at the top level, in the unhandled exception handlers for whatever environment you're in), something ought to be inspecting the exception object and probably logging it (if possible).
Here if you want to use the variable 'e' for getting the Exception message, Line or type.
//Code 1
try
{
//Exp occur
}
catch (Exception e)
{
//Handle exp
}
Below code for getting particular type of Exception and not dealing with Exception variable.
//Code 2
try
{
//Exp occur
}
catch (Exception)
{
//Handle exp
}
Below code catching all types of exceptions.
//Code 3
try
{
//Exp occur
}
catch
{
//Handle exp
}
if you plan to actually use the exception object, to log its properties to a log file or to show a message box or to throw another kind of exception and pass the current exception to its constructor, then you must use the first of the three (most left one).
in general the most used approach is the first one anyway, if you want to handle different kind of exceptions separately you can have multiple catch blocks starting with the most specialized on top and have the one you wrote at the bottom so that all exceptions not already handled will end in the generic catch block.
Nothing. They all catch EVERY exception that could possibly occur (by catching base type Exception or just any). This is typically frowned upon, for good reason. You should catch specific exceptions in the order you expect, and then if you do want to catch all exceptions catch Exception at the end.
try
{
}
catch (MyCustomException)
{
// do something for your custom exception
}
catch (Exception)
{
// do something for everything else
}
When you specify a variable for your exception such as catch (Exception e) you will have access to the stack trace (and other exception information) via e.Property or simply e.ToString() for the full message. It's also best practice to throw the exception when caught (well, unless you want to suppress it at this level and not allow your calling code to see the exception) so it bubbles up and you preserve the stack trace:
catch (Exception e)
{
// do something with e
throw;
}
Code 1 catches every exception (in your case!) and declares it, so you can use it later e.g. for Error-Messages.
MessageBox.Show(e.Message);
Code 2 also catches every exception (in your case!), but you can't use it, because it is not declared.
These two methods are not designed for that, they're designed to catch specific or custom exceptions.
try
{
//mycode
}catch(MyException myExc)
{
//TODO HERE
Console.Write(myExc.Message);
}
The third one catches all exceptions. Because there is no definition.
Take a look at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/0yd65esw%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
to learn more about exceptions in C#.
Differences:
Declaring Exception Parameter ex allows you to access the Exception object, in order to see and work with its properties, fields, methods and the like. This "ex" variable works like any parameter in any method.
Declaring Exception Type without parameter ex allows you to separate several "catch" areas for different types of exception. It is useless, and functionally equivalent to code sample 3 as you define it here, but if you need to do different actions depending on the type of the exception, and you do not need to access the exception object (you only need to know the type of the exception), then this is your way to go.
Untyped Catch Exception Handler allows you to add a fallback for any Exception that might be thrown, whatever its type. Since it is not parameterized, however, you won't have access to the Exception object's properties or methods. Both code sample 2 and code sample 3 therefore are equivalent.
Example:
try{ // code that throws exception }
catch(TypeException ex)
{
// code to handle exceptions of type TypeException
// I can access ex parameter, for example to show its Message property
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
catch(OtherTypeException)
{
// code to handle exceptions of type OtherTypeException
// I cannot access the ex parameter since it is not declared, but I know
// the exact type of the exception
MessageBox.Show("There was an exception of Other Type");
}
catch
{
// code to handle any other exception
// this is functionally equivalent to catch(Exception) since all typed exceptions
// inherit from the base type Exception
MessageBox.Show("An unknown exception has been thrown.");
}
...
In cases when you use a try catch block as such.
try {
//Do my work!
}
catch
{
//Handle my exception
}
Is there some way to refer to the exception object in the catch block?
ie:
try {
//Do my work!
}
catch
{
//Handle my exception
MyUndefinedExceptionObject.Message ????
}
EDIT: I don't think I was clear
enough. I am aware of how one would
typically catch exceptions using a try
catch block. What I am wondering is
given you have the ability to not
specify a type for your exception yet
declare the block is there still some
way of retrieving the exception object
in such cases? Judging by your answers
however I assume there isn't?
You'll want to catch the exception type you care about. When you do, you'll have access to all the properties of that exception.
try
{
//Do my work!
}
catch (MyExceptionType e)
{
string s = e.Message;
}
Here's a reference in MSDN, to get up to speed.
Regarding your edit: no there is no way to access the thrown exception unless the exception is explicitly specified in your catch statement.
Yes, like this:
try
{
//Do my work!
}
catch (mySpecificException myEx)
{
//Handle my exception
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Handle my exception
}
(Most specific to least specific)
No.
Using the bare catch indicates that you do not care about the actual exception otherwise, why not use
catch (System.Exception ex)
to catch any exception? Of course, you should only catch exceptions you will handle.
You need to indicate the specific type of exception that you are catching, and assign that to a variable.
Do that using this syntax instead:
try
{
// Do work
}
catch (MyUndefinedExceptionObject ex)
{
Debug.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
You can also include multiple catch blocks with the type of exception altered accordingly. However, remember that you should always order them from most derived to least derived, ending with the base class for all exceptions, System.Exception.
You also should generally refrain from catching System.Exception, instead preferring only to catch the derived exceptions that you can handle in the catch block and that won't corrupt your program's state. Catching System.Exception class is a bad idea because you'll also catch exceptions that you won't be able to handle, like an OutOfMemoryException or a StackOverflowException.
Microsoft has a helpful article on best practices here: Best Practices for Handling Exceptions
try {
}
catch (Exception) {
}
can I just write
try {
}
catch {
}
Is this ok in C# .NET 3.5? The code looks nicer, but I don't know if it's the same.
They are not the same.
catch (Exception) { } will catch managed exceptions only; catch { } will catch non-CLS exceptions as well: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/bb264489.aspx
An unhandled non-CLS compliant
exception becomes a security issue
when previously allowed permissions
are removed in the catch block.
Because non-CLS compliant exceptions
are not caught, a malicious method
that throws a non-CLS compliant
exception could run with elevated
permissions.
Edit: Turns out .NET 2.0+ wraps the values -- so they are the same. That's a bit of a relief!
Yes, the advantage of the first form is that you can name the exception variable and then use the object to log the exception details to file, etc...
try {
}
catch (Exception ex) {
// Log exception message here...
}
Also, it is generally a bad practice to catch the generic Exception class if you can instead catch specific exceptions (such as an IOException) using the first form.
Edit: As of C# 2.0, non-CLS-compliant exceptions can be caught in both ways.
So, yes. They are identical. A parameter-less catch clause without a Type declaration catches all Exceptions.
In the CLR 2.0, MS introduced RuntimeWrappedException, which is a CLS-compliant exception type, to encapsulate non-CLS-compliant exceptions. The C# compiler still doesn't allow you to throw them, but it can catch them with the catch (Exception) { } syntax.
This is why the C# compiler will issue warning CS1058 if you use both clauses at the same time on CLR 2.0 or later.
Thus, they are in fact identical.
Its the same, but if you put an e after Exception in your first example then you know what exception was thrown...
edit: you should never catch exception, how do you know how to handle it properly?
They are different as noted:
An unhandled non-CLS compliant exception becomes a security issue when previously allowed permissions are removed in the catch block. Because non-CLS compliant exceptions are not caught, a malicious method that throws a non-CLS compliant exception could run with elevated permissions.
You can see the difference in the IL generated:
//no (Exception)
.try L_0001 to L_0005 catch object handler L_0005 to L_000a
//with (Exception)
.try L_0001 to L_0005 catch [mscorlib]System.Exception handler L_0005 to L_000a
I guess unless you want to use the Exception in some sort, the second one is perfectly fine, though in order to use the exception in the first one, you need to declare a variable like this:
try {
}
catch (Exception e) {
//do something with e
}
Both of your examples appear like you're not doing anything with the exception data. This is generally not a good practice. But both are exactly the same since all exceptions classes are derived from System.Exception.
You should consider doing some type of logging then possibly rethrow the original exception or wrap it in a more specialized exception that your application can understand.
try
{
// Some code here
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Do some logging
throw;
}
OR
try
{
// Some code here
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Do some logging
// wrap your exception in some custom exception
throw new CustomException("Some custom error message, ex);
}
You should typically only catch exceptions that your code could handle, otherwise it should bubble up and it should eventually be caught by a global exception handler assuming you have one.
Parameter less constructor will cause handling of exception types coming from some other languages, exception which are not inherited from c# SYSTEM.EXCEPTION class.
what is a best practice in cases such as this one:
try
{
// do something
}
catch (SpecificException ex)
{
Response.Redirect("~/InformUserAboutAn/InternalException/");
}
the warning i get is that ex is never used.
however all i need here is to inform the user, so i don't have a need for it.
do i just do:
try
{
// do something
}
catch
{
Response.Redirect("~/InformUserAboutAn/InternalException/");
}
somehow i don't like that, seems strange!!? any tips? best practices?
what would be the way to handle this.
thnx
You just don't declare the variable:
try
{
// do something
}
catch (SpecificException)
{
Response.Redirect("~/InformUserAboutAn/InternalException/");
}
This is a moot point when catching System.Exception (in your original example, which is not exactly the same as an empty catch -- an empty catch will also catch COM exceptions, for instance), but this is the correct construct to use.
If you run your code through other analysis engines (Gendarme, for instance), you will also be warned that catching a plain Exception is poor practice because it can mask other exceptions besides what you really wanted to catch. That's bitten me a few times while maintaining legacy code -- we were catching and ignoring an Exception on a file delete (or something like that), but the main logic wasn't working correctly. We should have been only catching an IOException, but we were catching and discarding the NullReferenceException that was causing the failure.
That's not to say you never should catch Exception; just rarely.
If you don't need Exception's variable to get some information from it, don't declare it
try { }
catch ( )
is equal to
try { }
catch (Exception) { }
Use this
try { }
catch (Exception ex) { var m = ex.Message; }
if you need some information to gather.
Use this
try { }
catch (FooException) { }
catch (BarException) { }
if you need to catch only specific types of exceptions, i.e. SomeAnotherException will not be caught.
It would be better if you just let the exception bubble all the way up and use an application wide exception handler or something like ELMAH. Usually you'll want to log the exception or something so there's a record of stuff failing.
Any reason why you wouldn't let unhandled exceptions simply throw and use the Application Level error handling built into ASP.NET? See How to: Handle Application-Level Errors for more details.
I usually declare it and suffer with the warning since it can be very useful to be able to look at the exception details while debugging.
There are two reasons to declare an exception variable in a catch block. To catch only specific exception types or to do something with the exception info. In your case you are doing neither so t serves no purpose.
What are your thoughts on code that looks like this:
public void doSomething()
{
try
{
// actual code goes here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw;
}
}
The problem I see is the actual error is not handled, just throwing the exception in a different place. I find it more difficult to debug because i don't get a line number where the actual problem is.
So my question is why would this be good?
---- EDIT ----
From the answers it looks like most people are saying it's pointless to do this with no custom or specific exceptions being caught. That's what i wanted comments on, when no specific exception is being caught. I can see the point of actually doing something with a caught exception, just not the way this code is.
Depending on what quality you are looking at it is not throwing the exception in a different place. "throw" without a target rethrows the exception which is very different from throwing an exception. Primarily a rethrow does not reset the stack trace.
In this particular sample, the catch is pointless because it doesn't do anything. The exception is happily rethrown and it's almost as if the try/catch didn't exist.
I think the construction should be used for handling the exceptions you know you will be throwing inside your code; if other exception is raised, then just rethrow.
Take into account that
throw;
is different than
throw ex;
throw ex will truncate the stack to the new point of throwing, losing valuable info about the exception.
public void doSomething()
{
try
{
// actual code goes here
}
catch (EspecificException ex)
{
HandleException(ex);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw;
}
}
It wouldn't be, ideally the catch block would do some handling, and then rethrow, e.g.,
try
{
//do something
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
DoSomething(ex); //handle the exception
throw;
}
Of course the re-throw will be useful if you want to do some further handling in the upper tiers of the code.
Doing something like that is fairly meaningless, and in general I try not to go down the road of doing meaningless things ;)
For the most part, I believe in catching specific types of exceptions that you know how to handle, even if that only means creating your own exception with more information and using the caught exception as the InnerException.
Sometimes this is appropriate - when you're going to handle the exception higher up in the call stack. However, you'd need to do something in that catch block other than just re-throw for it to make sense, e.g. log the error:
public void doSomething()
{
try
{
// actual code goes here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
LogException (ex); // Log error...
throw;
}
}
I don't think just rethrowing the error would be useful. Unless you don't really care about the error in the first place.
I think it would be better to actually do something in the catch.
You can check the MSDN Exception Handling Guide.
I've seen instances where generic exceptions are caught like this and then re-packed in a custom Exception Object.
The difference between that and what you're saying is that those custom Exception objects hold MORE information about the actual exception that happened, not less.
Well for starters I'd simply do
catch
{
throw;
}
but basically if you were trapping multiple types of exceptions you may want to handle some locally and others back up the stack.
e.g.
catch(SQLException sex) //haha
{
DoStuff(sex);
}
catch
{
throw;
}
Depends on what you mean by "looks like this", and if there is nothing else in the catch block but a rethrow... if that's the case the try catch is pointless, except, as you say, to obfuscate where the exception occurred. But if you need to do something right there, where the error occurred, but wish to handle the exception furthur up the stack, this might be appropriate. But then, the catch would be for the specific exception you are handl;ing, not for any Exception
Generally having exception handling blocks that don't do anything isn't good at all, for the simple reason that it prevents the .Net Virtual Machine from inlining your methods when performance optimising your code.
For a full article on why see "Release IS NOT Debug: 64bit Optimizations and C# Method Inlining in Release Build Call Stacks" by Scott Hanselman