Develop Reference

When to Throw an Exception? When to Handle an Exception (Service Layer, Controller) where?

I rewritten my question as I think it was too wordy and maybe what I am trying to achieve was lost.
I written this code in notepad so it may have mistakes and some stuff maybe not well thoughout but it is to illustrate what I see my options are.
// I wrap all code send back from service layer to controller in this class.
public class ResponseResult
{
public ResponseResult()
{
Errors = new Dictionary<string, string>();
Status = new ResponseBase();
}
public void AddError(string key, string errorMessage)
{
if (!Errors.ContainsKey(key))
{
Errors.Add(key, errorMessage);
}
}
public bool IsValid()
{
if (Errors.Count > 0)
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
public Dictionary<string, string> Errors { get; private set; }
public ResponseBase Status { get; set; }
}
public class ResponseResult<T> : ResponseResult
{
public T Response { get; set; }
}
public class ResponseBase
{
public HttpStatusCode Code { get; set; }
public string Message { get; set; }
}
Option 1 (what I am using now)
//controller
public HttpResponseMessage GetVenue(int venueId)
{
if (venueId == 0)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("badVenueId", "venue id must be greater than 0");
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var venue = venueService.FindVenue(venueId);
return Request.CreateResponse<ResponseResult<Venue>>(venue.Status.Code, venue);
}
// a wrapper that I made to extract the model state and try to make all my request have same layout.
var responseResult = new ResponseResultWrapper();
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.BadRequest;
responseResult.Status.Message = GenericErrors.InvalidRequest;
responseResult.ModelStateToResponseResult(ModelState);
return Request.CreateResponse<ResponseResult>(responseResult.Status.Code, responseResult);
}
// service layer
public ResponseResult<Venue> FindVenue(int venueId)
{
ResponseResult<Venue> responseResult = new ResponseResult<Venue>();
try
{
// I know this check was done in the controller but pretend this is some more advanced business logic validation.
if(venueId == 0)
{
// this is like Model State Error in MVC and mostly likely would with some sort of field.
responseResult.Errors.Add("badVenueId", "venue id must be greater than 0");
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.BadRequest;
}
var venue = context.Venues.Where(x => x.Id == venueId).FirstOrDefault();
if(venue == null)
{
var foundVenue = thirdPartyService.GetVenue(venueId);
if(foundVenue == null)
{
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.NotFound;
responseResult.Status.Message = "Oops could not find Venue";
return responseResult;
}
else
{
var city = cityService.FindCity(foundVenue.CityName);
if(city == null)
{
city = cityService.CreateCity(foundVenue.CityName);
if(city.Response == null)
{
responseResult.Status.Code = city.Status.Code;
responseResult.Status.Message = city.Status.Message;
return responseResult;
}
CreateVenue(VenueId, city.Response, foundVenue.Name);
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.Ok;
// I don't think I would return a success message here as the venue being displayed back to the user should be good enough.
responseResult.Status.Message = "";
reponseResult.Response = foundVenue;
}
}
return responseResult;
}
}
catch (SqlException ex)
{
ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(ex);
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.InternalServerError;
responseResult.Status.Message = GenericErrors.InternalError;
// maybe roll back statement here depending on the method and what it is doing.
}
// should I catch this, I know it should be if you handle it but you don't want nasty messages going back to the user.
catch (InvalidOperationException ex)
{
ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(ex);
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.InternalServerError;
responseResult.Status.Message = GenericErrors.InternalError;
}
// should I catch this, I know it should be if you handle it but you don't want nasty messages going back to the user.
catch (Exception ex)
{
ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(ex);
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.InternalServerError;
responseResult.Status.Message = GenericErrors.InternalError;
}
return responseResult;
}
// another service layer.
// it is ResponseResult<City> and not city because I could have a controller method that directly calls this method.
// but I also have a case where my other method in another service needs this as well.
public ResponseResult<City> CreateCity(string CityName)
{
ResponseResult<City> responseResult = new ResponseResult<City>();
try
{
City newCity = new City { Name = "N" };
context.Cities.Add(newCity);
context.SaveChanges();
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.Ok;
responseResult.Status.Message = "City was succesfully added";
}
// same catch statmens like above
catch (SqlException ex)
{
ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(ex);
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.InternalServerError;
responseResult.Status.Message = GenericErrors.InternalError;
// maybe roll back statement here depending on the method and what it is doing.
}
return responseResult;
}
As you can see the methods are all wrapped in the status codes as they could be directly called by the controller being public. FindCity() and CreateVenue() could also have this wrapping.
Option 2
public HttpResponseMessage GetVenue(int venueId)
{
try
{
if (venueId == 0)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("badVenueId", "venue id must be greater than 0");
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var venue = venueService.FindVenue(venueId);
return Request.CreateResponse<ResponseResult<Venue>>(HttpSatusCode.Ok, venue);
}
// a wrapper that I made to extract the model state and try to make all my request have same layout.
var responseResult = new ResponseResultWrapper();
responseResult.Status.Code = HttpStatusCode.BadRequest;
responseResult.Status.Message = GenericErrors.InvalidRequest;
responseResult.ModelStateToResponseResult(ModelState);
return Request.CreateResponse<ResponseResult>(responseResult.Status.Code, responseResult);
}
catchcatch (SqlException ex)
{
// can't remember how write this and too tried to look up.
return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.InternalServerError;, "something here");
}
}
public Venue FindVenue(int venueId)
{
try
{
// how to pass back business logic error now without my wrapper?
if(venueId == 0)
{
// what here?
}
var venue = context.Venues.Where(x => x.Id == venueId).FirstOrDefault();
if(venue == null)
{
var foundVenue = thirdPartyService.GetVenue(venueId);
if(foundVenue == null)
{
// what here?
}
else
{
var city = cityService.FindCity(foundVenue.CityName);
if(city == null)
{
city = cityService.CreateCity(foundVenue.CityName);
if(city == null)
{
// what here?
}
CreateVenue(VenueId, city.Response, foundVenue.Name);
}
}
return venue;
}
}
catch (SqlException ex)
{
// should there be a try catch here now?
// I am guessing I am going to need to have this here if I need to do a rollback and can't do it in the controller
// throw exception here. Maybe this won't exist if no rollback is needed.
}
return null;
}
public City CreateCity(string CityName)
{
// if it crashes something I guess will catch it. Don't think I need to rollback here as only one statement being sent to database.
City newCity = new City { Name = "N" };
context.Cities.Add(newCity);
context.SaveChanges();
return newCity;
}
As you see with option 2, I might still need to wrap it in try catches for rollbacks and I am not sure how to handle advanced business validation.
Also with catching everything in the controller and sending back vanilla objects(without my wrapper) I am unsure how to do fine grain HttpStatus codes(say like notFound,Create and such)

Sorry for the brief response, but here is my general rule - if an exception occurs which you expect might happen, deal with it - either by retrying or telling the user something went wrong and giving them options to fix it.
If an unexpected exception occurs, if it's something you can deal with (e.g a timeout which you can retry) try to deal with it, otherwise get out - just think what any MS app does - e.g. office - you get an apology that something went wrong and the app ends. It's better to end gracefully than to potentially corrupt data and leave things in a real mess.

This is an article with Java-specific concepts and examples, but the broad principles here are the way to go.
Distinguish between fault exceptions, which are catastrophic and unrecoverable, and contingency exceptions, which are very much recoverable. Let the faults "bubble" to the fault barrier, where you handle appropriately. For example, you might log the error, E-mail someone or send a message to a message queue, and present the user with a nice, informative error page.
Whatever you do, be sure to preserve all the exception information from the source.
Hope that helps.

Throw an exception wherever your code determines that something has gone wrong.
You always need to handle exceptions in methods which are called directly by the end-user. This is to cater for unexpected errors which your code doesn't have specific handling for. Your generic handling code would typically log the error and may or may not include letting the user know that an unexpected error has occurred.
But if there are errors which you can expect ahead of time, you'll often want to handle these lower down in the code, nearer to the point at which they occur, so that your application can "recover" from the error and continue.

I think exceptions are useful any time you need to return details of a failure from a method, whilst being able to use the ideal return type for the method you're calling.
You said in your question:
Now for me I try to return error messages back to the the controller
and try not to really catch anything in the controller.
If the service method is supposed to ideally return a Venue object, how do you return this potential error message back to the controller? an out parameter? change the return type to something which has an error message property on it?
If you're doing either of those options, I think you're reinventing the wheel... i.e. creating a way to return exception information when one already exists.
Finally, Exceptions are strongly typed representations of what went wrong. If you return an error message, then that is fine to send back to the user, but if you need to programatically do different things based on the details of the error, then you don't want to be switching on magic string.
For example, wouldn't it be handy to differentiate between authorization errors and not found errors so you can return the most appropriate http status code to the user?
Don't forget that the Exception class has a Message property you can simply return to the user if you want to use it that way

To make sure I understand the question, your are creating a web service and want to know when to handle and when to throw exceptions.
In this situation I would strongly recommend that you catch all exceptions. "Unhandled" exceptions are very bad form. On web sites they result in displays that range from meaningless to dangerous by exposing internal information that you do no want the public to see.
If this is a good sized program I suggest that you create your own MyException class which derives from System.Exception. The purpose of this is provide a place for you to add additional information specific to your application. Here are some typical things I like to add to my MyException classes:
An ID number that will help me find the location in the code where the problem occurred.
A "LogMessage" method that logs the exception, sometimes to the Windows Event Log. Whether or not you log and to which log you write depends on what you want recorded, and the severity of the situation.
An indicator that shows the exception has been logged so the above method will not log twice even if it gets called more than once.
Anything else that might be useful given the circumstance.
I also like to put the text of the messages in an external resource file, like an XML document, and key them to the error number that you assign. This allows you to change the error text to improve clarity without having to redeploy the application.
Catch all exceptions and create a new instance of your MyException type and put the original exception into inner exception property. Below the first level of my application, I always throw one of my MyException instances rather than the original exception.
At the top level (application level), NEVER let an exception go unhandled and never throw your own exception. A better way is to return an error code and message in your data contract. That way the client application will only get what you want them to see. The only exceptions they'll need to worry about are the ones outside your scope, i.e. configuration errors or communication failures. In other words if they are able to invoke your service and the network stays connected you should give them a response they can interpret.
Hope this helps.
PS I didn't include a sample exception as I am sure a little searching will find many. Post if you want me to put up a simple sample.

Use try catch at all levels and bubble it up. Optionally, log the error in a file or database. I use text file - tab delimited. Capture at each level
1. Module Name (Use C# supplied methods to get this)
2. Method Name
3. Code Being Executed (User created - "Connecting to database")
4. Error Number
5. Error Description
6. Code Being Executed (User created - "Accessing database")
7. Error Number for the end user
8. Error Description for the end user
Additionally, I also pass a unique identifier like - Session Id in case of Web, Logged in User Id, User Name (if available)
I always have the Exception catch block. In here I set the error number as -0 and the message from the exception object as the error description. If it is SQL Server related - I capture SQL Exception. This generates an error number - I use that.
I want to extend this some more though.

Best practices for exception handling and safe coding

Say you were calling a method similar to the following, which you know is only ever going to throw one of 2 exceptions:
public static void ExceptionDemo(string input)
{
if (input == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("input");
if (input.Contains(","))
throw new ArgumentException("input cannot contain the comma character");
// ...
// ... Some really impressive code here
// ...
}
A real life example of a method which does this is Membership.GetUser (String)
Which of the following would you use to call the method and handle the exceptions:
Method 1 (check the input param first first)
public static void Example1(string input)
{
// validate the input first and make sure that the exceptions could never occur
// no [try/catch] required
if (input != null && !input.Contains(","))
{
ExceptionDemo(input);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("input cannot be null or contain the comma character");
}
}
Method 2 (wrap the call in a try / catch)
public static void Example2(string input)
{
// try catch block with no validation of the input
try
{
ExceptionDemo(input);
}
catch (ArgumentNullException)
{
Console.WriteLine("input cannot be null");
}
catch (ArgumentException)
{
Console.WriteLine("input cannot contain the comma character");
}
}
I've had both methods taught over the years and wondered what the general best practise was for this scenario.
Update
Several posters were focusing on the method throwing the exceptions and not the way these exceptions were being handled, so I've provided an example of a .Net Framework method which behaves in the same way (Membership.GetUser (String))
So, to clarify my question, if you we're calling Membership.GetUser(input) how would you handle the possible exceptions, Method 1, 2 or something else?
Thanks

It depends, but generally, neither method presented is good. As has been said, in the first case, you are duplicating code. In the second, you are catching the exception without actually doing anything about it - not even rethrowing, just swallowing it. If you want just to log it or display some message, normally you should implement a global handler/logger using AppDomain.UnhandledException and do it there; this way, you don't have to pollute your code with unnecessary try/catch blocks.
The real question here is whether or not input being null or containing ',' is really an exceptional behavior in your specific case - e.g. if this is some GUI-entered string, then this should normally not result in an exception throw (end-user mistakes should be expected) and should be handled appropriately (e.g. with a warning to re-entry the input). In such case, using if statements to validate the input is the proper way. However, if input being null or containing ',' is an actual exceptional behavior (say, an API problem which indicates something's broken or missing) then throwing exception is ok. In this case, you can simply call ExceptionDemo(input) without try/catch. If you want to actually do something about the exception (e.g. change the input in some way), then use try/catch.

Callers should not assume anything about code they're calling.
Your first example is bad, because you're duplicating code: the caller performs almost (string.INOE() vs string == null) the same check as the callee (until either of them changes).
The second example is extremely bad as it ignores the thrown exceptions and gives its own interpretation to them.
As usual: it depends. If you have a properly layered application where the method calls are in your UI layer, you do want to just catch the exception the method throws: you'll want to display those errors to the user.

It depends on how many times ExceptionDemo is called and who it is exposed to. If it was used extensively, you wouldn't want to check the conditions before calling ExceptionDemo, when you know (and document) that ExceptionDemo does the checks anyway.
Given the return type is void, what about changing ExceptionDemo to have no effect if the input is wrong?
(Did you notice that you are stricter in Method 1 - the empty string is not a valid input, but in Method 2 it is)

I would recommend standard and generic structure as below :
public static void Operation(object input)
{
try
{
ValidateInput(input);
//Do Operation
}
catch (MySpecificException subSubExceptionType) //Catch most specific exceptions
{
//Log or process exception
throw;
}
catch (MySpecificException subExceptionType) //Catch specific exception
{
//Log or process exception
}
catch (Exception exceptionType) //Catch most generic exception
{
//Log or process exception
}
finally
{
//Release the resources
}
}
private static void ValidateInput(object input)
{
if(input == null)
throw new NoNullAllowedException();
//Check if properties of input are as expected. If not as expected then throw specific exception with specific message
}

Handling Expected Exceptions

I read several articles regarding good practices in exception handling. Most of it tackled unexpected exceptions yet expected by the author. I just want to clarify and eliminate possible bad practices that I could be doing. Since I already expect these problems to happen already, I assume throwing an exception is a bit redundant.
Let's say I have this code :
string fileName = Path.Combine(Application.StartupPath, "sometextfile.txt");
// There's a possibility that the file doesn't exist <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
if (!File.Exists(fileName))
{
// Do something here
return;
}
// Therefore, this will return an exception
using (StreamReader file =
new StreamReader(fileName))
{
// Some code here
}
Naturally, what I would do is to inform the user with a MessageBox saying "File not found". Is there an efficient or a better way of doing this?
Another idea that I have is to create an enum which contains expected error codes then create a method which will call a MessageBox showing the error message for that specific situation :
enum ErrorCodes {null, zero, ...}
public void showError(ErrorCodes error)
{
string message;
switch (error)
{
case ErrorCode.null:
{
message = "value cannot be null";
break;
}
case ErrorCode.zero:
{
message = "cannot divide by zero";
break;
}
}
MessageBox.Show(message, Application.ProductName, MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error);
}

These things are never easy. By definition an exception is (like the Spanish Inquisition) never expected. In your first example the file might exist when you call File.Exist, but then not exist when you try to open it (file deleted, network failed, thumb drive pulled, etc.). As far as a best practice: protect yourself where you can, catch only the exceptions you know how to handle and hope for the best. Programs will fail and the very best thing you can do is make sure that unhandled failures are communicated as clearly as possible to the user of the code (the heart of your second example).
Communicating a failure depends greatly on the what the code does and who is using it. MessageBoxes are often used but generally not 'useful', because if the cause of the error isn't clear to the user about the only thing they can do is send you a jpg image (that's a best case :-D). Providing a way to log problems and/or a custom dialog that allows users to cut/paste information (like a stack trace) is much more useful. Think about the case where a user selects a file and there is a network hiccup. They tell you they got this error about the file not being found, but when you or they look it's there because the network is working correctly by that time. A simple "file not found" message does give you enough information and so you have to tell the user "I don't know, glad it works now" ... this does not inspire confidence. Best practice here is to leave yourself enough 'breadcrumbs' to at least have a rough idea about what has happened. Even something like having a full file path can give you the clues you need to figure out what went wrong.

If the code that is trying to access the file is on the front end, for example an event handler for an on-click, then it's OK to check for the error situation, display a message and return.
If I understand your question correctly you want to know whether you should do this:
public void button_Click() {
if(!File.Exists(textBox.Text)) {
MessageBox.Show("Could not find the file");
return;
}
ProcessFile(textBox.Text); // would have thrown an exception if the file didn't exist
}
That would be fine, except if ProcessFile throws any other kind of Exception it won't be handled.
You could do this:
public void button_Click() {
try {
ProcessFile(textBox.Text); // throwns an exception if the file didn't exist
} catch(Exception ex) {
MessageBox.Show(GetUserMessage(ex));
return;
}
}
In my opinion it's better to do both:
public void button_Click() {
try {
if(!File.Exists(textBox.Text)) {
MessageBox.Show("Could not find the file");
return;
}
ProcessFile(textBox.Text); // throwns an exception if the file didn't exist
} catch(Exception ex) {
MessageBox.Show(GetUserMessage(ex));
return;
}
}
This way you can provide the most specific message to the user relevant to what he was doing at this point. For example if he was trying to open an Excel file you could say "Could not find the Excel file you wanted to import".
This also works in case the file was deleted or renamed between the point you checked and the point you tried to process the file.
Alternatively you could accomplish something similar with this:
public void button_Click() {
try {
if(!File.Exists(textBox.Text)) {
throw new UserException("Could not find the file");
}
ProcessFile(textBox.Text); // throwns an exception if the file didn't exist
} catch(Exception ex) {
MessageBox.Show(GetUserMessage(ex));
return;
}
}
In this case you would create your own Exception class UserException and just pass that message along without translating it. This would allow you to reuse the same code you use to display a message.
Exceptions in Classes
If the error occurs in some class library then you should throw an exception. The purpose of an exception is that an error can't go unnoticed.
For example you shouldn't want this:
class MyFileHandler {
public void OpenFile(string fileName) {
if(!File.Exists(fileName)) return;
// do stuff
}
public void DoStuff() {
// do stuff
}
}
Now if a developer called myFileHandlerInstance.OpenFile("note.txt") he would assumed it worked. You could return a boolean, like so:
class MyFileHandler {
public bool OpenFile(string fileName) {
if(!File.Exists(fileName)) return false;
// do stuff
return true;
}
public void DoStuff() {
// do stuff
}
}
But now you are relying on the developer checking that value, this used to be a common method but errors got ignored and overlooked which is why Exceptions became better practice.
As far as what to display to the user, you really shouldn't display the Exception message directly, those messages are intended for developers not users. I suggest a method that takes an exception object and returns the best message, like so:
public string GetUserErrorMessage(Exception ex) {
if(ex is FileLoadException) {
var fileLoadException = (FileLoadException)ex;
return "Sorry but we failed to load the file: " + fileLoadException.FileName;
}
}
You can inspect the Exception properties for details including error codes if you like. Also I suggest capturing the actual exception details somewhere for your own debugging purposes, somewhere where it's not visible to the user.

C# - Exception logging and return status

Modifying to make it clear:
I have a question on exception logging and graceful exit. This is in continuation with previous question. The code looks like:
string status = "0";
ClassA ObjA = new ClassA();
try
{
status = objA.Method1();
if (status != "-1")
{
status = objA.Method1();
}
}
catch (Exception Ex)
{
//Log Exception EX
}
Inside the Method1:
public string Method1()
{
string status = "0";
try
{
//Code
return "0";
}
catch (Exception Ex)
{
//Log Exception with details
return "-1"
}
}
I log the Exception in the calling method and return only a status to the caller.
Should I return the Exception to the calling method or is only a status sufficient. With a status of "-1", I know there was an Exception in the called method and details of that Exception were logged in a log file.

I think it is OK to do it like that if you have a lot of status codes, otherwise you could also just throw an exception and catch it in the method higher up.
Also maybe reconsider your return type. Looks like you could be using integers, think you are opening yourself up to errors using strings.

Don't use the status return value, it is not adding anything that is useful to you.
consider,
var a = new ClassA()
try
{
a.Mehtod1();
}
catch
{
try
{
a.Method1();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Log without details;
}
}
class ClassA
{
void Method1()
{
try
{
//Code
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Log with details
throw;
}
}
}
This code achieves the same functionality but leaves the return code of the functions for something useful and non exceptional.
More generally, I suggest that you should have one catch all handler at the top level of your application that deals with logging, or at most one per public entry point. Other handlers should deal with specific exception types that they can actually "handle" (do something about.)

It all depends on the purpose and implementation of the code; sometimes it is better to allow exceptions to pass back to the caller - they should be used in exceptional cases.
If you do intend on using return codes, however, I would be more inclined to use enum's (though, again, it depends what the purpose of the code is). That way, it is easy for the caller to check against an available selection of return codes. Also, a comment on using integers or strings as error codes - it may not be very descriptive for a caller to know what the issue was. In this case, throwing an Exception or a specific type (containing the error message), or returning a pre-defined enum with a descriptive name, would be more meaningful to the caller.

From these short code snippets which does nothing it is very difficult to say what is best practice.
In general it is best to push exceptions to where they are handled best. If you are writing a framework for interfacing with some webservice the users of your framework will most likely not care about network exceptions etc. - they want return codes or, even better some framework specific exceptions that you include/code.

Hm - in your situation I'd rather do the following, but it really depends on the situation:
public string Method1()
{
string status = "0";
//Code - Exception may be thrown
return "0";
}
string status = "0";
ClassA ObjA = new ClassA();
try
{
status = objA.Method1();
}
Catch(Exception Ex)
{
//Log Exception EX
status = "-1;
}
EDIT
Sometimes it's hard to define values that indicate whether an error occurred in the method. You should keep Nullable types in mind. If you can find a suitable return value that indicates errors, it may also be ok to log the error within the method that caused the error and just react to the return value as you suggested.
By the way: In your code you're calling Method1 twice if the first call succeeded. I guess that is because it is a quick sample...

class MyException : Exception
{
public readonly int status;
public MyException(int status, string msg):base(msg)
{
this.status = status;
}
}
public string Method1()
{
throw new MyException(-1,"msg");
return "0";
}
SomeCode()
{
try
{
Method1();
}catch(MyException ex)
{
ex.status //here you get the status
}
}

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.