position of the try catch statement

position of the try catch statement - c#

I have some code that currently looks somewhat like this:
public void MainFunction()
{
try
{
SomeProblemFunction();
}
catch
{
AllFineFunction();
}
}
private void SomeProblemFunction() { ... }
private void AllFineFunction() { ... }
As you can see, I'm currently wrapping the call to SomeProblemFunction around a try statement because that function could fail (it relies on an outside web service call).
My question is this: should the try statement be a) outside the problem function (like I have it now) or b) inside the problem function?
Thanks.

Typically you want to allow your exceptions propagate up to your application boundaries. You're only going to want to do one of a few things with your exception:
Wrap it
Replace it
Let it propagate
Update
From your question it seems that you are looking for a fault tolerant solution for your web service calls. This is a more complex problem than simply "where do I put my try-catch?" You would still place your exception handling at the application boundary, but there you would implement your fault tolerance strategy. This would need to have many considerations, including asynchronously calling your web service, number of retry attempts, etc. I would suggest doing a search for web service fault tolerance.

What you have is correct; see the MSDN example:
public class ThrowTestB
{
static void Main()
{
try
{
// TryCast produces an unhandled exception.
TryCast();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// Catch the exception that is unhandled in TryCast.
Console.WriteLine
("Catching the {0} exception triggers the finally block.",
ex.GetType());
// Restore the original unhandled exception. You might not
// know what exception to expect, or how to handle it, so pass
// it on.
throw;
}
}
public static void TryCast()
{
int i = 123;
string s = "Some string";
object obj = s;
try
{
// Invalid conversion; obj contains a string, not a numeric type.
i = (int)obj;
// The following statement is not run.
Console.WriteLine("WriteLine at the end of the try block.");
}
finally
{
// Report that the finally block is run, and show that the value of
// i has not been changed.
Console.WriteLine("\nIn the finally block in TryCast, i = {0}.\n", i);
}
}
// Output:
// In the finally block in TryCast, i = 123.
// Catching the System.InvalidCastException exception triggers the finally block.
// Unhandled Exception: System.InvalidCastException: Specified cast is not valid.
}

As a rule of thumb I try and build code that focuses try catches to the exact spot the problem may occur.
That said both of your solutions are correct.
If it were my code I would do this
public void MainFunction()
{
try
{
SomeProblemFunction();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
Messagebox.Show(e.Message);
}
}
private void SomeProblemFunction() {
try{
web call
}
catch{
throw a specific exception related to this spot
}
}
private void AllFineFunction() { ... }
With this method you can easily create applications that handle a slew of very accurate exceptions

A fine question, I think. I'll attempt an answer.
If you want to recover within SomeProblemFunction, then it would make perfect sense to move the try...catch inside of that method. If, however, you are comfortable saying that if anything fails in SomeProblemFunction, then the whole thing is a failure, then keep it as you have it now and recover in (or throw from) MainFunction.
Thanks to the comment below, I'm adding some clarity. Depending on the specific exception that is being thrown within SomeProblemFunction, you may not have the ability to recover within that method. If you have a mixture of recoverable and non-recoverable, then it would be prudent to have the try...catch in both places.
The most important thing is that you NEVER catch an exception from which you cannot recover without throwing it on after doing your thing. It's tempting to add big broad catches (catch (Exception)) to avoid your app crashing during development, but it is never worth it. If those things make it into your production code, you've introduced a problem-solving and debugging nightmare.

In my opinion, there is no straight answer for this. The try catch is used to handle the exceptions that may occur. If your exception handling code is going in the main function then you should have the try catch in the main function. If your exception handling code in the problem function then you should add it to the problem function.
My preference though is to put it in both functions. If you put the try catch in the problem function, you can throw the exception and catch it in the main function. This always appear to other developers that the exception was thought of in that function and not missed handling it by mistake.

This depends on how severe this web service call failure would be.
Is it a failure that would prevent further processing of your code to run? If so, have no try/catch here, allowing it to propagate up to the guy who needs to know that this web service call failed. Optionally, you could still catch and throw a new exception with some more meaningful Exception type/ details.
Do you simply just want to re-try the web service call again if it doesn't work? IF so, then you have the try in the correct place; you just need to add a loop.
Is it not a big deal if this web service call fails? e.g. - will the rest of your code work OK? (I've found this to be uncommon). If so, leave the try/catch where it is, and log the error somewhere so that you're alerted.

Related

Two exception management questions

I have a couple of questions around exception management for a website:
in the catch block can I have a static class with a handle exception method that handles the exception like so:
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ExceptionHandler.HandleException(...);
}
where ExceptionHandler.HandleException is a static method that returns a variable of type System.Exception. Is this a good practice? Any possible problems with this approach? Will it be thread safe?
In my application I have a DAL layer that is called by the Business layer and the Business layer is called by the UI. So, is it a good practice to just re-throw all Custom exceptions so they bubble up right up to the UI where they get displayed whereas System.Exception types get logged and I throw a custom exception in the catch block?
for eg in DAL and Business Layer like so:
catch (CustomExceptionBase ex)
{
throw;
}
catch (Exception sysEx)
{
ICustomExceptionBase ex = new SysException(sysEx);
ex.Handle();
throw BusinessException("Some problem while serving your request");
}
In the UI layer like so
catch (CustomExceptionBase ex)
{
//when custom exception bubbles up; code to display text to user on screen
}
catch (Exception sysEx)
{
ICustomExceptionBase ex = new SysException(sysEx);
ex.Handle();
//display error on screen;
}
Here CustomExceptionBase implements ICustomExceptionBase and inherits Exception. SysException & BusinessException both inherit from CustomExceptionBase.
Thanks for your time...
EDIT
The intent of rethrowing in the system.Exceptions block is so that if there is a fatal error like database connection lost or something similar then I log it for the technical helpdesk and return a ticket number and rethrow the same so the user knows that something went wrong and this is your reference number to follow up. For all custom exceptions in the DAL layer or Business layer, I just bubble it up all the way to the UI where the text gets displayed.

I suspect some of the answers at least are entirely down to your architecture. In the first case it all depends on what ExceptionHandler.HandleException does exactly. Does it generate a new exception based on some criteria or is it just going to return the original exception?
Whether its thread-safe or not entirely depends on its implementation. For example in the following trivial case I'd say it was thread safe:
public static Exception ExceptionHandler.HandleException(Exception ex)
{
return ex;
}
In other cases it could easily be not thread safe. eg:
public static string message;
public static Exception ExceptionHandler.HandleException(Exception ex)
{
message = ex.ToString;
sleep(2000);
return new Exception(message);
}
The latter example clearly has scope for the message variable to be changed by another thread while this one is asleep.
As for the second... Exceptions should be handled where it makes sense to handle them. There is no hard and fast rule. If some part of the code can effect a recovery from an exception (or is willing to skip over it) then catch it at that point and not earlier. If an exception is truly fatal then nothing should be trying to catch it and pretend otherwise so you should just let it bubble right up to the top and do something like alert your user that things have crashed and that you need to restart or whatever.
So really it depends on what your custom exceptions mean. If they just mean "You want to retry this" then that is different from an exception saying "Data integrity has been compromised: 0==1". both of these may be custom so really its for you to decide where to handle things.

Yes, you can call a static exception handler inside a catch block and it will likely be threadsafe as long as you don't reference any static variables.
You should look at Microsoft's Enterprise Library. It has nearly this same design but uses exception policies defined in the web.config to control how the exception is bubbled, wrapped or discarded. Couple that with the Application Logging block and you have a complete solution.

In itself there aren't any technical problems having a static method to handle exceptions / rethrow exceptions, however from a best practices point of view having a single method that magically "handles" exceptions strikes me as a potential code smell. Exceptions are by their very name exceptional, each individual case requires thought to go into it to make sure that you are doing the correct thing and so I find it unlikely that your HandleException method will always be doing something sensible.
As an extreme example I know of one such application where pretty much every single method was wrapped in a try-catch block with a call to an static exception handler method which threw a generic MyApplicationException type. This is an extremely bad idea:
It clutters the code
It makes it harder to make sense of stack traces
It makes it very difficult for callers to catch and handle specific exceptions types
It makes throwing an exception an even bigger performance penalty than before
My favourite was a method which wasn't implemented which looked a bit like this:
void SomeException()
{
try
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
throw ExceptionHandler.HandleException(...);
}
}
The worst bit of this of course that it is completely mindless. As I said before exceptions are exceptional - each try ... catch block requires careful thought and consideration to be put into how it should behave, the use of a generic HandleException method is an immediate warning flag that this probably isn't the case.
Rethrowing exceptions
Generally speaking you should only rethrow an exception in two cases:
When you want to add contextual information to an exception (such as the name of the current file being processed)
When you had to catch an exception in order to handle some specific case, e.g. handling an "out of disk space" error
catch (IOException ex)
{
long win32ErrorCode = Marshal.GetHRForException(ex) & 0xFFFF;
if (win32ErrorCode == ERROR_HANDLE_DISK_FULL || win32ErrorCode == ERROR_DISK_FULL)
{
// Specific "out of disk space" error handling code
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
"Bubbling" (i.e. catching and rethrowing an exception without doing anything with it) is completely unneccessary - this is what exceptions are already designed to do all by themselves!
Handling exceptions
Other people have said "exceptions should be handled where it makes sense" and I have even given this advice myself, but in hindsight I don't think thats particularly useful advice! :)
What people generally mean by that is that you should handle exceptions for specific reasons, and that you should choose where in your application to handle that exception depending on that reason.
For example if you want to display an error message to inform the user that they don't have permission to modify a file if you get an access denied error then you may have a specific try-catch block in your UI code that does this:
catch (IOException ex)
{
long win32ErrorCode = Marshal.GetHRForException(ex) & 0xFFFF;
if (win32ErrorCode == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED)
{
// Display "access denied error"
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
Note that this is very specific to this one case that we wish to handle - it catches only the specific exception type were are interested in and performs additional checks to filter down to the specific case we are interested in.
Alternatively if you want to log unhandled errors or gracefully display error messages to the user instead of an IIS 505 error screen then the place to do this is either in Global.asax or through a custom error page - ASP.Net Custom Error Pages
My point is that when handling exceptions we are are thinking carefully about what it is we want to achieve in terms of application functionality (e.g. retry logic, error messages, logging etc...) and implementing our exception handling logic to specifically address those requirements in the most targeted way possible - there is no magic exception handing framework and there is no boilerplate code.
Avoid exceptions entirely whenever possible!
I usually find that the best strategy is simply to avoid exceptions entirely whever possible! For example if your page parses user enter numbers and you want to display validation messages when they enter stupid values then validate your input up-front instead of catching exceptions:
Bad:
void DoSomething()
{
int age = int.Parse(ageTextBox.Text);
if (age < 0)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("age must be positive");
}
if (age >= 1000)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("age must be less than 1000");
}
}
void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
DoSomething();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
DisplayError(ex.Message);
}
}
Good:
void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int age;
if (!int.TryParse(ageTextBox.Text, out age))
{
DisplayError("Invalid age entered");
}
if (age < 0)
{
DisplayError("age must be positive");
}
if (age >= 1000)
{
DisplayError("age must be less than 1000");
}
DoSomething();
}
Users enter invalid data all of the time - handling this is really application logic and shouldn't fall into the real of exception handling - its certainly not an event that I would call "exceptional".
Of course this isn't always possible, however I find that using this strategy simplifies the code and makes it easier to follow application logic.

First of all we need to consider Exception types, In any business exception can be either BusinessException or Technical/SystemException.
In BusinessException we can send custom exceptions with error
details.
In Technical/System Exception we should not handle it, but let it
popup to UI layer.UI Can decide what error should be displayed in
case of exceptions.
In your approaches, if you handle exception or throw the custom
exception the call trace is lost.

Exception handling in method definition or call?

I was wondering if there is a right place to handle exceptions.
Should I handle it inside my method or should I handle it at the method call? Or does it matter at all?
I'm sorry, but I couldn't find anything about this (googling "exception handling scope" didn't returned what I was looking for).
Example:
// this way...
void readFile(string file)
{
try
{
/* do my stuff */
}
catch(Exception exception)
{
/* handle exception */
}
}
int main()
{
readFile(file);
}
// or this way?
void readFile(string file)
{
/* do my stuff */
}
int main()
{
try
{
readFile(file);
}
catch(Exception exception)
{
/* handle exception */
}
}
Thanks in advance.

In general you want to handle the error where it makes sense to do so.
If in your example above you want to try to read a file and if that fails then read a default file the you can handle it as in the first example.
If the readFile operation failing is vital to the rest of main() then you need to have the exception passed up to that so it can deal with whatever fallout is for readFile() failing and this would be as in your second example.
Of course you can always handle the error (or some possible exceptions) inside the method and rethrow or let some pass through or whatever.
Really though its your program flow that determines where your exception handling goes. Handle the exception where it makes sense to do so.

The first approach is usually better, since all the file stuff is handled by readFile and code calling readFile does not have to worry about file handling issues. You could however return a boolean from readFile telling the caller if the operation succeded:
bool readFile(string file)
{
try {
/* do my stuff */
return true;
} catch(Exception exception) {
/* handle exception */
return false;
}
}

If you can handle the exception, recover from it and continue, then you should do that immediately.
On the other hannd, if there is nothing sensible you can do to handle the exception then the best thing is to let the exception propagate up the call stack. Eventually code at the top-level will be forced to catch the exception and log it / show it to the user, or else the application will crash.

Only handle the exception if you actually plan on doing something unique in that particular circumstance (e.g. talking to a DB and a deadlock exception occurs you may wish to retry the DB operation). If you just want to do some generic exception handling action (e.g. log every exception) do it in the highest level possible (usually the UI) and don't clutter your code up with exception handlers everywhere - just let the exceptions bubble up.

The best practice is to let the upper levels handle the exception. Imagine that you are packing your low level file reader in a library and handling the exception there. You are not giving the users of your code the ability to handle the exception in the way that they desire.

How to handle an exception correctly

I have an xmlbuilder utility class which calls a couple of methods to build an xml file
public XMLBuilder(String searchVal)
{
this.searchVal = searchVal;
try
{
getData();
returnedData = processDataInToOriginalFormat();
WriteBasicTemplate();
}
catch (WebException)
{
//If this is thrown then there was an error processing the HTTP request for MSO data.
//In this case then i should avoid writing the xml for concordance.
serviceAvailable = false;
MessageBox.Show("Could not connect to the required Service.");
}
catch (NoDataFoundException ndfe)
{
//propegate this back up the chain to the calling class
throw;
}
processDataInToOriginalFormat(); this is a method in a class which causes an exception if the service is not available and i have propagated the exception back to here to deal with. I was going to try and set a boolean flag to indicate whether to write a certain bit of xml. If the flag is false then dont write it.
I forgot however that exceptions stop programme flow and now i realise this isnt possible as if an exception occurs the rest of the code doesn't resume. how can i get around this? just add the WriteBasicTemplate(); call in to my catch clause?
Thanks

The logic of your code is somewhat confusing and as it's not obvious what "serviceAvailable = false" will do, it's hard to give detailed tips. The general rule of excetion handling is, to catch (and not rethrow) them, if you really know what to do with them and how to fix the problem. I you don't know that or the program will be in a state where it cannot continue working, let the exception go through and let your program crash.
In your case I might structure the code like this:
try
{
returnedData = processDataInToOriginalFormat();
// put code here which should only be executed in
// case of no exception
}
catch (WebException)
{
// do what ever is required to handel the problem
MessageBox.Show("Could not connect to the required Service.");
}
// code which should be executed in every case
WriteBasicTemplate();
You shoudl also look at the "finally"-block. Depending on your requirements, you should WriteBasicTemplate in such a block. But I would probably not do so in your case. It's rather used for resource cleanup or something like that.

throw exception in the try block rather than catch block?

I've inherited code in our project which looks like this. It's a method in a class.
protected override bool Load()
{
DataAccess.SomeEntity record;
try
{
record = _repository.Get(t => t.ID.Equals(ID));
if (record == null)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("failed to initialize the object.");
}
else
{
this.ID = record.ID;
// this.OtherProperty = record.SomeProperty;
// etc
}
}
catch (Exception)
{
throw;
}
return true;
}
If I then call this Load method from my UI layer, I'd probably want to have a try catch block to catch any exception caused by the failure to Load the instance, e.g. InvalidOperationException, but the above code feels wrong to me.
Won't the InvalidOperationException be swallowed by the catch statement? that catch statement will also catch potential problems with _repository.Get, as well as potential problems with the setting of properties if the record is valid.
I thought I should perhaps restructure it by adding more try catch statements to handle the Get operation and property setting operations separately, or add more catch blocks handling different exceptions, but I asked a colleague, and he suggested that the try catch is irrelevant in this case, and should be removed completely, leaving it like:
protected override bool Load()
{
DataAccess.SomeEntity record;
record = _repository.Get(t => t.ID.Equals(ID));
if (record == null)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("failed to initialize the object.");
}
else
{
this.ID = record.ID;
// this.OtherProperty = record.SomeProperty;
// etc
}
return true;
}
I'd like some second opinions, I've only just started taking an interest in exception handling, so I'd like to make sure I am doing it the right way according to best practices.

When you do this:
catch (Exception)
{
throw;
}
You are essentially not handling the exception. That does not however mean you are ignoring it. The throw statement will propagate the exception up the stack. For the sake of clean readable code your final example is much better.

If you're catching exceptions in the calling method ( Ithink) you should only catch exceptions which you expect. If the exception is a problem for Load(), then throw a new exception to the calling method, with better information about the exception.

Excellent! You are definitely on the right track. The previous implementation doing nothing other than re-throwing exceptions which is unnecessary. You should only handle specific exceptions that you are anticipating in the business layer, otherwise let them naturally go up the call stack up to the UI layer.
As best practice, only re-throw exceptions when you want to add some additional debug information, in which case you will need to define a custom exception

The exception will be caught by the catch statement but since it has a throw statement, it'll throw the exception back out. This has the same effect as if you didn't have a try/catch at all, so your colleague is right in suggesting leaving it out.
There isn't much of a point to adding exception-handling code if you don't actually handle the exception in any way.

I agree with your colleague, you should only catch exceptions that you know need to be caught. I typically leave out any try catch blocks unless I know exactly why I need it in a particular situation. This is because you tend to hide the real bugs in your code if you just put try catch block around everything. Leave the error handling off until you absolutely need it - start off with a single global error handler at the highest point in the application - if this is asp.net you can hook the application error event and log errors there, but my point is don't add try catch blocks unless you know why your adding them and write code that handles error cases not traps them.
Enjoy!

c# "finally" block that only runs on exceptions

Edit: I have looked at the answers code: NONE of them do what I want (I've checked). It would seem that there is no way to do what I want in native c#. I guess that's not a disaster just a shame given that .NET does support it (see accepted answer).
Thanks all.
I have c# code (part of a test framework that will never be run except under a debugger) like this who's point it to avoid actually catching the exception as that makes debugging the code in the unwound part of the stack a royal pain.
Bool bad = true;
try
{
MightThrow();
bad = false;
}
finally
{
if(bad) DoSomeLoggingOnFailure();
//// Does not catch!!!!
//// exception continues to unwind stack.
//// Note that re throwing the exception is NOT
//// the same as not catching it in the first place
}
is their a better way to do this?
A solution would have to behave exactly like that under the debugger with regards to un-caught exceptions. It would have to result in the only one first chance exception and the debugger breaking at the point that the exception was originally thrown, not in a catch block.
Specifically I need the debugger on un-caught exceptions to stop a in side MightThrow.
The following doesn't work because it fails to have the debugger break in the correct place
try { ... } catch { throw; }
And this doesn't work because it loses stack info (and also breaks in the wrong place).
try { ... } catch(Exception e) { throw e; }
I known that in D I could use a scope(failure) block

So, in .NET what you're asking for is theoretically possible, but it's not going to be easy.
CIL actually defines five types of exception handling block! The try, catch and finally ones you're used to in C#, and two others:
filter - similar to a catch block but can run arbitrary code to determine whether it wants to handle the error, rather than just matching on type. This block has access to the exception object, and has the same effect on the exception stack trace as a catch block.
fault - similar to a finally block, however it is only run when an exception occurs. This block does not have access to the exception object, and has no effect on the exception stack trace (just like a finally block).
filter is available in some .NET languages (e.g. VB.NET, C++/CLI) but is not available in C#, unfortunately. However I don't know of any language, other than CIL, that allows the fault block to be expressed.
Because it can be done in IL means not all is lost, though. In theory you could use Reflection.Emit to dynamically emit a function that has a fault block and then pass the code you want to run in as lambda expressions (i.e. one for the try part, one for the fault part, and so on), however (a) this isn't easy, and (b) I'm unconvinced that this will actually give you a more useful stack trace than you're currently getting.
Sorry the answer isn't a "here's how to do it" type thing, but at least now you know! What you're doing now is probably the best approach IMHO.
Note to those saying that the approach used in the question is 'bad practice', it really isn't. When you implement a catch block you're saying "I need to do something with the exception object when an exception occurs" and when you implement a finally you're saying "I don't need the exception object, but I need to do something before the end of the function".
If what you're actually trying to say is "I don't need the exception object, but I need to do something when an exception occurs" then you're half way between the two, i.e. you want a fault block. As this isn't available in C#, you don't have an ideal option, so you may as well choose the option that is less likely to cause bugs by forgetting to re-throw, and which doesn't corrupt the stack trace.

How about this:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch
{
DoSomethingOnFailure();
throw; // added based on new information in the original question
}
Really, that's all you did. Finally is for things that must run regardless of whether an exception occurred.
[Edit: Clarification]
Based on the comments you've been mentioning, you want the exception to continue being thrown without modifying its original stack trace. In that case, you want to use the unadorned throw that I've added. This will allow the exception to continue up the stack and still allow you to handle part of the exception. Typical cases might be to close network connections or files.
[Second edit: Regarding your clarification]
Specifically I need the debugger on
un-caught exceptions to stop at the
original point of the throw (in
MightThrow) not in the catch block.
I would argue against ever breaking a best-practice (and yes, this is a best-practice for partially handling exceptions) to add some minor value to your debugging. You can easily inspect the exception to determine the location of the exception throw.
[Final edit: You have your answer]
kronoz has thoughtfully provided you with the answer you sought. Don't break best practices -- use Visual Studio properly! You can set Visual Studio to break exactly when an exception is thrown. Here's official info on the subject.
I was actually unaware of the feature, so go give him the accepted answer. But please, don't go trying to handle exceptions in some funky way just to give yourself a hand debugging. All you do is open yourself up to more bugs.

If you're interested in the debugger simply stopping precisely where the exception occurred then have you considered first-chance exceptions?
If you open Tools|Exceptions then tick the Common Language Runtime Exceptions box, the debugger will stop at the point of exception regardless of any try/catch/finally blocks.
Update: You can specify the precise exception you wish to catch by expanding the [+] tree in the Exceptions dialog. Though of course it will fire every time any exception of the specified type[s] occur[s], you can switch it on and off at will even in the middle of a debugging session, so with judicious use of breakpoints you can get it to do your bidding. I used it successfully to get around the 'target of an invocation has thrown an exception' ball ache originating from using reflection to instantiate objects. Very useful tool in such circumstances. Also note the locals and stack trace should be firmly available as far as I recall (just did a quick test and they are available), so no problems there.
Of course if you want to log things then that is outside the scope of an IDE debugger; and in which case first-chance exceptions won't help you!
Give it a go at least; I found them very useful and they might be more appropriate for your issue than you think.

What's wrong with:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch
{
DoSomthingOnFailure();
throw;
}

For code that should only run on exceptions, use the catch block:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// this runs only when there was an exception
DoSomthingOnFailure();
// pass exception on to caller
throw;
}
finally
{
// this runs everytime
Cleanup();
}

This is what you want. It will only call this method when an error occurs, and the "throw" statement will re-throw the exception with the callstack intact.
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch
{
DoSomthingOnFailure();
throw;
}

A "finally" block that runs only on failure is called "catch" (with no parameters). :-)
Now, there is a small caveat. If you want to have a specialised "catch" case for a particular exception type and have a generic "catch" that works for all exceptions, you'll have to do a bit of a custom logic.
Thus, I would do something like:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch(MyException ex)
{
// Runs on MyException
MySpecificFailureHandler()
// Since we have handled the exception and can't execute the generic
// "catch" block below, we need to explicitly run the generic failure handler
MyGenericFailureHandler()
}
catch
{
// Runs on any exception hot handled specifically before
MyGenericFailureHandler()
// If you want to mimic "finally" behavior and propagate the exception
// up the call stack
throw;
}
finally
{
// Runs on any failure or success
MyGenericCleanupHandler();
}

Every example so far is losing the original StackTrace according to my tests. Here's a solution that should work for you.
private static void PreserveStackTrace(Exception exception)
{
MethodInfo preserveStackTrace = typeof(Exception).GetMethod("InternalPreserveStackTrace",
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
preserveStackTrace.Invoke(exception, null);
}
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
DoSomethingOnFailure();
PreserveStackTrace(ex);
throw;
}

How about only catching an exception that "MightThrow" does not throw?
Bool bad = true;
try
{
MightThrow();
bad = false;
}
catch (SomePrivateMadeUpException foo)
{
//empty
}
finally
{
if(bad) DoSomeLoggingOnFailure();
}

Let me recap your requirements the way I understand them:
You want some code that is run only when an exception is generated, in order to do some logging.
You want to run your test framework under debugger and break at the point at which the exception is thrown.
To meet your first requirement, you should write the code the way everybody suggested - using parameterless catch and throw.
To meet your second requirement while using the parameterless catch, you could configure your debugger to break when an exception is throw, not only when there's an unhandled exception. I suspect you know how to do it, but I'll put it here for answer completeness: in VS you can do that in Debug -> Exception -> Common Language Runtime Exceptions -> check the Thrown checkbox.
If you know that your app throws a lot of handled exceptions, that might not be an option for you. At that point, your only choice left to meet your first requirement is to either write the code to use finally for exception logging purposes or look into the direct IL emitting route as Greg Beech suggests.
However, whether the finally code is being executed depends on the debugger you are using. In particular, VS will break on an unhadled exception before the finally is executed and will not let you continue. Thus, unless you detach from the process at that point, your logging code will never be executed. In other words, the second requirement will interfere with meeting the first requirement.

You could encapsulate your logic in a custom class, something like:
public class Executor
{
private readonly Action mainActionDelegate;
private readonly Action onFaultDelegate;
public Executor(Action mainAction, Action onFault)
{
mainActionDelegate = mainAction;
onFaultDelegate = onFault;
}
public void Run()
{
bool bad = true;
try
{
mainActionDelegate();
bad = false;
}
finally
{
if(bad)
{
onFaultDelegate();
}
}
}
}
And use it as:
new Executor(MightThrow, DoSomeLoggingOnFailure).Run();
Hope this helps.

Isn't this the same as:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
DoSomethingOnFailure();
throw e;
}
?

You could write, or have someone write for you, a small assembly in VB.net which implements a TryFaultCatchFinally(of T) method that accepts four delegates:
TryMethod -- An Action(of T) to perform the "Try" block.
FaultMethod -- A Predicate(Of T, Exception) which, if an exception occurs, will be called before any "finally" blocks run; if it returns true the Catch block will run--otherwise it won't.
CatchMethod -- An Action(Of T, Exception) to be performed if an exception had occurred and FaultMethod returned true; happens after "finally" blocks run.
FinallyMethod -- An Action(OF T, Exception, Boolean) to be performed as a "Finally" block. The passed-in exception will be null if TryMethod ran to completion, or will hold the exception that caused it to exit. The Boolean will be true if the exception was caught, or false otherwise.
Note that when the FaultMethod is executed, one may be able to examine the state of objects that caused the exception, before such state is destroyed by Finally blocks. One must use some care when doing this (any locks that were held when the exception was thrown will continue to be held) but the ability may still sometimes be handy, especially when debugging.
I'd suggest the routine look something like:
Shared Sub TryFaultCatchFinally(Of T)(ByVal TryProc As Action(Of T), _
ByVal FaultProc As Func(Of T, Exception, Boolean), _
ByVal CatchProc As Action(Of T, Exception), _
ByVal FinallyProc As Action(Of T, Exception, Boolean), _
ByVal Value As T)
Dim theException As Exception = Nothing
Dim exceptionCaught As Boolean = False
Try
TryProc(Value)
theException = Nothing
exceptionCaught = False
Catch Ex As Exception When CopyExceptionAndReturnFalse(Ex, theException) OrElse FaultProc(Value, Ex)
exceptionCaught = True
CatchProc(Value, Ex)
Finally
FinallyProc(Value, theException, exceptionCaught)
End Try
End Sub

No, I think this is a common idiom the way you have it.
EDIT
To be clear, the "catch" then "rethrow" strategies offer the same run-time semantics, however they change the experience when the VS debugger is attached. Tooling and maintenance is important; debugging often requires you to 'catch all first-chance exceptions' and if you end up with lots of 'spurious' first-chance exceptions due to catch-then-rethrow in your code, it really hurts the ability to debug the code. This idiom is about interacting well with the tooling, as well as clearly expressing the intent (you don't want to 'catch', decide can't handle, and rethrow, instead you just want to log that an exception did happen but let it pass on by).

Have you considered using the DebuggerStepThrough attribute?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.debuggerstepthroughattribute.aspx
[DebuggerStepThrough]
internal void MyHelper(Action someCallback)
{
try
{
someCallback();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Debugger will not break here
// because of the DebuggerStepThrough attribute
DoSomething(ex);
throw;
}
}

With exception filters added in C# 6, one option is to make use of a false returning exception filter, like so:
void PerformMightThrowWithExceptionLogging()
{
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch (Exception e) when (Log(e))
{
// Cannot enter here, since Log returns false.
}
}
bool Log(Exception e)
{
DoSomeLoggingOnFailure(e);
// Return false so the exception filter is not matched, and therefore the stack is kept.
// This means the debugger breaks where the exception actually happened, etc.
return false;
}
See https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/try-catch for more details on exception filters.

try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch
{
DoSomethingOnFailure();
}

Develop Reference

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.