Best practices for exception handling and safe coding

Best practices for exception handling and safe coding - c#

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
}

Related

C# Catch exception or validate parameters beforehand

This is a question about exception handling and prevention.
public static string PathCombineNoEx(string path1, string path2)
{
if (path1 == null || path2 == null /*Either validate here*/)
{
return null;
}
try
{
return System.IO.Path.Combine(path1, path2);
}
catch (ArgumentException /*or catch here*/)
{
return null;
}
}
Since exceptions are an enormous hit on performance we should try to minimize the chance for exceptions to be thrown. In the following example I've eliminated the chance that Path.Combine could throw an ArgumentnullException. This was very easy to do and does almost not affect performance in any way. However, Path.Combine also throws an ArgumentException if one of the two parameter strings contains any invalid character provided by GetInvalidPathChars.
Now, would you recommend to catch this as I did or would you really check for invalid chars before calling the Path.Combine?
What about a general recommendation that can be applied to most situations.
Maybe there is a Microsoft article about that?
Path.Combine documentation:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/fyy7a5kt(v=vs.110).aspx
The .NET Reference Source:
http://referencesource.microsoft.com/#mscorlib/system/io/path.cs,2d7263f86a526264
Microsft performance tip (see chapter Throw fewer exceptions):
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973839.aspx

Catching exceptions is slow since exception throwing does stack trace.
Catching exceptions is less readable; it's a kind of notorious goto: if something has happened then goto catch.
That's why I vote for validation:
if (path1 == null)
return null;
if (path2 == null)
return null;
//TODO: put other validations here, e.g. Path.GetInvalidFileNameChars()
return System.IO.Path.Combine(path1, path2);
And catch exceptions for exceptional cases only:
try {
// I can't validate this, since just after I've finished it and ready to read
// someone can
// - delete/rename the file
// - change permissions
// - lock file (e.g. start writing to it)
String data = File.ReadAllText(#"C:\MyData.txt");
...
}
catch (IOException e) {
...
}

Exceptions, as the term says, are meant to handle unexpected situations. I vote to handle foreseeable cases in code beforehand.

Exceptions can hit performance.
If it's an API,
public static string PathCombineNoEx(string path1, string path2)
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(path1))
{
throw new ArgumentnullException(path1);
}
//Same goes for Path2
return System.IO.Path.Combine(path1, path2);
}
Otherwise, Dmitry's answer will do.
Helpful SO posts:
Business Objects, Validation And Exceptions
Why are Exceptions said to be so bad for Input Validation?

How to treat and test flow control if not with exceptions with c#?

What's the right way to treat and test flow control on methods that are void if not with exceptions? I've seen that Microsoft do not recomend such practice so what's the right way?
This is how how I'm treating parameters that shouldn't be accepted in my method:
public void RentOutCar(ReservationInfo reservationInfo)
{
try
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(reservationInfo.ReservationNumber) || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(reservationInfo.ReservationNumber))
{
throw new ArgumentException("Reservation Number is null or empty.");
}
if (reservationInfo == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("Null Reservation info.");
}
if (reservationInfo.Car == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("No car registered to rent.");
}
if (reservationInfo.RentalDatetime == DateTime.MinValue || reservationInfo.RentalDatetime == DateTime.MaxValue)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Rental Date has an unreal value.");
}
if (reservationInfo.Car.Mileage <0)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Mileage can't be less than 0.");
}
reserverationsRegister.ReservationsDone.Add(reservationInfo);
}
catch (Exception)
{
throw;
}
}

This is not what Microsoft mean when they say you should not control flow with exceptions.
While the use of exception handlers to catch errors and other events
that disrupt program execution is a good practice, the use of
exception handler as part of the regular program execution logic can
be expensive and should be avoided.
In other words, you should not throw (and subsequently catch) exceptions in situations where the code in the try block is likely to throw and represents legitimate program logic.
A contrived example of controlling flow with exceptions may look like:
int x = GetUserInput();
try
{
MustAcceptPositiveInput(x);
}
catch (InputIsNonPositiveException)
{
MustAcceptNonPositiveInput(x);
}
The equivalent 'correct' code may look like:
int x = GetUserInput();
if (x > 0)
{
MustAcceptPositiveInput(x);
}
else
{
MustAcceptNonPositiveInput(x);
}
Exceptions should be reserved for exceptional situations, those which are not part of expected program execution. It results in more readable, less surprising and more performant code.
What you are doing in your code is fine (except for the redundant try-catch and faulty order of tests as #Clay mentions), you are validating inputs for exceptional values, those which your code was not meant to handle.

Throwing an exception if the inputs are not valid is fine. Test reservationInfo for null first - or your other tests will break in unexpected ways. Also - no point in wrapping your tests in a try/catch if all you're going to do is rethrow it.
This is not a "control flow" issue as described in the article you put in the comments - and throwing exceptions is appropriate here.
You might consider wrapping just the "working code" in a try/catch, but only if you can recover from (or maybe log) any exceptions:
try
{
reserverationsRegister.ReservationsDone.Add(reservationInfo);
}
catch( Exception ex )
{
LogError( ex );
throw;
}

Catching Exception message from Boolean method

I have seen similar questions, but not exactly this:
I would like to know the right way of determining whether a method is executed correctly or not, returning a boolean, and if the method is not executed know the reason, even if an exception is thrown.
I do it in this way, but I think that return inside the catch is a bad practice, so which is the right way?:
if(!myObject.DoSomething('A', out result))
{
MessageBox.Show(myObject.ErrorMessage);
[...]
}else{
MessageBox.Show(result);
[...]
}
class myObject()
{
public string ErrorMessage;
bool DoSomething(char inputValue, out string result)
{
try
{
if(inputValue == 'A')
{
ErrorMessage = "Bad input value: " + inputValue;
return false;
}
[...]
return true;
}catch(Exception ex){
ErrorMessage = ex.Message;
return false;
}
}
I don't like trhow the exception inside the catch because I lose the control of the application (and I can't get the description), and the exception always finish in the form. And if I show the exception in the form, I don't need try catch in the rest of the classes.
I mean that try {} catch(Exception ex) { throw ex;} is the same as not putting try catch.
thanks a lot

My suggestion would be to create your own Exception type (possibly global), and pass it in as a reference.
Thereafter you can still get back your boolean indicating success or failure (and having only one return outside of the try..catch).
public class CustomException
{
private string _message;
private string _title;
public CustomException()
{
_title = "";
_message = "";
}
public CustomException(string title, string message)
{
_title = title;
_message = message;
}
}
Then call DoSomething passing in an instance of CustomException (ce in this case).
CustomException ce = new CustomException();
Be advised this is the best process to solve the problem of having to return a boolean indicating success or failure and know the message, for example; dumping it to a log file or logging to database (particularly for Service Calls - WCF)
However this is not a solution for bad logic in handling business process.

Return false inside a catch isn't by itself bad practice. It's useful when you handle a piece of code's exceptions and it must not fail.
For example, I'm working on a printer piloting DLL at the time, and this DLL must read a XML file containing multiple records to print. The method must not fail because one record fails to print, but it still can return exception if the XML file is not correctly formated.
public void Print(string xmlFile)
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(xmlFile))
throw new ArgumentNullException("No xml file has been passed to the Print method.");
// This line will most likely throw an exception if the XMl file is not well formated
XDocument dom = XDocument.Load(xmlFile);
foreach (XElement n in dom.XPathSelectElements("//RECORDS/RECORD"))
{
try
{
// send commands to the printer, if the printer fails to print, throw a PrinterRecordException
}
catch (PrinterRecordException e)
{
// log print failure, but keep on printing the rest
continue;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// dunno what happened, but still have to print the rest
continue;
}
}
}
In this example, my function could return false instead of throwing exceptions to the main program, if this program doesn't care. In my case it does :p In my opinion, that's how you should think your method.

Exception handling methods and best practices are a some-what subjective matter. I cannot attest to the method I'm about to present because I have only just started to use it in my own project.
What I suggest is having a static ExceptionHandler class with which you can register any exception to be handled by Generic Parameter and its corresponding handler. This will decouple your business logic from your UI in case you wanted to display some kind of message box when a particular exception occurs.
Here's an example:
/// the real implementation uses lambda's and/or implementations of IExceptionHandler<TException>
ExceptionHandler.Register<InvalidPasswordException>(() => /*some handler logic*/);
// ... else where in the code ...
catch (InvalidPasswordException ex)
{
// do resource clean-up and raise exception for listeners such as the UI or logging infrastructure.
ExceptionHandler.Raise(ex);
}
So far this looks promising, especially when compared with my previous approaches. But only time will tell.
Update
The ExceptionHandler class itself need not be static, for example you might want to have different instances of ExceptionHandlers at different layers of your application if you are using a layered architecture.

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.

Unhandled Exception in List Sort

So, I have a list containing a custom class, MyClass
MyClass has properties, which can be null (but aren't meant to be).
When this class is sorted, using a custom sorter, where the sorter accesses this null property and throws an exception, the exception is considered unhandled, even though there is a try-catch block around the sort method.
Now for some reason the exception still gets written to the console, which is what the exception handler is doing.
I have a real application with this same issue, causing my unit tests to fail, even though the exception is handled correctly and I cannot explain this.
So I have attached some sample code to explain myself better, run this from VS.
Updated Code
Results:
System.InvalidOperationException
Failed to compare two elements in the array.
Done!
So it seems to be handling my custom exception, and throwing its own?
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Data;
namespace TestSortException
{
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
try
{
var list = new List<MyClass>
{
new MyClass("1"),
new MyClass(null),
new MyClass("fdsfsdf")
};
list.Sort(new MyClassSorter());
}
catch(Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.GetType());
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
class MyClassSorter : IComparer<MyClass>
{
public int Compare(MyClass x, MyClass y)
{
// try
// {
if (x.MyString == y.MyString)
return 0;
// Unhandled??? Exception here
if (x.MyString.Length > y.MyString.Length)
return 1;
return -1;
// }
// catch (Exception)
// {
// return -1;
// }
}
}
class MyClass
{
private string _myString;
public string MyString
{
get
{
if (_myString == null) throw new DataException("MyString is Null");
return _myString;
}
}
public MyClass(string myString)
{
_myString = myString;
}
}
}

There's a try/catch block round the Sort method, yes - and that catch block catches the exception. In other words, Sort throws an exception and your catch block catches it. It doesn't propagate out beyond Main - so "Done!" is printed.
This is exactly what I'd expect. In what way is it "unhandled" in your experience? Were you expecting Sort not to throw the exception? It needs to do something to indicate the failure to compare two elements, and this seems to be the most appropriate course of action.
In what way are your unit tests failing? Are you deliberately giving them invalid data? How do you want your comparison code to react to invalid data? If it should ignore it (and return a comparison based on another property), then you should actively check the property rather than letting an exception propagate. In most cases I'd rather allow the exception if this indicates that there's a bug earlier on though.
EDIT: Based on your other comments, it sounds like you're doing the appropriate thing, letting the exception bubble up - but it's not clear in what way you're seeing the exception not be handled.
If you're running in the debugger, it may be breaking on the exception being thrown, but that doesn't mean it won't be handled. Try either changing your exception settings or running without the debugger.
EDIT: Yes, Sort will catch the exception and throw an InvalidOperationException instead - but you can use the InnerException property of that exception to get hold of the original one. It's unfortunate that the documentation doesn't specify this :(

For example, when it checks that string "1" isn't equal to null. But it wants then to compare lengths of "1" string and null => which is impossible.

I assume you work with .Net Framework 4.0. The new thing there is that a NullRefenrenceException can not be caught any more (similar to OutOfMemory exception).

Develop Reference

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