Develop Reference

C# - How to structure error handling in code properly [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am fairly new to programming and I want to know what is the proper way to structure your error handling. I have searched the internet but I have failed to find something solid about the structure of ALL your try/catch/finally statements, and how they interact with each other.
I want to present my idea of how I think I should structure my error handling in code and I would like to invite everyone check if this is correct. A big bonus would be to back it up with some other research, a common practice of some sort.
So my way of doing this would be to put try statements pretty much everywhere! (I hope I haven't raged everyone by saying this). PS - I also understand about catching different types of exceptions, I am only catching of type 'Exception' just for explanation purposes.
So for example:
I start on Main in a normal console application and then I create an
instance of A.
I then call a member function on it called AMethod1 (a.AMethod1).
A.AMethod1 creates an instance of class B and then calls BMethod1
(b.BMethod1).
This is how I would go about error handling it:
public class Program
{
static void Main (string[] args)
{
//I do not place simple code like below inside the try statement,
//because it is unnecessary and will slow the process down.
//Is this correct?
const int importantNumber = 45;
string name;
IRepositoryFactory repoFactory;
A a;
//And then I put code in 'try' where I feel it may go wrong.
try
{
a = new A();
a.AMethod1();
//Some other code
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
HandleError(ex);
}
}
}
// End of scope of Program! The functions below belong to their relative
// classes.
public void AMethod1()
{
try
{
B b = new B();
b.BMethod1();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Preserving the original exception and giving more detailed feedback.
//Is this correct?
//Alternative - you still could do a normal 'throw' like in BMethod1.
throw new Exception("Something failed", ex);
}
}
public void BMethod1()
{
try
{
//some code
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw; //So I don't lose stack trace - Is this correct?
}
}
In summary:
I put all code in try statements (except declarations like shown in
above code)
On the client level (at the start of the call stack) I
catch the error and handle it.
Going down the call stack, I just
throw the Exception so I don't break the stack information.
I would really appreciate some resources that explains how programmers are meant to structure their error handling. Please don't forget to read the comments within the code please.

Here are some good rules of thumb:
If you are going to log the error at the level in question, use exception handling
If there is some way to solve the exception, use exception handling
Otherwise, don't add any exception handling at that level
The exception to the rules above is the UI should ALWAYS (okay, maybe not always, but I can't think of an exception to this rule right off hand) have exception handling.
In general, if you are throwing the same error, as you have in your code, it is a sign you should not handle the exception. End of story.
NOTE: When I say "at that level", I mean in the individual class or method. Unless the exception handling is adding value, don't include it. It always adds value at the user interface level, as a user does not have to see your dirty laundry, a message saying "oops, laundry day" is enough.

In my personal experience most of the exceptions are related to null object reference. I tend to follow null object pattern to avoid lots of check for null values. And also while doing a value conversion I always use tryparse so that i dont stand a chance of null issues. all in all this subject could be discussed from many perspective. if you could be a bit more specific it will be easy to answer.

stackoverflow really isn't an opinion site. It's geared heavily towards specific answers to specific questions.
But you should know that try...catch does have some overhead associated with it. Putting it "everywhere" will hurt the performance of your code.
Just use it to wrap code that is subject to unexpected errors, such as writing to disk, for example.
Also note that the "correct" way depends on what you are doing with those errors. Are you logging them, reporting them to the user, propagating them to the caller? It just depends.

Should I catch exceptions in my method for "purely documenting" purposes?

Should I catch exceptions in my method for "purely documenting" purposes, thus encapsulating the error-documentation inside the method itself, or is that responsibility of the caller?
Suppose I call numerous other methods in my EncryptPackage() method, including the framework ones, which potentially throw numerous exceptions. I wrap everything in using blocks, so no need to catch exceptions for cleanup (or I use try/finally for cleanup). Should I catch the exception anyway, and provide the details about the context of that method, or is it the responsibility of caller method?
Here is the case one:
[Serializable]
class TestClassException : Exception
{
public TestClassException() : base() { }
public TestClassException(string message) : base(message) { }
public TestClassException(string message, Exception innerException) : base(message, innerException) { }
}
class TestClass
{
public TestClass() { }
public void EncryptPackage()
{
try
{
DoSomething();
DoAnotherThing();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new TestClassException("Error occurred during package encryption", ex);
}
}
}
class ConsumerExample
{
public ConsumerExample() { }
public void DoSomeStuff()
{
TestClass testClass = new TestClass();
try
{
testClass.EncryptPackage();
}
catch (TestClassException ex)
{
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(ex.ToString());
}
}
}
In this code, notice how the EncryptPackage() method catches all possible exceptions, just to "decorate the error text", with a "Error occurred during package encryption" text. EncryptPackage() here encapsulates the error-description logic.
And here is another technique:
class TestClass2
{
public TestClass2() { }
public void EncryptPackage()
{
DoSomething();
DoAnotherThing();
}
}
class ConsumerExample2
{
public ConsumerExample2() { }
public void DoSomeStuff()
{
TestClass testClass = new TestClass();
try
{
testClass.EncryptPackage();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Error occurred during package encryption.\r\n\r\n" + ex.ToString());
}
}
}
In this example, EncryptPackage() does not catch anything, because the caller documents the error case anyway with "Error occurred during package encryption.\r\n\r\n" message.
Please note that this is a very simplified example, in real world there will be numerous hierarchical classes, and exceptions will be propagating through the long call stack, so which method of catching exceptions is preferred? Second approach seems "cleaner", because the exception is handled in a layer where some "actual handling" (e.g. displaying to user) is going to take place. Call stack information would be preserved in exception object, so technically it will be possible to find out where exactly the exception was thrown. But... that does not seem as "well-documenting" as the first approach, where each level of abstraction adds its own description to the error, preserving the previous exception in an innerException member. In this case, when the execution leaves the TestClass layer, it already contains detailed description of the error that happened within this class. So this feels to be the better encapsulation of error-handling logic.
Which one to use?

There is a chapter on this in Effective Java:
Higher layers should catch lower-level exceptions and, in their place,
throw exceptions that can be explained in terms of the higher-level
abstraction. This idiom is known as exception translation.

I prefer your second example, mainly because it can signicantly reduce the amount of error handling code you have to write, especially if you are writing custom exceptions - with the first example you could end up with a lot of custom exception classes which do not give much benefit (you already have the call stack to tell you where the exception came from).
You might think it is nice to have a more descriptive error message, but who benefits from this? The end-user? Should you even be displaying exception messages to your user (and what language are you going to use)? A lot of the time the user just needs to know that there has been an internal error, and they should give up (restart), or try again. Do you the developer benefit? You are probably going to end up examining the call stack anyway with the source code in front of you, so you don't really need a more descriptive message, you can see for yourself what the code is doing at that point.
This is not a hard and fast rule. Most of the time I only catch exceptions at the top level, where I log them and report an error to the user. If you are reporting the exception directly to the user, then often the original exception does not benefit from translation, e.g., if you try to open a non-existent file, then the System.IO.FileNotFoundException is descriptive enough so why translate it to something else? Do you really want to make the same judgement call ("I know better than the library author so I am going to translate their carefully crafted exceptions") for all of the gazillions of exceptions out there? I only catch exceptions lower down if I want to recover from them (generally not possible), or, very rarely, I want to translate them to a more descriptive exception.
In a layered architecture, it can make sense to translate exceptions between the layers, e.g., catch exceptions coming out of the data access layer to a form suitable for the application layer, and similarly between the application layer and the user interface, but I don't know if you are working on that type of system.
If you want to document your exceptions, you should use the exception tag in the xml documentation for the method. This can then be used to general help files from the documentation, e.g., using SandCastle.

As per #Sjoerd above, translate exceptions so they are in the same level of abstraction. In your case EncryptPackage should translate any lower-level exceptions itself, NOT the caller.
Say the lower-level exceptions were from a DB layer (say DBException). Would the caller expect to understand DBException? The answer is NO: the caller wants to encrpt a package, not a DBException. The lower-level exceptions should be chained INSIDE the higher-level exception for debugging purposes.
Finally, I know TestClassException is an example, but make sure the exception class describes the problem clearly: I, personally, don't like bland, generic exception classes (except to make a common base-class for other exceptions).

You should try/catch in few, easily distinguished situations:
any method that can be invoked "externally", such as your app's entry point, UI events, multi-threaded calls and others. Put some log output or message on each and every catch you have. This will prevent your app from crashing (for the most part) as well as provide you or the user with some feedback on how to fix the problem.
when you can really handle the exception. This means your app can, for example, opt for a secondary database or server URL, apply a different processing etc.
when you want to prevent something optional from ruining the main workflow, for example failing to delete your temp file shouldn't cause your process to fail.
there are probably some other places where you'll need a try/catch but these should be rare
Always combine error handling with a decent way of logging and/or messaging the user, don't let any exceptions info disappear because that's how you get apps and don't behave well for "no apparent reason" - at least the reason should be made apparent.
Also - don't use exceptions to control your workflow. There really shouldn't be any "throw"s unless there's absolutely no other way of doing something.

Try/Catch in every method of every class?

When we wrap a bunch of statements in a try/catch and one of these issues an exception, within the catch we have no way of knowing which of the statements caused the exception (the ex.stacktrace shows our current method (doit), its caller, its caller's caller, etc. but neither do1 or do2):
function doit() {
try {
do1();
do2();
[...]
}
catch (Exception ex) {
// what failed?
}
}
generally I've taken to wrapping all statements and rethrowing, sort of like:
private void do1() {
try {
// do whatever
} catch(Exception e) {
// write to my error log
throw new Exception("do1: " + e.Message, e.InnerException);
}
}
which leaves a trail of breadcrumbs in my log and makes the chain available for the upstream. The problem, of course, is that I have to wrap every method I write with this kind of code.
something tells me I'm being dumb about it. what is the right approach?

Ok, this is hard to get right because exception handling is a really really touchy subject and in the past people have fought religious wars over how to do this right.
First off: neither use an empty catch (try { ... } catch { ... }), nor catch(Exception ex).
The sole purpose of Exception-derived classes is to give you rich information about the kind of exception which occured so you can do something meaningful in your exception handler (if a thread crashed restart it, if a db connection failed non-permanently try again, then fail, etc).
People tend to use a catch-all handler for the outermost part of their code to log uncaught exceptions and this is kind of OK, but in any case you should either prompt the user or rethrow the exception (using throw, not throw ex - there is a ton of discussion about this as well).
Basically you do not programmatically care about where the Exception occured at all.
You can either handle it or you can't. If you can't handle it then you don't catch it.
Addendum: The most important reason for this "if you can do something about it, do so, otherwise dont you dare touch that exception" philosophy is that silently caught exceptions (whether logged or not) can lead to really hard-to-find bugs. Just pushing them out to a logfile might not be enough because in a live system you may not get the fully annotated stack trace (with line numbers and everything).
Addendum 2: Take for instance a textbox which expects an integer input. If the user supplies a string you cannot meaningfully process the input, maybe a conversion exception gets thrown, you catch that specific exception and reset the textbox to its old value and maybe inform the user about the erroneous input. Alternatively your program might either just die with an exception (bad design, you could recover from that exception) or silently go on showing the erroneous input, but still using the old value (bad design, the program is misleading).

If you are really sold on doing this (others have stated why this is bad already), use an Aspect Oriented Programming approach. This will make your life significantly easier and reduce the amount of code you end up writing and maintaining.
Take a look at PostSharp, it gives you a framework that allows you to decorate methods, classes, or namespaces with attributes that will generate this boilerplate error handling for you.

#Branko nailed it in the comments: the exception's stack trace shows the point where the exception was thrown, not where it was caught.
+1 for #ChaosPandion's comment: this is a very, very, very bad idea.

try and catch seem to me to be probably the single worst designed modern programming mechanism. We no longer have the ability to handle errors as we go; we must fail the entire procedure if a single exception occurs, unless we do something horrifying like try every statement individually. There is no longer the option of recovering, only failing as gracefully as possible.
The best pattern for this I have found so far is to wrap every user event in a try/catch (using a method, not an explicit try every time). Ex:
public static class Defines
{
public static bool TryAction(Action pAction)
{
try { pAction(); return true; }
catch(Exception exception) { PostException(exception); return false; }
}
}
...
private void DoSomething(int pValue)
{
...
}
private void MyControl_MyEvent(object pSender, MyEventArgs pEventArgs)
{
Defines.TryAction(() => DoSomething(pEventArgs.Data));
}
Beyond that, just try to write exception-less code. Only use explicit trys when you are very likely to get an exception and want to do a little more than just fail gracefully.

usage of try catch

Which is best: Code Snippet 1 or Code Snippet 2 ? And Why?
/* Code Snippet 1
*
* Write try-catch in function definition
*/
void Main(string[] args)
{
AddMe();
}
void AddMe()
{
try
{
// Do operations...
}
catch(Exception e)
{
}
}
/* Code Snippet 2
*
* Write try-catch where we call the function.
*/
void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
AddMe();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
}
}
void AddMe()
{
// Do operations...
}

The real question to ask is "What is AddMe's contract to the rest of the world?" If AddMe represents the be-all do-all of an interface and correctly handles any exception that encounters in the appropriate way, then sure - let it catch it. If AddMe doesn't or can't know what to do with an exception, then it should throw and defer the handling to the calling code.

It depends, as usual.
In Snippet #1, the error handling is reusable. In Snippet #2, it is not, but that is better in cases where you want to use different error handling in different places.
Other than that, they are identical.

they will operate the same however Most would prefer to catch the logic inside the method if thats where it will be thrown from. Just a best practice though.

There's not best universal way. It depends on how you're going to handle your exceptions.
Do you plan on using a global logger in your main application? The you should have a try/catch block in your main method, and log exceptions there.
You can still try/catch in internal methods if you need to do other stuff with the exceptions, but remember to rethrow them, or else the logger in the main method won't have anything to log.
And remember, to rethrow correctly, use:
throw;
and not:
throw e;
Because the former keeps all the stack trace, while the latter doesn't.

IMHO, allow methods to throw exceptions. Don't attempt to hide when things go wrong. When they do it is up to the client to decide how they'd like to handle the exception. The reasoning for this is because each application may want to do something different with the exception.

TL,DR; Catch exceptions when you can do something about the exception, otherwise let them flow up the call stack until something else will handle them. If the exception cannot be handled by any particular part of your application, your application error event method should handle all the logging for you. Your logging functionality will be your final net for dealing with exceptions.
I've worked with a few shops that require try catch logic on EVERY method, and I learned that the Exception object does a better job watching your call stack than you can.
My other rule of thumb is notify the user of exceptions on user trigger events. So event based or command based captures would be a great place to catch, notify, then re-throw the same exception. (IE throw; NOT throw ex;)

There are already good answers to this question, coming ultimately down to "it depends", but I want to add a thought that I believe greatly influences which method is better for any given situation.
In your code snippet examples, but of your catches are catch (Exception e) {} as opposed to, say, catch (IOException e) or catch (NullReferenceException, or some other narrower exception type. The kind(s) of exception(s) you expect from the code in the try block will make a difference in the way you want to handle it. Especially if you have more than one type to consider, as could be the case if you handle exceptions outside of the subroutine - a large enough upper-level try block could have several different types of exceptions to handle, and start to run the risk of making the code messy.
My general rule of thumb, overall, is that if the exception is a non-critical error (especially if caused by invalid user input), I can handle it in the subroutine and keep the system running. On the other hand, if the exception means the program needs to close, I handle it higher up.

Why can't I write just a try with no catch or finally? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Sometimes I do this and I've seen others doing it too:
VB:
Try
DontWannaCatchIt()
Catch
End Try
C#:
try
{
DontWannaCatchIt();
}
catch {}
I know I should catch every important exception that I'm expecting and do something about it, but sometimes it's not important to - or am I doing something wrong?
Is this usage of the try block incorrect, and the requirement of at least one catch or finally block an indication of it?
Update:
Now I understand the reason for this, and it's that I should at least comment on the empty catch block so others understand why it's empty. I should also catch only the exceptions I'm expecting.
Luckily for me I'm coding in VB so I can write it in just one catch:
Catch ex As Exception When TypeOf ex Is IOException _
OrElse TypeOf ex Is ArgumentException _
OrElse TypeOf ex Is NotSupportedException _
OrElse TypeOf ex Is SecurityException _
OrElse TypeOf ex Is UnauthorizedAccessException
'I don't actually care.
End Try

If you don't want to catch it, why are you using try in the first place?
A try statement means that you believe something can go wrong, and the catch says that you can adequately handle that which goes wrong.
So in your estimation:
try
{
//Something that can go wrong
}
catch
{
//An empty catch means I can handle whatever goes wrong. If a meteorite hits the
//datacenter, I can handle it.
}
That catch swallows any exceptions that happen. Are you that confident in your code that you can handle anything that goes wrong gracefully?
The best thing to do (for both yours and your maintenance programmer's sanity) is to explicitly state that which you can handle gracefully:
try
{
//Something that could throw MeteoriteHitDatacenterException
}
catch (MeteoriteHitDatacenterException ex)
{
//Please log when you're just catching something. Especially if the catch statement has side effects. Trust me.
ErrorLog.Log(ex, "Just logging so that I have something to check later on if this happens.")
}

No, you should not catch every important exception. It is okay to catch and ignore exceptions you don't care about, like an I/O error if there's nothing you can do to correct it and you don't want to bother reporting it to the user.
But you need to let exceptions like StackOverflowException and OutOfMemoryException propagate. Or, more commonly, NullReferenceException. These exceptions are typically errors that you did not anticipate, cannot recover from, should not recover from, and should not be suppressed.
If you want to ignore an exception then it is good to explicitly write an empty catch block in the code for that particular exception. This makes it clear exactly what exceptions you're ignoring. Ignoring exceptions very correctly is an opt-in procedure, not an opt-out one. Having an "ignore all exceptions" feature which can then be overridden to not ignore specific types would be a very bad language feature.
How do you know what types of exceptions are important and should not be caught? What if there are exceptions you don't know about? How do you know you won't end up suppressing important errors you're not familiar with?
try
{
}
// I don't care about exceptions.
catch
{
}
// Okay, well, except for system errors like out of memory or stack overflow.
// I need to let those propagate.
catch (SystemException exception)
{
// Unless this is an I/O exception, which I don't care about.
if (exception is IOException)
{
// Ignore.
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
// Or lock recursion exceptions, whatever those are... Probably shouldn't hide those.
catch (LockRecursionException exception)
{
throw;
}
// Or, uh, what else? What am I missing?
catch (???)
{
}

No catch or finally is invalid. Empty catch or finally is valid. Empty catch means you don't care about exceptions, you just try to do something and it doesn't matter if it doesn't work, you just want to go on. Useful in cleanup functions for example.

Also if you haven't to do something about an error maybe you should specify what kind of exception the program has to ignore.
If you have to ignore every exception, I can't see why you can't use try/catch in this way.

It's usually a mistake. Exceptions signal, well, exceptional behavior; when an exception is thrown it should mean that something went wrong. So to continue normal program flow as if nothing went wrong is a way of hiding an error, a form of denial. Instead, think about how your code should handle the exceptional case, and write code to make that happen. An error that propagates because you've covered it up is much harder to debug than one that surfaces immediately.

It's not made easy for you to do because it's considered bad practice by the majority of developers.
What if someone later adds a method call to the body of DontWannaCatchIt() that does throw an exception worth catching, but it gets swallowed by your empty catch block? What if there are some exceptions that you actually would want to catch, but didn't realize it at the time?
If you absolutely must do this, try to be as specific as possible with the type of exception you're going to catch. If not, perhaps logging the exception is an option.

An error exists, has been thrown, and needs to go somewhere. Normal code flow has been aborted and the fan needs cleaned.
No catch block = indeterminate state. Where should the code go? What should it do?
An empty catch block = error handled by ignoring it.
Note: VBA has a vile "On Error Continue"...

The reason I've heard is that if your try fails for ANY reason, giving you control of the error response is highly preferable to giving the Framework control of it, i.e., yellow screen or error 500.

what if you write only code with try
try
{
int j =0;
5/j;
}
this would equivalent to write
int j =0;
5/j;
so writing try does not make any sense , it only increse your count of lines.
now if you write try with empty catch or finally , you are explicitley instructing runtime to behave differently.
so that' why i think empty try block is not possible.

Yes, it is incorrect. It's like goto: one per 100 KLoc is fine, but if you need many of these, you are doing it wrong.
Swallowing exceptions without any reactions is one of the worse things in error handling, and it should at least be explicit:
try
{
DontWannaCatchIt();
}
catch
{
// This exception is ignored based on Spec Ref. 7.2.a,
// the user gets a failure report from the actual results,
// and diagnostic details are available in the event log (as for every exception)
}
The further-away-look:
Error handling is an aspect: in some contexts, an error needs to be thrown and propagate up the call stack (e.g. you copy a file, copy fails).
Calling the same code in a different context might require the error to be tracked, but the operation to continue (e.g. Copying 100 files, with a log indicating which files failed).
Even in this case, an empty catch handler is wrong.
With most languages, there is no other direct implementation than to try+catch within the loop, and build the log in the catch handler. (You could build a mroe flexible mechanism, though: Have a per-call-thread handler that can either throw, or stow away the message. However, interaction with debugging tools suffers without direct language support.)
A sensible use case would be implementing a TryX() from a X(), but that would have to return the exception in question.