Develop Reference

Can I delete the e from catch block of try-catch?

catch (HttpAntiForgeryException e)
{
throw new HttpAntiForgeryException("Forgery Exception");
}
When I build the project, there is a warning said: The variable 'e' is declared but never used.
Is that because the e is not necessary?

Yes. You can just simply write
catch (HttpAntiForgeryException)
{
throw new HttpAntiForgeryException("Forgery Exception");
}
But, you are rethrowing same type of exception. You can also simply delete this catch block.

It is no necessary if you don't want to do anything with the exception, in your case you are throwing custom message so its fine to use like this :
catch
{
throw new HttpAntiForgeryException("Forgery Exception");
}
or like this :
// For specific exception
catch (HttpAntiForgeryException)
{
throw new HttpAntiForgeryException("Forgery Exception");
}
But you will not get any information regarding this exception, like error message, stack-Trace, inner exception etc.. I prefer you to handle the exception in Catch, Or properly log them for developer's reference

It's because You have not used the Variable e within any where of the catch block. You can easily catch that exception so you will get better understanding of the root cause of your exception than throwing a new exception.
catch (HttpAntiForgeryException e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message); // Console.Writeline or whichever way you want
}

When does the catch arguments get checked in a try/catch block c#

I'm having an issue with a try/catch block, but I can't seem to find out exactly how try/catch works when it's running that I think might have my answer. I have the following try/catch block:
try
{
...
}
catch (MyException e)
{
Log.Error("oh no!");
throw;
}
Now when I run this code I'm getting a System.TypeLoadException: Could not load type SDK.MyException from assembly "SDKSampleLibrary, Version... etc error.
I'm wondering 2 things. First, when does the computer check to see if MyException is there. Is it when it gets to the try or when it gets to the catch? Second, the SDKSampleLibrary.dll is there. How do I tell why it's not seeing it?

If the class MyException gets thrown within the try area, it will get handled inside the catch, See my example below where i throw a new exception which would get handled by the catch statement. However any other kinds of exceptions would not be handled/
try
{
throw(new MyException()); // handled by the catch
throw(new ParseException()); //not handled.
int test = "test" //not handled
}
catch (MyException e)
{
Log.Error("oh no!");
throw;
}
can also catch general exceptions to catch ALL exceptions like:
try
{
throw(new MyException()); // handled by the catch
throw(new ParseException()); //handled.
int test = "test" //handled
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Log.Error("oh no!");
throw;
}

The compiler sees the class since it is blue and does not give compile errors. The problems is happening when you are running the code. I think the problem is in de code that throws the exception which cannot create it. You could try to use the normal Exception type in the catch block and then set a break point.

The problem is not with the try/catch block but rather the problem is the type of exception that you are trying to catch as specified by the exception that your code is throwing. This exception occurs when the runtime tries to load the MyException object. You should make sure that the MyException inherits either from the Exception base class or from any of its children.

throw-catch logic

try
{
try
{
throw new Exception("From Try");
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("From Catch");
}
finally
{
throw new Exception("From Finally");
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
The above code's output is: From Finally.
Why it's not From Catch?
-or-
How can i catch & log from outside both exceptions?

Because the finally block executes after the catch block, overriding the exception.
And when an exception happens during the handling of an earlier one, the first one is lost.
How can i catch & log from outside both exceptions?
By not throwing inside a finally block. That is always a bad idea.
If you want to log in an inner catch block use throw; or pass the first exception as InnerException of the new one. That is why InnerException exists.

This is the behaviour as it is defined by the C# language specification. Handling of the exception thrown inside the try block is aborted and instead the exception thrown in the finally block will be handled.
The relevant section 8.9.5 The throw statement explains how exceptions are propagates:
In the current function member, each try statement that encloses the throw point is examined. For each statement S, starting with the innermost try statement and ending with the outermost try statement, the following steps are evaluated:
If the try block of S encloses the throw point and if S has one or more catch clauses, the catch clauses are examined in order of appearance to locate a suitable handler for the exception. The first catch clause that specifies the exception type or a base type of the exception type is considered a match. A general catch clause (§8.10) is considered a match for any exception type. If a matching catch clause is located, the exception propagation is completed by transferring control to the block of that catch clause.
Otherwise, if the try block or a catch block of S encloses the throw point and if S has a finally block, control is transferred to the finally block. If the finally block throws another exception, processing of the current exception is terminated. Otherwise, when control reaches the end point of the finally block, processing of the current exception is continued.

Add an extra layer of try-catch blocks like the following:
try {
Exception fromCatch = null;
try {
throw new Exception("From Try");
}
catch {
try {
throw new Exception("From Catch");
}
catch (Exception e) {
// catch failed -> store exception
fromCatch = e;
}
}
finally {
try {
throw new Exception("From Finally");
}
catch (Exception e) {
// i can think of better exception merging... but this shows the idea
throw new Exception(e.Message, fromCatch);
}
// throw fromCatch, in case "From Finally did not happen"
throw fromCatch;
}
}
catch (Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
if (ex.InnerException != null) {
Console.WriteLine(ex.InnerException.Message);
}
}
Reports:
From Finally
From Catch
Edit: this is obviously the answer for question two, as the "why" is answered sufficiently :)

finally always runs; and it always runs last. So the lat thing done by the inner try was the finally and that threw something that was caught by the outer catch
not sure if i understand part2 of the question

finally happens no matter what. Regardless of whether there was an exception in the try or catch. Thus, you see "From Finally". (This actually is the entire purpose of the finally clause. So you can put code in there that will clean up resources and the like no matter what -- even if there's an exception.)

Your code throws a new Exception from each part of the try/catch/finally statement. You are essentially swallowing the previous exception when you create the new error. You can add your "From Try" message to your "From Catch" message with something like
catch(Exception ex)
{
throw new Exception(ex.Message + ":" + "From Catch");
}
I don't know know how you could chain that in the finally though.

This is a very good question, and one that is kind of tricky. Let's go through this step by step:
try
{
throw new Exception("From Try");
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("From Catch");
}
In the code above, Exception("From Try") is thrown and caught by the catch clause (pretty simple so far). The catch clause throws an exception of it's own, which normally we would expect (because the catch is nested in a larger try-catch block) to be caught immediately, but...
finally
{
throw new Exception("From Finally");
}
The finally clause, which is guaranteed to (try to) execute, comes first, and throws an exception of it's own, overwriting the Exception("From Catch") that was thrown earlier.
"A common usage of catch and finally
together is to obtain and use
resources in a try block, deal with
exceptional circumstances in a catch
block, and release the resources in
the finally block" - MSDN Article
Following this train of logic, we should try our best to refrain from writing code in our catch and finally blocks that is exception-prone. If you're worried about situations like the one you presented cropping up, I'd recommend logging the exceptions and their related information out to an external file, which you can reference for debugging.

Because the finally block is always executed.
try
{
try
{
throw new Exception("From Try");
// (1) A new exception object A is created here and thrown.
}
catch // (2) Exception object A is catched.
{
throw new Exception("From Catch");
// (3) A new exception object B is created here and thrown.
}
finally // (4) Execution is forced to continue here!
{
throw new Exception("From Finally");
// (5) A new exception object C is created here and thrown.
}
}
catch (Exception ex) // (6) Exception object C is catched.
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
Every new'd exception object in step (3) and (5) discards the previous one. Since the finally block is always executed all what remains is the exception object C from step (5).

Exception.Data and Exception Handling Questions

I have a couple questions about exceptions.
1) when you hit a catch block, swallowing means what exactly? I thought it was always rethrow or the existing exceptions is passed up to the next catch block.
2) If you add Exception.Data values to an excepction, I notice I have to do another throw; to grab that data futher up in another catch block later. Why?

Swallowing an exception means catching it and not doing anything useful with it. A common thing you might see is this:
try
{
DoSomeOperationThatMightThrow();
}
catch (Exception ex) // don't do this!
{
// exception swallowed
}
You usually don't want to catch a base Exception at all, it's better to catch and handle specific Exception types, and ideally you should only catch exception types that you can do something useful with at the level of code you're in. This can be tricky in complex applications, because you might be handling different errors at different levels in the code. The highest level of code might just catch serious/fatal exceptions, and lower levels might catch exceptions that can be dealt with with some error handling logic.
If you do catch an exception and need to rethrow it, do this:
try
{
DoSomething();
}
catch (SomeException ex)
{
HandleError(...);
// rethrow the exception you caught
throw;
// Or wrap the exception in another type that can be handled higher up.
// Set ex as the InnerException on the new one you're throwing, so it
// can be viewed at a higher level.
//throw new HigherLevelException(ex);
// Don't do this, it will reset the StackTrace on ex,
// which makes it harder to track down the root issue
//throw ex;
}

Swallowing an exception normally means having a handling block for the exception, but not doing anything in the block. For example:
try { 3/0; } catch DivideByZeroException { //ignore } //Note: I know this really wont' compile because the compiler is smart enough to not let you divide by a const of 0.
You have to rethrow because the first handler for an exception is the only one that will execute.
If you want the exception to bubble up you either don't handle it or you rethrow it. By the way, it's important to note that in .NET by just saying "throw" you'll preserve the stack trace. If you "throw Exception" you'll lose your stack trace.

Ok, you can handle the exception up to call stack you can do some thing like this:
public class A
{
public void methodA()
{
try
{
}
catch(Exception e)
{
throw new Exception("Some description", e);
}
}
}
public class B
{
public void methodB()
{
try
{
A a = new A();
a.methodA();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
//...here you get exceptions
}
}
}

The mystery of the twin exceptions

Here's an interesting question. I have a system that attempts to run some initialization code. If it fails, we call the deinitializer to clean everything up.
Because we call the deinitializer in exception handling, we run the risk that both initialize and deinitialize will fail, and hypothetically, it now seems that we have to throw two exceptions.
It seems pretty unlikely that we will, though. So what happens and what should the code do here?
try { /* init code here */ }
catch (Exception ex)
{
try
{
_DeinitializeEngine();
}
catch (Exception ex2)
{
throw new OCRException("Engine failed to initialize; ALSO failed to deinitialize engine!", ex2);
}
finally
{
throw new OCRException("Engine failed to initialize; failed to initialize license!", ex);
}
}

You shouldn't throw in the Finally block. Instead, use the InnerException to add information in the throw.
Update
What you have to do is to catch and rethrow with the "history" of exception, this is done with InnerException. You can edit it when bulding a new exception. This is a code snippet I just wrote to illustrate the idea that I explain in all the comments below.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
principalMethod();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Test : " + e.Message);
}
Console.Read();
}
public static void principalMethod()
{
try
{
throw new Exception("Primary");
}
catch (Exception ex1)
{
try
{
methodThatCanCrash();
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("Cannot deinitialize", ex1);
}
}
}
private static void methodThatCanCrash()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
No need to use double throw with finalize. If you put a break point at the Console.WriteLine(...). You will notice that you have all the exception trace.

If your clean up code is failing and you cannot leave the application in a clean and known state I would let the exception go unhandled (or catch it with the UnhandledException event to log it) then close the application.
Because if you can't handle the first exception, what point is there in catching the second exception?

If I understand your problem correctly, here's what I would have done:
try { /* init code here */ }
catch (Exception ex)
{
// Passing original exception as inner exception
Exception ocrex = new OCRException("Engine failed to initialize", ex);
try
{
_DeinitializeEngine();
}
catch (Exception ex2)
{
// Passing initialization failure as inner exception
ocrex = new OCRException("Failed to deinitialize engine!", ocrex);
}
throw ocrex;
}

You have two possible exception conditions: one in which the first method failed, and one in which both methods failed.
You're already defining your own exception class. So create another (or extend the first) with a RelatedException or PriorException property. When you throw the exception in the second case, save a reference to the first exception in this property.
It's up to the exception handler that catches this exception to figure out what to do with the second exception.