i am having a problem with a ActiveX i am using via COM-Interop. it`s throwing an exception after i exit my Application and i am not sure if this is my fault or the fault of the ActiveX.
is the the correct way to initilize and release an ActiveX via COM-Interop?
Error Message
Sample Code which triggers the Exception
public void CreateInvoice()
{
String path = #"";
FaktNT.OLESrvClass OLESrv = null;
try
{
OLESrv = new FaktNT.OLESrvClass();
if (OLESrv.MandantLogin2() == 0)
{
try
{
//Do Stuff
}
catch (System.Exception ex)
{
//Log Error
throw;
}
finally
{
OLESrv.MandantLogout();
}
}
else
{
//Do Stuff
};
}
finally
{
System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal.ReleaseComObject(OLESrv);
OLESrv = null;
GC.Collect();
}
}
You should not need to release the COM object manually using Marshal.ReleaseComObject(). This is done by .net automatically (depending on what you are doing to the reference counting in the native COM code of course).
I would also try to check if the problem originates on the native side (for example in a destructor, which is called when the object is garbage collected).
Is the COM dll generating any native threads, which may be running after the object was garbage collected?
This is not a .NET message, the component itself is trapping the access violation exception. Looks like it was written in Delphi, judging from the exception name. Making native code bomb on an AV doesn't usually require a lot of help. But sure, you may be using the component 'incorrectly'. You stubbed out too much code to really make an informed guess. Other than that making calls on it in a finally block after you caught all exceptions that it might raise is a Bad Idea.
Getting it to bomb on program exit instead of after the GC.Collect() call is not healthy either. Sure sign that you haven't managed to call ReleaseComObject and null all the interface references. That's common, better to leave it up to the garbage collector to do it right. Albeit that this message box is going to bomb the finalizer thread. Yes, you probably need the vendor's help if a thorough code review doesn't help.
i solved the problem now. it was in fact me misusing the COM-Object, i missed to call OLESrv.EngineClose() which closes the COM-Object cleanly.
somehow this little piece of important informationen didn`t make it into the vendors documentation ...
Related
OK, so I have the C# DLL method:
public void DeletePublisher(string strName)
{
try
{
if (_PublisherData.PublisherDictionary.ContainsKey(strName))
_PublisherData.PublisherDictionary.Remove(strName);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
SimpleLog.Log(ex);
}
}
It works fine. If there is a exception it is detected and added to the log.
At the moment, the above is called via MFC in my C++ project using a wrapper:
bool CMSATools::DeletePublisher(CString strPublisher)
{
bool bDeleted = false;
if (m_pInterface != nullptr)
{
CComBSTR bstrPublisher = strPublisher.AllocSysString();
throw_if_fail(m_pInterface->DeletePublisher(bstrPublisher));
bDeleted = true;
}
return bDeleted;
}
They both work fine. The issue is that fact that the CPP method currently has no knowledge of the C# method having failed. Now, in this particular instance I know I could change the signature of the DLL method to return false for a exception failure occurring and examine that return value in the CPP file.
But, in other instances I am already using the return value and thus, it would seem for consistency to me, that I pass in a bool bExceptionRaised parameter instead to my methods in the DLL.
That way, I can test that value when the method seemed to complete and if it is false act accordingly.
At the moment my application doesn't realise that an exception occurred and that is confusion.
Can I assume that either of these methodologies are the simplest approach to what I am trying to detect?
Update
Based on the answer provided I have tried to follow this tutorial and I am getting confused. I have tried to follow it and I can't create a CLR DLL and build it that is a bridge to my C# DLL file.
Whilst I appreciate the answer I feel like it is breaking up everything I have worked on since the C# DLL already handles and logs it's exceptions. Whilst I would like to learn how to build this bridge for the future, I still think perhaps at the point in time just changing my signatures is sufficient. Either way, my attempt a basic build of a bridge is failing.
Use a C++/CLI wrapper for the access of the managed component.
With C++/CLI you can directly use the C# component can catch the managed exception and you can throw a native exception or even return true or false... whatever you want.
void DoManagedStuff(SOMEDATA somedata)
{
try
{
auto sm = ConvertToSomeDataToManaged(somedata);
CallManagedCode(sm);
}
catch (Exception^ e)
{
throw CMyNativeException();
}
}
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.
AFAIK, try and finally block are used execute a piece of code that might throw some exception, we also add catch block if we are prepared to handle some type of exception and/or are excepting them, like FileIOException, AccessRight or something. But when I ran this..
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Environment.FailFast("It failed");
}
finally
{
MessageBox.Show("Done");
}
}
Its breaks with an exception and says
FatalExecutionEngineError was detected
Message: The runtime has encountered a fatal error. The address of the error was at 0x032526f4, on thread 0xd04. The error code is 0x80131623. This error may be a bug in the CLR or in the unsafe or non-verifiable portions of user code. Common sources of this bug include user marshaling errors for COM-interop or PInvoke, which may corrupt the stack.
Now msdn says
Usually, when an unhandled exception ends an application, whether or
not the finally block is run is not important. However, if you have
statements in a finally block that must be run even in that situation,
one solution is to add a catch block to the try-finally statement.
So, I added the catch block, but still it says the same thing.
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Environment.FailFast("It failed");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
finally
{
MessageBox.Show("Done");
}
}
It failed again with the same error. As for CLR saying the code block in finally always runs (at least when catch is added), it surely is not the case. Reviews/Opinions anyone?
Also here's the snapshot..
This is by design. The purpose of Environment.FailFast is to halt execution immediately. By design it will not run any code in catch or finally blocks.
The documentation says:
This method terminates a process without running any active
try/finally blocks or finalizers.
The FailFast method writes the message string to the Windows
Application event log, creates a dump of your application, and then
terminates the current process. The messa string is also included in
error reporting to Microsoft.
Use the FailFast method instead of the Exit method to terminate your
application if the state of your application is damaged beyond repair,
and executing your application's try/finally blocks and finalizers
will corrupt program resources.
This makes it clear that code in your finally blocks will not run. If there was a way to make code run after Environment.FailFast then that would render Environment.FailFast pretty much useless. Its very existence is predicated on the fact that your code does not execute after you call it.
You point to documentation that states (emphasis mine):
Usually, when an unhandled exception ends an application, whether or not the finally block is run is not important. However, if you have statements in a finally block that must be run even in that situation, one solution is to add a catch block to the try-finally statement.
But those words simply do not apply here. You are assuming that when you call Environment.FailFast, an unhandled exception terminates the application. That is not the case. The application is just terminated on the spot – there is no unhandled exception.
I am trying to catch exceptions for my form client not being able to establish a connection to a server with this in the Connect callback:
try
{
client.EndConnect(async);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
client.Close();
return;
}
This works fine but this behavior is encapsulated in to a class so I want to call throw; instead of return; so that the client class can handle it instead, like so:
try
{
client.Connect(host, port);
}
catch
{
Console.WriteLine("Could not connect to: " + host + ":" + port.ToString());
}
So why not just call throw; then? Well, for some reason if I call throw;, throw new Exception();, or basically anything other than return; the program failsfast. I'm really not sure what's causing this. I tried removing client.Close(); to see if it was the problem but nothing. If I don't call return; the program just immediately exits with no error.
Anyone know what's going on here?
Edit: I do not understand why I am getting downvoted so much. I showed how I am attempting to catch these exceptions and am asking why they are not working properly. I think the problem may be (not sure, just came up with this) because within the asynchronous callback, because it is a new thread in the ThreadPool, calling throw; does not do anything because, because it is not synchronous, there is nothing to throw back to and the application dies. Even with this knowledge, I am not sure how to solve this problem unless I put some sort of try-catch on the entire program.
I suppose a solution could be just sticking with return; because there is nothing to throw back to (due to the asynchronous callback nature of the method) and instead raise an event indicating a failure of connection. Regardless, many thanks for the downvotes and helping me solve this problem. Oh wait...
What's happening is that the EndConnect is not happening on the same thread as your BeginConnect. When EndConnect throws an exception, it is caught by the worker thread's unhandled exception handler, which fails fast (the other option is that it gets ignored and you never find out that your code isn't working).
You have to come up with a way to tell your main form thread that the connect failed.
As others have pointed out, you'll need to catch your exception one way or another to avoid program termination.
For some ideas on how you can do that "globally", see How to catch ALL exceptions/crashes in a .NET app. Whether this is actually a good idea depends on the specific needs of your program...
Relevant for WinForms:
Can't tell based on your question alone, but in case this is actually a WinForms application, you may need to be cognizant of the difference in behavior of modal forms that throw exceptions, depending on whether the debugger is active or not. Let's say we have two forms - the second one is shown as a modal child of the first one:
If application was started through debugger, second form is closed and and stack unwinding goes all the way to the first form's catch block (if any).
If application is started outside debugger, stack unwinding stops before second form is closed and generic exception message is displayed. The second form stays open and catch block in the first form is never reached.
This application has a WCF web service that is called by a WinForms app. The WinForms app has a class WCFCache to manage data from the service. There is a section like this in that class to manage an optional custom configuration section that a subset of the machines have:
private bool? m_HasCustomConfiguration = null;
public bool HasCustomConfiguration
{
get
{
if (m_HasCustomConfiguration == null)
m_HasCustomConfiguration = (CustomConfiguration != null);
return (bool)m_HasCustomConfiguration;
}
}
private WCFService.CustomConfiguration m_CustomConfiguration = null;
public WCFService.CustomConfiguration CustomConfiguration
{
get
{
if (m_CustomConfiguration == null)
{
if (m_HasCustomConfiguration.HasValue
&& !m_HasCustomConfiguration.Value)
return null;
try
{
using (WCFService.WCFServiceClient wcf = new WCFService.WCFServiceClient())
{
m_CustomConfiguration =
wcf.GetCustomConfiguration(Machine.ProcessID);
// Above method returns null if no record exists.
m_HasCustomConfiguration = (m_CustomConfiguration != null);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
// Error logging & re-throw
}
}
return m_CustomConfiguration;
}
}
When I step through the debugger in code that calls either of the above properties like this:
if (!Program.WCFCache.HasCustomConfiguration)
return new List<CustomComponents>();
...it throws the following exception:
System.AccessViolationException was unhandled
Message="Attempted to read or write protected memory. This is often an indication that other memory is corrupt."
Source="System.Windows.Forms"
...
When I step onto the line containing the reference, there is a long pause, followed by a VS popup with the exception.
The exception doesn't appear when I just put a breakpoint after the above code has executed. It doesn't even appear when I put a breakpoint inside the accessors of the properties. It only occurs when I step onto a line with one of those properties from the outside. (So there is a workaround, but it can be a pain.)
Why is this happening? Can I stop it?
Edit: The whole application was written in the last year in 3.5 C#/.NET with WCF communicating between components; meaning, we don't have legacy unmanaged DLLs. Just two unmanaged calls: one to advapi32.dll when the WinForms app is loading, in the username detection procedure. The issue I'm having happens only in this one place in the code, in a place that is about as unrelated to the login section as you can get. The other is to kernel32.dll, in a GC force-flush long after anything is done with the results from calls like the one above.
Are you using any P/Invoke or other such native code? Odds are, that's where you should start looking.
This exception is a symptom of a larger problem, namely memory corruption (that what the exception says, after all). If this was a native application, you'd get a crash.
So, look at any native calls, make sure they're operating correctly, maybe run them under a debugger to try and trap the error closer to home.
Sorry, can't really give better advice given the circumstances.
I eventually found that others have encountered this situation and that it is likely a Visual Studio bug. I was using VS 2008 when the problem occurred.