Develop Reference

How to handle exception in catch block?

I am trying to get the ideal way to handle exception. I googled & read that I should put try catch in the catch block as well to handle but what if any exception occurs in the nested block itself.
try
{
int a = 10;
int b = 0;
int c = a / b;
Console.WriteLine(c);
Console.ReadKey();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
int a = 10; int b = 0;
int c = a / b;
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message.ToString());
Console.ReadKey();
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("Some Exception");
}
On googling I read that it should be decorated as below:
If exception occurs in Catch block itself then how to handle it in C#?
If exception occurs in Catch block itself then how to handle it in C#?
What happens if an exception occurs in Catch block in C#. Also what would be the caller result in that case
try
{
int a = 10;
int b = 0;
int c = a / b;
Console.WriteLine(c);
Console.ReadKey();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
try
{
}
catch(Exception innerEx)
{
// What if exception here also occurs.
}
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("Some Exception");
}
If I do this way, then it will stuck in an infinite try-catch block.
I think there would be some better or the right way to handle this scenario.

I think there would be some better or the right way to handle this scenario.
No snark intended in this but simply, don't allow an exception to happen in the first place.
A try...catch is a language construct that ensures you handle an edge case or error you didn't mitigate and design for in the first place, hence why it's exceptional code.
In your code, you're simply throwing an error because of a division by 0, but in the real-world, you want to handle that and alert the user (or developer, or server, or whatever), and then handle the actual exceptional code, example:
static void PrintError()
{
Console.WriteLine("You must enter a valid number between {0} and {1}, excluding 0", int.MaxValue, int.MinValue);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try {
int a = 10;
int b = 0;
PrintError(); // Tell user to enter valid numbers
while (b == 0) {
string user_input = Console.ReadLine();
if (int.TryParse(user_input, out b)) { // is it an actual number?
if (b == 0) { // no 0's remember user!??
PrintError();
} else {
// ok, everything checks out, so do what the system can actually handle without throwing an error
Console.WriteLine("a/b = {0}", (a / b));
}
} else {
PrintError();
}
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine("Something exceptional happened: {0}", ex);
}
}
This example could be simplified further, but it demonstrates there isn't an exception that could actually occur except something that is actually exceptional (i.e. out of memory error or some other system error).
In the event of larger code bases with multiple classes, the exception handler and finalizer would be where you could clean up resources acquired in other areas of the code, like closing a socket or file handle to ensure data is not lost.
In the event an error happens in the exception handler (something that can and does happen), you need to be aware of that and know what might happen in that case.
In the event of a C# application utilizing the .NET framework, an exception thrown within an exception will just cause the application to crash with the inner exception stack trace (versus the "outer" exception that's probably more relevant to the actual exception) if not handled.
There's plenty of "wrong" ways to handle exceptions (like not handling them at all), but there's not really a "right" way given the variable nature of exceptions.
Hope that can help.

First of all you need to know what does try,catch and finally works lets start:
Try: In this block we can write code which have the possibilities to throw some error (Better practice is to write code part in it.)
Catch: It is responsible to show error and what to do if error arises(Like in your code 10/0 throws error which can be handled in this section.)
Finally: Code written in this part will execute any how weather any error comes in or not.
Now for your query it would be better that you can use If...else in finally and code put in that part would be kept in try catch block.
For example:
bool flagCatch=false;
try
{
int a = 10;
int b = 0;
int c = a / b;
Console.WriteLine(c);
Console.ReadKey();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Error handling
flagCatch=true;
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message.ToString());
Console.ReadKey();
}
finally
{
try
{
if(flagCatch)
{
//Code
}
else
{
//Code when error not comes
}
}
catch(Exception err)
{
//Error handling
}
}

I would go with the comment of Tieson T. . From my point of view it is an design issue.
I could also build an example with if statements -> if that goes wrong, I perform failure handling -> if the failure handling goes wrong, I perform failure handling, If the failure handling goes wrong ....
To make the code more readable, you can try to "hide" the try-catch blocks in method like:
static void PerformInTryCatch<T, TException>(Action<T> action, T obj) where TException : Exception
{
try
{
action(obj);
}
catch (TException exception)
{
// Perform some logging
}
}
Hope that helps.

Finally block in try/catch not working?

Ok, as far as I understand, try/catch blocks try an operation and catch blocks catch exceptions. The more specific exceptions go up top, the more generic towards the bottom of the series of catch blocks. In the following code, I implement try/catch, everything works fine.
As far as I understand, a finally block always executes. Some people have argued that there is no purpose to finally block, because if there is an exception or there isn't, the code after the last catch block gets executed anyways.
However, the argument against this is that if there is an exception thrown in a catch block, there are no subsequent catch blocks to catch that exception. So by putting resource cleanup code in a finally block, you ensure that resources will be released in the event that an exception is thrown in a catch block.
Which is why the following code puzzles me. I throw an exception in the first catch block and the finally block never executes. Why?
*Please note that there is indeed an exception thrown while creating myStreamReader, as the file is actually called generic.txt and is misspelled with purpose, in order to throw the initial exception.
StreamReader myStreamReader = null;
try
{
myStreamReader = new StreamReader("c:\\genneric.txt");
Console.WriteLine(myStreadReader.ReadToEnd());
}
catch(FileNotFoundException Error)
{
Console.WriteLine(Error.Message);
Console.WriteLine();
throw new Exception();
}
catch(Exception Error)
{
Console.WriteLine(Error.Message);
Console.WriteLine();
}
finally
{
if(myStreamReader != null)
{
myStreamReader.Close();
}
Console.WriteLine("Closed the StreamReader.");
}
VIDEO:
The issue with this block of code originates in this video, at the 27:20 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxdSb3ZCWYc&list=PLAC325451207E3105&index=41
The guy directly declares that an Exception that occurs in a catch block will not prevent the finally block from executing. I am seeing that it does.

If that new exception is completely unhandled, the entire process is torn down, and the finally block never gets to run.
If there's some other exception handler at a higher level, or an unhandled exception handler has been installed, the finally block does run.
This sample does show "Closed the StreamReader":
static void Main()
{
try
{
StreamReader myStreamReader = null;
try
{
myStreamReader = new StreamReader("c:\\genneric.txt");
Console.WriteLine(myStreamReader.ReadToEnd());
}
catch (FileNotFoundException Error)
{
Console.WriteLine(Error.Message);
Console.WriteLine();
throw new Exception();
}
catch (Exception Error)
{
Console.WriteLine(Error.Message);
Console.WriteLine();
}
finally
{
if (myStreamReader != null)
{
myStreamReader.Close();
}
Console.WriteLine("Closed the StreamReader.");
}
}
catch
{
}
Console.WriteLine("Done");
Console.ReadLine();
}
Unhandled exception handlers can be registered in the AppDomain.UnhandledException event.

Your understanding is not correct. See try-finally.
By using a finally block, you can clean up any resources that are
allocated in a try block, and you can run code even if an exception
occurs in the try block. Typically, the statements of a finally block
run when control leaves a try statement. The transfer of control can
occur as a result of normal execution, of execution of a break,
continue, goto, or return statement, or of propagation of an exception
out of the try statement.
So finally does executed if you return for instance out of a try block, but not if you throw from a catch block.
However, if the exception is unhandled, execution of the finally block
is dependent on how the exception unwind operation is triggered. That,
in turn, is dependent on how your computer is set up.

Assuming the file is not found, it would first catch the FileNotFoundException:
catch(FileNotFoundException error)
{
Console.WriteLine(error.Message);
Console.WriteLine();
throw new Exception();
}
This writes a message to the console, and then throws a new Exception. This exception however, is unhandled and will halt execution. If you throw an exception from within a Catch block, it will not be caught by any subsequent blocks.
The solution is to handle the exception appropiately instead of throwing a new one. If the file was not found, then act upon it, e.g. let the user choose another file, create the file, etc.

use throw instead and try this. When you throw a new exception, the actual exception will be lost. But when you use just throw it will throw the actual exception which is FileNotFoundException.
StreamReader myStreamReader = null;
try
{
myStreamReader = new StreamReader("c:\\genneric.txt");
Console.WriteLine(myStreadReader.ReadToEnd());
}
catch(FileNotFoundException Error)
{
Console.WriteLine(Error.Message);
Console.WriteLine();
throw;
}
catch(Exception Error)
{
Console.WriteLine(Error.Message);
Console.WriteLine();
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("Closing the StreamReader.");
try{
if(myStreamReader != null)
{
myStreamReader.Close();
}
} catch(Exception e) { Console.WriteLine(e.ToString()) };
}
}

Explain "finally"'s use in try-catch-finally blocks

I read that finally key make a try-catch block final work, even function throw exception or not. But I wonder what is different if I don't put a code inside a finally block (like Function_2 below), which is the way I'm using to coding. Thank You!
void Function_1()
{
try
{
throw new Exception();
}
catch
{
}
finally //Have finally block
{
Other_Function();
}
}
void Function_2()
{
try
{
throw new Exception();
}
catch
{
}
Other_Function(); //Don't have finally block
}

if I dont put a code inside a finally block (like Function_2 below)
if you don't put code inside finally , until unless you won't get an exception that code block will be executed.
but if you get an exception before that code block (which was not kept inside finally) will not be executed as the control returns from there itself.
but if you keep your code in finally , it will be executed irrespective of the situation.
Example:1 without finally block
try
{
//throw exption
}
catch
{
//return from here
}
//below statement won't get executed
Other_Function();
Example:2 with finally block
try
{
//throw exption
}
catch
{
//return from here if finally block is not available
//if available execute finally block and return
}
finally
{
//below statement surly gets executed
Other_Function();
}

A finally block, refers to a block of statements that is always executed, regardless of unexpected events or exceptions that may occur during an application's execution. The execution of a finally block is intended to release resources, such as database connections, which are usually available in limited quantities.
From MSDN:
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.
Alternatively, you can catch the exception that might be thrown in the
try block of a try-finally statement higher up the call stack. That
is, you can catch the exception in the method that calls the method
that contains the try-finally statement, or in the method that calls
that method, or in any method in the call stack. If the exception is
not caught, execution of the finally block depends on whether the
operating system chooses to trigger an exception unwind operation.

Code in finally blocks is always executed. Finally provides a construct for ensuring the correct execution of programs. It ensures a block of statements are always reached before the enclosing method is exited.
his program shows how the finally clause is part of the control flow in programs. In this program, a random number is generated. This value is used to determine whether to throw an exception, immediately return, or do nothing.
using System;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
try
{
// Acquire random integer for use in control flow.
// ... If the number is 0, an error occurs.
// ... If 1, the method returns.
// ... Otherwise, fall through to end.
int random = new Random().Next(0, 3); // 0, 1, 2
if (random == 0)
{
throw new Exception("Random = 0");
}
if (random == 1)
{
Console.WriteLine("Random = 1");
return;
}
Console.WriteLine("Random = 2");
}
finally
{
// This statement is executed before the Main method is exited.
// ... It is reached when an exception is thrown.
// ... It is reached after the return.
// ... It is reached in other cases.
Console.WriteLine("Control flow reaches finally");
}
}
}
Source

C# try catch continue execution

I have a question that might seem fairly simple (of course if you know the answer).
A certain function I have calls another function but I want to continue execution from the caller even though the callee has thrown an exception. Let me give you an example:
something function1()
{
try
{
//some code
int idNumber = function2();
//other code that need to execute even if function2 fails
return something;
}
catch(Exception e)
{//... perhaps something here}
}
EDIT: function1 also has a return statement so nothing can in fact crash on the way
In function2 I need to do stuff but I only need to log if anything fails, example:
int function2()
{
try
{
//dostuff
}
catch(Exception e)
{
//Log stuff to db
}
}
ok, now my question is, what should I do if I wanted to continue execution in function1 even if function 2 throws an error?
Sometimes I mix up if I should do throw; or throw e; or throw nothing at all (leave catch block empty)

Leaving the catch block empty should do the trick. This is almost always a bad idea, though. On one hand, there's a performance penalty, and on the other (and this is more important), you always want to know when there's an error.
I would guess that the "callee" function failing, in your case, is actually not necessarily an "error," so to speak. That is, it is expected for it to fail sometimes. If this is the case, there is almost always a better way to handle it than using exceptions.
There are, if you'll pardon the pun, exceptions to the "rule", though. For example, if function2 were to call a web service whose results aren't really necessary for your page, this kind of pattern might be ok. Although, in almost 100% of cases, you should at least be logging it somewhere. In this scenario I'd log it in a finally block and report whether or not the service returned. Remember that data like that which may not be valuable to you now can become valuable later!
Last edit (probably):
In a comment I suggested you put the try/catch inside function2. Just thought I would elaborate. Function2 would look like this:
public Something? function2()
{
try
{
//all of your function goes here
return anActualObjectOfTypeSomething;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//logging goes here
return null;
}
}
That way, since you use a nullable return type, returning null doesn't hurt you.

Why cant you use the finally block?
Like
try {
} catch (Exception e) {
// THIS WILL EXECUTE IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION IS THROWN IN THE TRY BLOCK
} finally {
// THIS WILL EXECUTE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER AN EXCEPTION IS THROWN WITHIN THE TRY CATCH OR NOT
}
EDIT after question amended:
You can do:
int? returnFromFunction2 = null;
try {
returnFromFunction2 = function2();
return returnFromFunction2.value;
} catch (Exception e) {
// THIS WILL EXECUTE IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION IS THROWN IN THE TRY BLOCK
} finally {
if (returnFromFunction2.HasValue) { // do something with value }
// THIS WILL EXECUTE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER AN EXCEPTION IS THROWN WITHIN THE TRY CATCH OR NOT
}

Or you can encapsulate the looping logic itself in a try catch e.g.
for(int i = function2(); i < 100 /*where 100 is the end or another function call to get the end*/; i = function2()){
try{
//ToDo
}
catch { continue; }
}
Or...
try{
for(int i = function2(); ; ;) {
try { i = function2(); return; }
finally { /*decide to break or not :P*/continue; } }
} catch { /*failed on first try*/ } finally{ /*afterwardz*/ }

just do this
try
{
//some code
try
{
int idNumber = function2();
}
finally
{
do stuff here....
}
}
catch(Exception e)
{//... perhaps something here}
For all intents and purposes the finally block will always execute. Now there are a couple of exceptions where it won't actually execute: task killing the program, and there is a fast fail security exception which kills the application instantly. Other than that, an exception will be thrown in function 2, the finally block will execute the needed code and then catch the exception in the outer catch block.

Do you mean you want to execute code in function1 regardless of whether function2 threw an exception or not? Have you looked at the finally-block? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zwc8s4fz.aspx

In your second function remove the e variable in the catch block then add throw.
This will carry over the generated exception the the final function and output it.
Its very common when you dont want your business logic code to throw exception but your UI.

Continue after try-catch-finally

This might sound like a weird question but I don't get it...
Let's say I have an application which connects to a server to do some stuff. This connect might fail and throw an exception which I can catch.
try {
Client.connect();
} catch (System.Exception ex) {
// Do some exception handling...
} finally {
// Do some cleanup...
}
However, in case that the connect is succcesful the application shall continue...
try {
Client.connect();
} catch (System.Exception ex) {
// Do some exception handling...
} finally {
// Do some cleanup...
}
// Talk to the server...
The "server talking" however is executed in any case. It doesn't matter if the exception occured or not.
How can I make sure that the "server talking" is only executed if the connect was successful? Do I have to move all of the following code inside the trystatement? What is a clean way to program such a behavior?

"Talk to the server" should happen in the try block, right after
Client.connect();

The easiest way is to just set a boolean. But there are many many many ways to deal with this.
bool connectionError = false;
try {
// connect
} catch (...) {
connectionError = true;
} finally {
// whatever
}
if (!connectionError) {
// talk to server.
}

Have another variable like clientConnected and set it to true right after Client.Connect(). Then outside the try-catch check for clientConnected before talking to the server.
Avoid doing everything in a single try-catch. You should use separate try-catch blocks for different actions that might throw exceptions, and catch specific exceptions as much as possible.

Typically you use try...catch statements for those statements which you expect to throw an Exception. Try...Catch defines its own scope, so you should declare any variables outside of the Try...Catch block (at least, those variables that you want to use outside of it).
If you want to know if an exception was thrown, then define the Exception variable above the Try...Catch. You can then examine it to determine if it is Null or not.
System.Exception ex;
try {
Client.connect();
} catch (ex) {
// Do some exception handling...
} finally {
// Do some cleanup...
}
if (ex != null){ ... }
// Talk to the server...
You could log an event and then call some code to either try again or to cancel... or whatever you need to do.

Use some type of flag variable to indicate whether server is connected or not. If your method is returning a boolean variable then also it is ok.
int flag=0;
while(flag==0){
try {
Client.connect();
flag=1;
} catch (System.Exception ex) {
// Do some exception handling...
} finally {
// Do some cleanup...
}
}
//If server connects code