Develop Reference

Best practices for exception handling and safe coding

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
}

Am not sure how to handle the default in switch?

class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var getfiles = new fileshare.Program();
string realname = "*test*";
string Location = "SVR01";
foreach (var file in getfiles.GetFileList(realname,Location))
{getfiles.copytolocal(file.FullName); }
}
private FileInfo[] GetFileList(string pattern,string Location)
{
try
{
switch (Location)
{
case "SVR01":
{
var di = new DirectoryInfo(#"\\SVR01\Dev");
return di.GetFiles(pattern);
}
case "SVR02":
{
var di = new DirectoryInfo(#"\\SVR02\Dev");
return di.GetFiles(pattern);
}
case "SVR03":
{
var di = new DirectoryInfo(#"\\SVR03\Prod");
return di.GetFiles(pattern);
}
default: throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{ Console.Write(ex.ToString());
return null;
}
}
private void copytolocal(string filename)
{
string nameonly = Path.GetFileName(filename);
File.Copy(filename,Path.Combine(#"c:\",nameonly),true);
}
}
Am handle the default switch statement but not sure am doing right,some one please correct me .
Thanks in Advance

You should throw an exception only in cases where you don't expect something to happen. If a directory other than SRV01/02/03 is not expected, throwing exception could be fine. If you expect it to happen and want to handle it gracefully, don't throw an exception.
But catching the exception you just threw and writing it to the console in the same function doesn't make sense. You kill all the purpose of throwing an exception there. If you want to write an error to the console, you can do that directly in the default statement.
If you want to handle the case when GetFiles throws an exception, handle it specifically. Catching an exception and writing it to console does not make sense. If you catch it, it means that you know what to do with it. If you don't, don't catch it.
Say your network is dead and GetFiles raises IOException. You catch it and return null and your code will raise NullReferenceException. Because of that, you lose the information about why that exception is raised.
What do you want to do if network connection is lost? You want to exit? Then you don't need to do anything, an unhandled exception already does that for you. You need to continue running? Are you sure? If app exits successfully will it mean "it has completed everything it's supposed to do" or "there could have been problems but you don't care"? If you're sure it's ok to "ignore" the error, then catch the exception, inform and continue, it's fine. Just make sure of your intent. Exceptions aren't bad or evil. They are there because they are helpful.

I see that you simply need to check if a location is in a list of allowed locations. I don't think a switch is a good candidate for something like this. It looks more like configuration, maybe something along the following lines would allow you to read such values from a configuration file for example. Also the logic in each switch statement is the same, so if we can minimise this repetition, it's a bonus
private List<string> _allowedLocations
public YourClassConstructor()
{
_allowedLocations = new List()
{#"\\SVR01\Dev", #"\\SVR02\Dev", #"\\SVR02\Dev"}
}
private FileInfo[] GetFileList(string pattern,string location)
{
if (location == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("location");
if (!_allowedLocations.Contains(location))
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("location");
var di = new DirectoryInfo(location);
return di.GetFiles(pattern);
}

The default in a switch statement is basically a catch all (or what youre doing in your catch statement). If something lands in your switch statement and hits the default, it may as well gone to your catch. My suggestion, return a null and write to the console whatever your exception is. If your exception works, keep it as is. Like #SLaks said, you can do whatever you want in your default clause, because it is the switches form of a catch statement.

If it's only for an internal environment where you have full control of the network paths, then you have the option to make an enum for location, which would give you the advantage of each possibility showing up in Intellisense. I additionally agree with what Kevin pointed out, in that you are throwing the exception only to catch it yourself within the same method (an antipattern). The enum is my only suggestion, otherwise your understanding and implementation of default is correct (i.e., to catch all unexpected/invalid cases).

Ignoring Exceptions in xUnit.net

I have some cases where I don't care what exception is thrown (as long as some exception is thrown). Unfortunately,
Assert.Throws<Exception>(someDelegate);
doesn't pass unless exactly an instance of Exception (so not an instance of a derived class) is thrown. I know I can obtain the behavior I want with
Exception exception = Record.Exception(someDelegate);
Assert.NotNull(exception);
but it doesn't read right. Am I missing something in xUnit that has the behavior I want? Here are two tests that indicate what I mean:
[Fact]
public void Throws_exception_and_passes() {
Exception exception = Record.Exception(
() => { throw new InvalidOperationException(); }
);
Assert.NotNull(exception);
}
[Fact]
public void Throws_exception_and_fails() {
Assert.Throws<Exception>(
() => { throw new InvalidOperationException(); }
);
}

Per the documentation here:
http://xunit.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=HowToUse&referringTitle=Home
You have to specify the type of exception you want to be thrown. In general, this is good practice. You should be able to predict what scenarios a test would throw what type of exception. You should be able to design both you method and your test in a way that will allow you to predict this.
There are ways around this, like doing a try catch yourself, but you should look into changing your design a bit.

It didn't exist at the time of this question, but now one can use Assert.ThrowsAny<Exception> to test for any exception derived from Exception (and hence any exception at all), along with variants such as Assert.ThrowsAny<ArgumentException> which would test for any exception derived from ArgumentException and so on.

As you've identified if Assert.Throws<T> doesn't fit the bill, the only OOTB thing in xUnit you're left with is using Record.Exception.
As you've identified, the main way of doing a 'Assert throws anything` is to do
Assert.NotNull( Record.Exception( lambda ))
Look at it - not pretty. This is likely by design; there are very few things in xUnit.net that are by accident (as opposed to carefully considered opinionated design).
Record.Exception returns a result for a reason (and if you were using F#, you'd have to |> ignore to chuck away the value). You should always be able to Assert something about the nature of the Exception that's happening so that an actual problem in your code doesn't get ignored by chance as you change your code over time, which is the reason for all this testing stuff in the first place. Perhaps that might take the form of
var exception = Record.Exception( sut.Something );
Assert.True( typeof(SomeException).IsAssignableFrom( exception ) );
Looking at that, it's safer that an Assert.NotNull(), but still doesn't feel right. It's time to, as discussed in GOOS, listen to your tests (and in the case of an opinionated test framework, your test framework).
The biggest problem in your question is however that in a real example from a real test, there is always a way to make your interface clearer or express your expectation in another way, so the real answer is Mu.

xUnit won't stand in your way if you want to do your own Custom Assertion, something like:
public static bool Throws<T>(this Action action, bool discardExceptions = false)
where T : Exception
{
try
{
action.Invoke();
}
catch (T)
{
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
if (discardExceptions)
{
return false;
}
throw;
}
return false;
}
Or:
public static bool Throws(this Action action)
{
try
{
action.Invoke();
}
catch (Exception)
{
return true;
}
return false;
}

I was just looking in the xUnit.net source and here is the culprit:
private static Exception Throws(Type exceptionType, Exception exception)
{
Guard.ArgumentNotNull("exceptionType", exceptionType);
if (exception == null)
throw new ThrowsException(exceptionType);
if (!exceptionType.Equals(exception.GetType()))
throw new ThrowsException(exceptionType, exception);
return exception;
}
What would solve your problem is if this change were applied:
if(!exceptionType.Equals(exception.GetType()))
to:
if(!exception.GetType().IsAssignableTo(exceptionType))
You could possibly offer to submit a patch?

public static void SuppressException<TSut>(this TSut value, Action<TSut> action) where TSut : class
{
try
{
action.Invoke(value);
}
catch (Exception)
{
//do nothing
}
}

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.

C# interop - validate object exists

I would like to use a COM object in my application.
How can I make sure the object is registered in the machine?
The only solution I found (also on SO) was to use a try-catch block around the initialization:
try {
Foo.Bar COM_oObject = new Foo.Bar();
} catch (Exception ee) {
// Something went wrong during init of COM object
}
Can I do it in any other way?
I feel its wrong to deal with an error by expecting it and reporting it, I would rather know I will fail and avoid it to begin with.

You are using exception handling the right way: to fail gracefully from a specific situation that you know how to recover from.
There's not a problem with using try-catch in this case, but you could at least catch more specifically : ComException.

"I feel its wrong to deal with an error by expecting it and reporting it"
Isn't it exactly the purpose of try-catch? BTW, an Exception occurs when something really bad has happened and since it is a pretty bad thing that the COM object you are referring to is not registered, therefore, an Exception is the perfect solution. And you can't handle an exception in any other way.
I think this is the right way to do it.

If you know your component's ProgId. You could try this trick
comType = Type.GetTypeFromProgID(progID,true/*throw on error*/);

If you're doing this a lot and wish you had a non-exception throwing equivalent, try:
public static class Catching<TException> where TException : Exception
{
public static bool Try<T>(Func<T> func, out T result)
{
try
{
result = func();
return true;
}
catch (TException x)
{
// log exception message (with call stacks
// and all InnerExceptions)
}
result = default(T);
return false;
}
public static T Try<T>(Func<T> func, T defaultValue)
{
T result;
if (Try(func, out result))
return result;
return defaultValue;
}
}
So now you can do this:
Foo.Bar newObj;
if (!Catching<ComException>.Try(() => new Foo.Bar(), out newObj))
{
// didn't work.
}
Or if you have a default object stored in defaultMyInterface you'd use to implement an interface if there's nothing better:
IMyInterface i = Catching<ComException>.Try(() => new Foo.Bar() as IMyInterface,
defaultMyInterface);
You can also do this, in a completely different scenario:
int queueSize = Catching<MyParsingException>
.Try(() => Parse(optionStr, "QueueSize"), 5);
If Parse throws a MyParsingException, queueSize will default to 5, otherwise the returned value from Parse is used (or any other exception will propagate normally, which is usually what you want with an unexpected exception).
This helps to avoid breaking up the flow of the code, and also centralises your logging policy.