Develop Reference

Should we put try catch with function if we just want to log the exception?

In asp.net application, all the exception that occurs and are not inside try catch can be handled by application_error.
If we just need to log the exception along with its stack trace, and we need not make any other decision/logic inside catch, why should we put try catch at application/bl or dal layer functions? Is there any reason to put try/catch with every database call function?
For example we have hundreds of function in DAL layer that executes following code:
try
{
//open db connection, execute stored procedure
}
catch
{
//log error
}
In case we get any exception from stored procedure OR in opening database connection, we get an exception but we are not doing anything except for logging these errors. We don't have very critical data-storage/retrieval requirement. We are logging error just to be alerted and fix it later. Is this correct to put catch in every such function?

Using try and catch is not for logging purposes only, especially when dealing with database connections.
An exception means that something wasn't completed. If something wasn't completed, your business process failed. If your business process failed, you need to know about it and handle it within the scope of that code, not application_error. Each error should be handled within the scope it was generated from. application_error should be your last fallback, and theoretically should never be reached.
Sure, you can use it for logging, but also for closing your DB connection (which was probably opened before the exception occurred and be left forever open), informing your users that an exception occured, and for data recovery, alternating your process to deal with the exception or preparing it for a retry.
So, taking your posted template, good code handling should look like this:
try
{
//open db connection, execute stored procedure
}
catch
{
// Inform the user
// Alternate your process or preparing for retry
// log error
}
finally
{
// Close the DB connection
}

One should use try/catch blocks only in places where you can meaningfully handle an exception. However, "meaningful handling " includes providing good error messages.
If your catch block simply logs the exception with no additional context, then such block could be replaced with a top-level handler (like application_error) that does the same thing.
If, however, you log additional information available only at the point of invocation, then having a catch block is entirely justified: it enhances the experience by providing better diagnostics, which is a perfectly legitimate goal.

Exception Handling error when saving to database

Iam a newbie who needs help. When saving to a database, i get the following error:
A first chance exception of type 'System.Data.SqlServerCe.SqlCeException' occurred in (name of my application)
Please help me with steps to solve this one. Thank you in advance.

First chances exceptions will be shown if you have your Visual Studio settings set so that every CLR exceptions gets reported. This will include exceptions you actually handle.
In Visual Studio's menu, go to Debug > Exceptions and uncheck the Thrown option for Common Language Runtime Exceptions.
Of course that won't make the actual exception go away but you'll be allowed to handle it as you want:
try
{
// do your query
// commit current transaction if possible/necessary
}
catch (SqlCeException ex)
{
// handle exception here and rollback current transaction if possible/necessary
}
finally
{
// ensure proper disposal of any commands and connections you have
}
It goes without saying that you must ensure your query is properly written and that the server objects it tries to work with exists. You generally won't want to handle cases where a comma is missing or a field is not found, for instance. Exception handling must be for exceptional situations your code cannot control, like a faulted connection, a server malfunction, etc.

First of all you might want to check whehter your SQL query is syntactically correct.
Secondly you might want to read about how to handle exceptions in MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0yd65esw.aspx with try-catch statement.
A small example looks like this.
try
{
// ... code which throws exception
}
catch (SqlCeException e)
{
// ... exception handling, e.g. logging, rolling back data,
// telling the user something went wrong, you name it
}
Last but not least you might want to debug your application step by step to see what is causing the error and what the actual SQL Query is throwing the exception.

Unhandled Exception in C# Console Application causing AppCrash

I have a Windows Console application built in Visual Studio 2010 and it keeps crashing but the error is not caught by the visual studio debugging tool nor by try/catch statements in my code.
I have managed to locate the WER file on my system and would like to be able to understand the contents of the file so I can pinpoint exactally what is causing the unhandled exception.
I would be greatful if anyone can offer some idea on how I can use the following information to locate the process causing me this problem and also what the exception may be...
The information from the WER file is:
Version=1
EventType=APPCRASH
EventTime=129973086237604286
ReportType=2
Consent=1
ReportIdentifier=91331e8b-2dc8-11e2-977b-080027f7e5bb
IntegratorReportIdentifier=91331e8a-2dc8-11e2-977b-080027f7e5bb
WOW64=1
Response.type=4
Sig[0].Name=Application Name
Sig[0].Value=SAGE_TESTING.vshost.exe
Sig[1].Name=Application Version
Sig[1].Value=10.0.30319.1
Sig[2].Name=Application Timestamp
Sig[2].Value=4ba2084b
Sig[3].Name=Fault Module Name
Sig[3].Value=ntdll.dll
Sig[4].Name=Fault Module Version
Sig[4].Value=6.1.7600.16385
Sig[5].Name=Fault Module Timestamp
Sig[5].Value=4a5bdb3b
Sig[6].Name=Exception Code
Sig[6].Value=c015000f
Sig[7].Name=Exception Offset
Sig[7].Value=000845bb
DynamicSig[1].Name=OS Version
DynamicSig[1].Value=6.1.7600.2.0.0.272.7
DynamicSig[2].Name=Locale ID
DynamicSig[2].Value=2057
DynamicSig[22].Name=Additional Information 1
DynamicSig[22].Value=0a9e
DynamicSig[23].Name=Additional Information 2
DynamicSig[23].Value=0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
DynamicSig[24].Name=Additional Information 3
DynamicSig[24].Value=0a9e
DynamicSig[25].Name=Additional Information 4
DynamicSig[25].Value=0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789
Here is the section of code I believe to be causing the exception to be thrown:
//Data from the project linked to the split data
if (oSplitData.Project != null)
{
oProject = oSplitData.Project as SageDataObject190.Project;
oBasicDetail.ProjectID = oProject.ProjectID;
oBasicDetail.ProjectReference = oProject.Reference.ToString();
}
else
{
oBasicDetail.ProjectID = -1;
oBasicDetail.ProjectReference = "NO_PROJECT";
}
To add to all the above I seem to have found that there is a general exception that is being thrown but it doesn't help me out much - if anyone can put some light on this it would be great:
Unhandled exception at 0x78bc7361 in SAGE_TESTING.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0xfeeefeee.

If your program is multi-threaded and the exception is thrown in one of the spawned threads, the Exception may not be caught depending on how you do exception handling in your program.
You can add a catch-all exception handler like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException += UnhandledExceptionHandler;
// Your code here
}
static void UnhandledExceptionHandler(object sender, UnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.ExceptionObject.ToString());
Environment.Exit(1);
}
}
UPDATE
Based on the code you posted, here are some things to look at
Put a try/catch block around the code you posted.
Are you sure that oSplitData is not null?
In the following line, oProject will be null if oSplitData.Project is not of type SageDataObject190.Project. Test for null.
oProject = oSplitData.Project as SageDataObject190.Project;

You are probably dealing with so-called corrupted state exceptions. These exceptions corrupt the process in a way so it is usually more safe to kill the process since it is very difficult to impossible to recover from such an error, even if it would be only for running a short catch-clause. Examples are StackOverflowExceptions, OutOfMemoryExceptions or AccessViolationExceptions.
There is an extensive and generally interesting explanation on corrupted state exceptions in this article.
What is helpful on getting a hand on such exceptions is to use DebugDiag. With this tool from Microsoft (download on this page) you can define a crash rule which generates a crashdump for your failed process. You can easily open these dump files in Visual Studio, where you may find the source of the exception that lead to the failure. This is not guaranteed but it often helped me in the past to nail down some nasty errors.

Are you invoking non-managed C++ or other code?
I'd try something like
static void Main()
{
try
{
DoSomethingUseful() ;
}
catch ( Exception e )
{
// managed exceptions caught here
}
catch
{
// non-managed C++ or other code can throw non-exception objects
// they are caught here.
}
return ;
}
See Will CLR handle both CLS-Complaint and non-CLS complaint exceptions?
Also C++ try, catch and throw statements at msdn: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6dekhbbc(v=vs.100).aspx
And MSIL opcode throw (0x7A) allows the throwing any object reference. C#, however, does not allow it.
But it looks like they improved things with .Net 2.0 and started wrapping oddball stuff in an RuntimeWrappedException.

Exceptions in validation

I currently have some code that delibratly throws an exception if the user sends me data that fails validation (see below). I like it because im sure any errors in the application are caught and handled. A am however worried the code being slow as throwing exceptions takes a lot of memory. Im also worried it might be "bad code". Whats your advice? Thanks
public class BTAmendAppointmentRequest
{
public DataLayer.WebserviceMessage AddBTAmendAppointmentRequest(DataLayer.BTAmendAppointmentRequest req)
{
DataLayer.WebserviceMessage rsp = new DataLayer.WebserviceMessage();
try
{
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(req.AppointmentReference))
req.AppointmentReference = req.AppointmentReference.Trim();
if (req.OrderRequestID < 1 || string.IsNullOrEmpty(req.AppointmentReference))
{
throw new Exception("Amend appointment failed, you must supply a valid appointment reference and order reference");
}
...Do other stuff
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
rsp = new Service.WebserviceErrorMessage(ex);
}
return rsp;
}
}

If you are expecting these errors, you should return error messages to the user, not throw exceptions.
Reserve exceptions to exceptional situations.
Apart from being expensive, the meaning of an exception, the semantics are that of something exceptional having happened. Validation failing is not exceptional, it is expected.
Having said that, seeing as you are on a web service, an exception is a reasonable thing to do, assuming you also validate before the service call. It is reasonable since a web service can be called by anything - validation may not have happened, and such errors should be exceptional. Additionally, at least with .NET web services, web exceptions are probably the best way to communicate such things back to the client.

Exceptions should be considered as last resort error trap. They should be "exceptional". Data input errors are not exceptions - they are very common, expected events. You shoudl handle validation issues with validation controls or processes, that handle them - display an error message and do not let the processing continue.
Your other problem is that you cannot easily do full form validation if the first error you encounter throws an exception. If I was filling out a form where each error was separately highlighted, I would give up very quickly. You need to be able to validate and display ALL errors on a page, and not permit progress without validation succeeding.

I tend to agree with Oded in that exceptions should only be used for stuff you aren't expecting. The other way to look at it is with using an errors collection, you are able to validate a larger batch instead of throwing an exception on the first problem. This can be more usable for the person consuming your service.
In the case of web services, I would package the entire response in a custom response object, which features a return code. This allows you to have a return code of error, and then encapsulate an errors collection in the response object.

Easy way to catch all unhandled exceptions in C#.NET

I have a website built in C#.NET that tends to produce a fairly steady stream of SQL timeouts from various user controls and I want to easily pop some code in to catch all unhandled exceptions and send them to something that can log them and display a friendly message to the user.
How do I, through minimal effort, catch all unhandled exceptions?
this question seems to say it's impossible, but that doesn't make sense to me (and it's about .NET 1.1 in windows apps):

All unhandled exceptions finally passed through Application_Error in global.asax. So, to give general exception message or do logging operations, see Application_Error.

If you need to catch exeptions in all threads the best aproach is to implement UnhandledExceptionModule and add it to you application look here
for an example

Use the Application_Error method in your Global.asax file. Inside your Application_Error method implementation call Server.GetLastError(), log the details of the exception returned by Server.GetLastError() however you wish.
e.g.
void Application_Error(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// Code that runs when an unhandled error occurs
log4net.ILog log = log4net.LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(object));
using (log4net.NDC.Push(this.User.Identity.Name))
{
log.Fatal("Unhandled Exception", Server.GetLastError());
}
}
Don't pay too much attention to the log4net stuff, Server.GetLastError() is the most useful bit, log the details however you prefer.

The ELMAH project sounds worth a try, its list of features include:
ELMAH (Error Logging Modules and
Handlers) is an application-wide error
logging facility that is completely
pluggable. It can be dynamically added
to a running ASP.NET web application,
or even all ASP.NET web applications
on a machine, without any need for
re-compilation or re-deployment.
Logging of nearly all unhandled exceptions.
A web page to remotely view the entire log of recoded exceptions.
A web page to remotely view the full details of any one logged
exception.
In many cases, you can review the original yellow screen of death that
ASP.NET generated for a given
exception, even with customErrors mode
turned off.
An e-mail notification of each error at the time it occurs.
An RSS feed of the last 15 errors from the log.
A number of backing storage implementations for the log
More on using ELMAH from dotnetslackers

You can subscribe to the AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException event.

It's probably important to note that you are not supposed to catch unhandled exceptions. If you are having SQL timeout issues, you should specifically catch those.

Do you mean handling it in all threads, including ones created by third-party code? Within "known" threads just catch Exception at the top of the stack.

I'd recommend looking at log4net and seeing if that's suitable for the logging part of the question.

If using .net 2.0 framework, I use the built in Health Monitoring services. There's a nice article describing this method here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210305134220/https://aspnet.4guysfromrolla.com/articles/031407-1.aspx
If you're stuck with the 1.0 framework, I would use ELMAH:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479332.aspx
hope this helps

There are 2 parts to this problem handling & identifying.
Identifying
This is what you do when the exception is finally caught, not necessarily where it is thrown. So the exception at that stage must have enough context information for you to idenitfy what the problem was
Handling
For handling, you can
a) add a HttpModeule. See
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20060305.asp
I would suggest this approach only when there is absolutely no context informaatn available and there might be issuus wiih IIS/aspnet, In short for catastrophic situations
b) Create a abstract class called AbstractBasePage which derives from Page class and have all your codebehind classes derive from AbstractBasePage
The AbstractBasePage can implement that Page.Error delegate so that all exceptions which percolate up through the n-tier architecture can be caught here(and possibly logged)
I would suggest this cause for the kind of exceptions you are talking about (SQlException) there is enough context information for you to identify that it was a timeout and take possible action. This action might include redirecting user to a custom error page with appropriate message for each different kind of exception (Sql, webservice, async call timeouts etc).
Thanks
RVZ

One short answer is to use (Anonymous) delegate methods with common handling code when the delegate is invoked.
Background: If you have targeted the weak points, or have some boilerplate error handling code you need to universally apply to a particular class of problem, and you don't want to write the same try..catch for every invocation location, (such as updating a specific control on every page, etc).
Case study: A pain point is web forms and saving data to the database. We have a control that displays the saved status to the user, and we wanted to have common error handling code as well as common display without copy-pasting-reuse in every page. Also, each page did it's own thing in it's own way, so the only really common part of the code was the error handling and display.
Now, before being slammed, this is no replacement for a data-access layer and data access code. That's all still assumed to exist, good n-tier separation, etc. This code is UI-layer specific to allow us to write clean UI code and not repeat ourselves. We're big believers in not quashing exceptions, but certain exceptions shouldn't necessitate the user getting a generic error page and losing their work. There will be sql timeouts, servers go down, deadlocks, etc.
A Solution: The way we did it was to pass an anonymous delegate to a method on a custom control and essentially inject the try block using anonymous delegates.
// normal form code.
private void Save()
{
// you can do stuff before and after. normal scoping rules apply
saveControl.InvokeSave(
delegate
{
// everywhere the save control is used, this code is different
// but the class of errors and the stage we are catching them at
// is the same
DataContext.SomeStoredProcedure();
DataContext.SomeOtherStoredProcedure();
DataContext.SubmitChanges();
});
}
The SaveControl itself has the method like:
public delegate void SaveControlDelegate();
public void InvokeSave(SaveControlDelegate saveControlDelegate)
{
// I've changed the code from our code.
// You'll have to make up your own logic.
// this just gives an idea of common handling.
retryButton.Visible = false;
try
{
saveControlDelegate.Invoke();
}
catch (SqlTimeoutException ex)
{
// perform other logic here.
statusLabel.Text = "The server took too long to respond.";
retryButton.Visible = true;
LogSqlTimeoutOnSave(ex);
}
// catch other exceptions as necessary. i.e.
// detect deadlocks
catch (Exception ex)
{
statusLabel.Text = "An unknown Error occurred";
LogGenericExceptionOnSave(ex);
}
SetSavedStatus();
}
There are other ways to achieve this (e.g. common base class, intefaces), but in our case this had the best fit.
This isn't a replacement to a great tool such as Elmah for logging all unhandled exceptions. This is a targeted approach to handling certain exceptions in a standard manner.

Timeout errors typically occur if you are not forcefully closing your sqlconnections.
so if you had a
try {
conn.Open();
cmd.ExecuteReader();
conn.Close();
} catch (SqlException ex) {
//do whatever
}
If anything goes wrong with that ExecuteReader your connection will not be closed. Always add a finally block.
try {
conn.Open();
cmd.ExecuteReader();
conn.Close();
} catch (SqlException ex) {
//do whatever
} finally {
if(conn.State != ConnectionState.Closed)
conn.Close();
}

This is old question, but the best method (for me) is not listed here. So here we are:
ExceptionFilterAttribute is nice and easy solution for me. Source: http://weblogs.asp.net/fredriknormen/asp-net-web-api-exception-handling.
public class ExceptionHandlingAttribute : ExceptionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnException(HttpActionExecutedContext context)
{
var exception = context.Exception;
if(exception is SqlTimeoutException)
{
//do some handling for this type of exception
}
}
}
And attach it to f.e. HomeController:
[ExceptionHandling]
public class HomeController: Controller
{
}