I have a class Dispatcher with a method Send as follows:
public class Dispatcher : IDispatcher {
public void Send(Order order) {
Type type = typeof(IOrderHandler<>).MakeGenericType(order.GetType());
IOrderHandler handler = (IOrderHandler)ObjectFactory.GetInstance(type);
try {
handler.Handle(order);
} catch (Exception exception) {
ILogger logger = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<ILogger>();
logger.Send(exception);
}
}
} // Send
I am handling orders and catching exceptions ...
When I am debugging I would like to still fire the exception.
How can I do this?
Thank You,
Miguel
Just add this line to your catch block:
if (System.Diagnostics.Debugger.IsAttached) throw;
You can add the following in your catch block:
#if DEBUG
throw;
#endif
So your code would look like:
try
{
handler.Handle(order);
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
ILogger logger = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<ILogger>();
logger.Send(exception);
#if DEBUG
throw;
#endif
}
If you want the exception notification in IDE during debugging in Release configuration, then use #Hans Passant's answer, because that will let you know about the exception for both Release and Debug configuration.
Well, based on the fact that you'd like the exception to still be thrown, but only when debugging, you could do this:
Open the Debug menu and choose Exceptions.
When the dialog loads, tick the check box next to Common Language Runtime Exceptions under the Thrown heading.
This will cause you to get a first chance exception. What that means is you'll be notified by the IDE, when debugging, and you'll get a chance to handle it before processing continues. This will actually let you see it before it even gets logged.
What's more, you can actually unselect exceptions you don't want with this approach because they are broken down by exception type underneath the Common Language Runtime Exceptions grouping.
More detail...
Go to Debug > Exception and check the CLR exceptions for "thrown", this will take you right there. alternatively place a breakpoint on the catch block.
I have a try and catch in my Main.cs
try
{
}
catch(exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message)
}
In a other class i have:
if (....)
{
//input
}
else
{
throw new Exception("Custom Error Message1"}
}
In a other class i have a similar situation, but insteed the message is different here.
When a error occurs in the 2nd class the same message from the one above displays, what exactly is the cause of this and what could prove to be a solution?
Thanks in advance.
Have you examined the stack trace? That might tell you something, n'est-ce-pas?
In Visual Studio, go to Debug-Exceptions and set Common Language Runtime exceptions to break when THROWN. Now run your program in debug and you'll see which exception is actually being thrown and can examine the call stack.
There has been discussion here before about the correct way to rethrow an exception. This question, instead, is about how to get useful behavior from Visual Studio when using rethrow.
Consider this code:
static void foo() {
throw new Exception("boo!");
}
static void Main(string[] args) {
try {
foo();
} catch (Exception x) {
// do some stuff
throw;
}
}
The exception that comes out has the correct stack trace, showing foo() as the source of the exception. However, the GUI Call Stack window only shows Main, whereas I was expecting it to show the exception's call stack, all the way to foo.
When there is no rethrow, I can use the GUI to very quickly navigate the call stack to see what call caused the exception and how we got there.
With the rethrow I'd like to be able to do the same thing. Instead, the call stack that the GUI shows is of no use to me. I have to copy the exception details to the clipboard, paste it to Notepad, and then manually navigate to whichever function of the call stack I'm interested in.
By the way, I get the same behavior if I add [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining | MethodImplOptions.NoOptimization)] or if I change the catch to just catch (Exception).
My question is: given that the code I have uses rethrow, can someone suggest a convenient way to navigate the call stack associated with the exception? I'm using Visual Studio 2010.
The debugger breaks at the throw in Main because that exception is unhandled. By default, the debugger will only break on unhandled exceptions. Once you've stopped at Main, the call stack for the original exception from foo is present in the exception, but all of the other context has been lost (e.g. locals, stack/memory state).
It sounds like you want the debugger to break on the throw in foo, so you should tell the debugger to break on first-chance exceptions:
Debug ยป Exceptions... (Ctrl+Alt+E)
Check "Thrown" for the exception types you care about (in this case, Commange Language Runtime Exceptions)
Click OK
Start debugging
In this case, the debugger will break immediately when foo throws an exception. Now, you can examine the stack, locals, etc., in the context of the original exception. If you continue execution (F5), the debugger will break again on the rethrow in Main.
Taking another approach, if you're running VS2010 Ultimate, you can also use IntelliTrace to "debug backwards" to see parameters, threads, and variables at the time of the exception. See this MSDN article for details. (Full disclosure: I work on a team closely related to IntelliTrace).
If you use ReSharper, you can copy exception stacktrace to clipboard, then choose in the menu: ReSharper > Tools > Browse Stack Trace (Ctrl+E,T). It will show stacktrace with clickable locations, so you'll be able to quickly navigate.
(source: jetbrains.com)
This feature is also very useful while digging through logs from users (if stacktraces of exceptions are logged).
Not that you should re-throw but here's a blog post about how to preserve the stack trace, essentially it boils down to this:
private static void PreserveStackTrace(Exception exception)
{
MethodInfo preserveStackTrace = typeof(Exception).GetMethod("InternalPreserveStackTrace",
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
preserveStackTrace.Invoke(exception, null);
}
...
catch (Exception ex)
{
// do something
// ...
PreserveStackTrace(ex);
throw;
}
Mike Stall has given a great and simple solution to your problem:
Mark the methods where you rethrow the exception with the attribute [DebuggerNonUserCode]
The IDE will consider this is not your code and will not break the debugger in such place, and instead will look further in the stack, showing the next rethrow or the initial exception place.
(if the next rethrow is also annoying, mark it as [DebuggerNonUserCode] as well, etc...)
I need to rethrow an Exception that was caught and stored elsewhere without losing the stack trace information about when the Exception was first caught/stored. My code looks something like this:
public void Test()
{
int someParameter = 12;
ExecuteSomeAsyncMethod(someParameter, CallbackMethod);
}
public void CallbackMethod(object result, Exception error)
{
//Check for exceptions that were previously caught and passed to us
if(error != null)
//Throwing like this will lose the stack trace already in Exception
//We'd like to be able to rethrow it without overwriting the stack trace
throw error;
//Success case: Process 'result'...etc...
}
I've seen solutions to this problem that use reflection (for example here and here) or use Serialization (for example here) but none of those will work for me in Silverlight (private reflection is not allowed and the classes/methods used in the serialization approach don't exist in Silverlight).
Is there any way to preserve the stack trace that works in Silverlight?
Throw a new exception with the exception as inner exception:
throw new ApplcationException("Error message", error);
The inner exception will keep it's stack trace.
You can either use
catch(Exeption)
{
throw;
}
or
catch(Exception e)
{
throw new Exception(e);
}
Both will keep the stack trace. The first solution seems not to be possible in your example, but the second should work.
Of cause in your case you would throw the parameter error instead of e.
Edit: I have looked at the answers code: NONE of them do what I want (I've checked). It would seem that there is no way to do what I want in native c#. I guess that's not a disaster just a shame given that .NET does support it (see accepted answer).
Thanks all.
I have c# code (part of a test framework that will never be run except under a debugger) like this who's point it to avoid actually catching the exception as that makes debugging the code in the unwound part of the stack a royal pain.
Bool bad = true;
try
{
MightThrow();
bad = false;
}
finally
{
if(bad) DoSomeLoggingOnFailure();
//// Does not catch!!!!
//// exception continues to unwind stack.
//// Note that re throwing the exception is NOT
//// the same as not catching it in the first place
}
is their a better way to do this?
A solution would have to behave exactly like that under the debugger with regards to un-caught exceptions. It would have to result in the only one first chance exception and the debugger breaking at the point that the exception was originally thrown, not in a catch block.
Specifically I need the debugger on un-caught exceptions to stop a in side MightThrow.
The following doesn't work because it fails to have the debugger break in the correct place
try { ... } catch { throw; }
And this doesn't work because it loses stack info (and also breaks in the wrong place).
try { ... } catch(Exception e) { throw e; }
I known that in D I could use a scope(failure) block
So, in .NET what you're asking for is theoretically possible, but it's not going to be easy.
CIL actually defines five types of exception handling block! The try, catch and finally ones you're used to in C#, and two others:
filter - similar to a catch block but can run arbitrary code to determine whether it wants to handle the error, rather than just matching on type. This block has access to the exception object, and has the same effect on the exception stack trace as a catch block.
fault - similar to a finally block, however it is only run when an exception occurs. This block does not have access to the exception object, and has no effect on the exception stack trace (just like a finally block).
filter is available in some .NET languages (e.g. VB.NET, C++/CLI) but is not available in C#, unfortunately. However I don't know of any language, other than CIL, that allows the fault block to be expressed.
Because it can be done in IL means not all is lost, though. In theory you could use Reflection.Emit to dynamically emit a function that has a fault block and then pass the code you want to run in as lambda expressions (i.e. one for the try part, one for the fault part, and so on), however (a) this isn't easy, and (b) I'm unconvinced that this will actually give you a more useful stack trace than you're currently getting.
Sorry the answer isn't a "here's how to do it" type thing, but at least now you know! What you're doing now is probably the best approach IMHO.
Note to those saying that the approach used in the question is 'bad practice', it really isn't. When you implement a catch block you're saying "I need to do something with the exception object when an exception occurs" and when you implement a finally you're saying "I don't need the exception object, but I need to do something before the end of the function".
If what you're actually trying to say is "I don't need the exception object, but I need to do something when an exception occurs" then you're half way between the two, i.e. you want a fault block. As this isn't available in C#, you don't have an ideal option, so you may as well choose the option that is less likely to cause bugs by forgetting to re-throw, and which doesn't corrupt the stack trace.
How about this:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch
{
DoSomethingOnFailure();
throw; // added based on new information in the original question
}
Really, that's all you did. Finally is for things that must run regardless of whether an exception occurred.
[Edit: Clarification]
Based on the comments you've been mentioning, you want the exception to continue being thrown without modifying its original stack trace. In that case, you want to use the unadorned throw that I've added. This will allow the exception to continue up the stack and still allow you to handle part of the exception. Typical cases might be to close network connections or files.
[Second edit: Regarding your clarification]
Specifically I need the debugger on
un-caught exceptions to stop at the
original point of the throw (in
MightThrow) not in the catch block.
I would argue against ever breaking a best-practice (and yes, this is a best-practice for partially handling exceptions) to add some minor value to your debugging. You can easily inspect the exception to determine the location of the exception throw.
[Final edit: You have your answer]
kronoz has thoughtfully provided you with the answer you sought. Don't break best practices -- use Visual Studio properly! You can set Visual Studio to break exactly when an exception is thrown. Here's official info on the subject.
I was actually unaware of the feature, so go give him the accepted answer. But please, don't go trying to handle exceptions in some funky way just to give yourself a hand debugging. All you do is open yourself up to more bugs.
If you're interested in the debugger simply stopping precisely where the exception occurred then have you considered first-chance exceptions?
If you open Tools|Exceptions then tick the Common Language Runtime Exceptions box, the debugger will stop at the point of exception regardless of any try/catch/finally blocks.
Update: You can specify the precise exception you wish to catch by expanding the [+] tree in the Exceptions dialog. Though of course it will fire every time any exception of the specified type[s] occur[s], you can switch it on and off at will even in the middle of a debugging session, so with judicious use of breakpoints you can get it to do your bidding. I used it successfully to get around the 'target of an invocation has thrown an exception' ball ache originating from using reflection to instantiate objects. Very useful tool in such circumstances. Also note the locals and stack trace should be firmly available as far as I recall (just did a quick test and they are available), so no problems there.
Of course if you want to log things then that is outside the scope of an IDE debugger; and in which case first-chance exceptions won't help you!
Give it a go at least; I found them very useful and they might be more appropriate for your issue than you think.
What's wrong with:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch
{
DoSomthingOnFailure();
throw;
}
For code that should only run on exceptions, use the catch block:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// this runs only when there was an exception
DoSomthingOnFailure();
// pass exception on to caller
throw;
}
finally
{
// this runs everytime
Cleanup();
}
This is what you want. It will only call this method when an error occurs, and the "throw" statement will re-throw the exception with the callstack intact.
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch
{
DoSomthingOnFailure();
throw;
}
A "finally" block that runs only on failure is called "catch" (with no parameters). :-)
Now, there is a small caveat. If you want to have a specialised "catch" case for a particular exception type and have a generic "catch" that works for all exceptions, you'll have to do a bit of a custom logic.
Thus, I would do something like:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch(MyException ex)
{
// Runs on MyException
MySpecificFailureHandler()
// Since we have handled the exception and can't execute the generic
// "catch" block below, we need to explicitly run the generic failure handler
MyGenericFailureHandler()
}
catch
{
// Runs on any exception hot handled specifically before
MyGenericFailureHandler()
// If you want to mimic "finally" behavior and propagate the exception
// up the call stack
throw;
}
finally
{
// Runs on any failure or success
MyGenericCleanupHandler();
}
Every example so far is losing the original StackTrace according to my tests. Here's a solution that should work for you.
private static void PreserveStackTrace(Exception exception)
{
MethodInfo preserveStackTrace = typeof(Exception).GetMethod("InternalPreserveStackTrace",
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
preserveStackTrace.Invoke(exception, null);
}
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
DoSomethingOnFailure();
PreserveStackTrace(ex);
throw;
}
How about only catching an exception that "MightThrow" does not throw?
Bool bad = true;
try
{
MightThrow();
bad = false;
}
catch (SomePrivateMadeUpException foo)
{
//empty
}
finally
{
if(bad) DoSomeLoggingOnFailure();
}
Let me recap your requirements the way I understand them:
You want some code that is run only when an exception is generated, in order to do some logging.
You want to run your test framework under debugger and break at the point at which the exception is thrown.
To meet your first requirement, you should write the code the way everybody suggested - using parameterless catch and throw.
To meet your second requirement while using the parameterless catch, you could configure your debugger to break when an exception is throw, not only when there's an unhandled exception. I suspect you know how to do it, but I'll put it here for answer completeness: in VS you can do that in Debug -> Exception -> Common Language Runtime Exceptions -> check the Thrown checkbox.
If you know that your app throws a lot of handled exceptions, that might not be an option for you. At that point, your only choice left to meet your first requirement is to either write the code to use finally for exception logging purposes or look into the direct IL emitting route as Greg Beech suggests.
However, whether the finally code is being executed depends on the debugger you are using. In particular, VS will break on an unhadled exception before the finally is executed and will not let you continue. Thus, unless you detach from the process at that point, your logging code will never be executed. In other words, the second requirement will interfere with meeting the first requirement.
You could encapsulate your logic in a custom class, something like:
public class Executor
{
private readonly Action mainActionDelegate;
private readonly Action onFaultDelegate;
public Executor(Action mainAction, Action onFault)
{
mainActionDelegate = mainAction;
onFaultDelegate = onFault;
}
public void Run()
{
bool bad = true;
try
{
mainActionDelegate();
bad = false;
}
finally
{
if(bad)
{
onFaultDelegate();
}
}
}
}
And use it as:
new Executor(MightThrow, DoSomeLoggingOnFailure).Run();
Hope this helps.
Isn't this the same as:
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
DoSomethingOnFailure();
throw e;
}
?
You could write, or have someone write for you, a small assembly in VB.net which implements a TryFaultCatchFinally(of T) method that accepts four delegates:
TryMethod -- An Action(of T) to perform the "Try" block.
FaultMethod -- A Predicate(Of T, Exception) which, if an exception occurs, will be called before any "finally" blocks run; if it returns true the Catch block will run--otherwise it won't.
CatchMethod -- An Action(Of T, Exception) to be performed if an exception had occurred and FaultMethod returned true; happens after "finally" blocks run.
FinallyMethod -- An Action(OF T, Exception, Boolean) to be performed as a "Finally" block. The passed-in exception will be null if TryMethod ran to completion, or will hold the exception that caused it to exit. The Boolean will be true if the exception was caught, or false otherwise.
Note that when the FaultMethod is executed, one may be able to examine the state of objects that caused the exception, before such state is destroyed by Finally blocks. One must use some care when doing this (any locks that were held when the exception was thrown will continue to be held) but the ability may still sometimes be handy, especially when debugging.
I'd suggest the routine look something like:
Shared Sub TryFaultCatchFinally(Of T)(ByVal TryProc As Action(Of T), _
ByVal FaultProc As Func(Of T, Exception, Boolean), _
ByVal CatchProc As Action(Of T, Exception), _
ByVal FinallyProc As Action(Of T, Exception, Boolean), _
ByVal Value As T)
Dim theException As Exception = Nothing
Dim exceptionCaught As Boolean = False
Try
TryProc(Value)
theException = Nothing
exceptionCaught = False
Catch Ex As Exception When CopyExceptionAndReturnFalse(Ex, theException) OrElse FaultProc(Value, Ex)
exceptionCaught = True
CatchProc(Value, Ex)
Finally
FinallyProc(Value, theException, exceptionCaught)
End Try
End Sub
No, I think this is a common idiom the way you have it.
EDIT
To be clear, the "catch" then "rethrow" strategies offer the same run-time semantics, however they change the experience when the VS debugger is attached. Tooling and maintenance is important; debugging often requires you to 'catch all first-chance exceptions' and if you end up with lots of 'spurious' first-chance exceptions due to catch-then-rethrow in your code, it really hurts the ability to debug the code. This idiom is about interacting well with the tooling, as well as clearly expressing the intent (you don't want to 'catch', decide can't handle, and rethrow, instead you just want to log that an exception did happen but let it pass on by).
Have you considered using the DebuggerStepThrough attribute?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.debuggerstepthroughattribute.aspx
[DebuggerStepThrough]
internal void MyHelper(Action someCallback)
{
try
{
someCallback();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Debugger will not break here
// because of the DebuggerStepThrough attribute
DoSomething(ex);
throw;
}
}
With exception filters added in C# 6, one option is to make use of a false returning exception filter, like so:
void PerformMightThrowWithExceptionLogging()
{
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch (Exception e) when (Log(e))
{
// Cannot enter here, since Log returns false.
}
}
bool Log(Exception e)
{
DoSomeLoggingOnFailure(e);
// Return false so the exception filter is not matched, and therefore the stack is kept.
// This means the debugger breaks where the exception actually happened, etc.
return false;
}
See https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/try-catch for more details on exception filters.
try
{
MightThrow();
}
catch
{
DoSomethingOnFailure();
}