I was recently using JSONEncoder.encode() (and its counterpart, JSONDecoder.decode()), which is marked in the documentation as throws. Unfortunately, the documentation does not go into detail on when/how/what this method could throw. Does anybody have any insight in this? I'm asking because I am wondering if an error here is common enough to implement a user-facing error handling for this.
thanks
JSONEncoder.encode() throws EncodingError.invalidValue when one of the values you are about to encode is not valid (e.g. Double.infinity if the NonConformingFloatEncodingStrategy is set to the default .throw, since JSON does not natively support infinity as a number).
You can see this in the source, and read more about the error in the EncodingError documentation.
Related
I want to catch the exceptions thrown from item reader (e.g. reader not open , incorrect token exceptions etc) and handle it. Currently spring batch is throwing them as fatal exceptons and come out of the step.
Please let me know if there is any way to do it?
I faced the same issue whereby I wanted to catch the
org.springframework.batch.item.file.FlatFileParseException
thrown by the FlatFileItemReader and perform some custom handling & logging. Did some research and almost reached the conclusion that I might have to write a custom reader instead of the default reader I was currently using, until I stumbled upon a gem of a section in the Spring Batch documentation: http://docs.spring.io/spring-batch/reference/html/configureStep.html#interceptingStepExecution
You can write a custom implementation of the ItemReadListener<T> interface and over-ride the onReadError(Exception ex) method and then register this listener class in the corresponding step. As such, this method will then be called when the reader encounters an exception while reading from the file. The exception reference will be passed to the method as well using which you can do as you please like logging etc.
Similarly, writing a #OnReadError annotated method is also an alternative if you don't want to implement the ItemReadListener interface separately.
On a different note, if your whole purpose is to skip such exceptions that might occur while reading, you can try adding following to the chunk configuration in the XML:
<skippable-exception-classes>
<include class="org.springframework.batch.item.file.FlatFileParseException"/>
</skippable-exception-classes>
Ref: http://docs.spring.io/spring-batch/reference/html/configureStep.html#configuringSkip
Problem solved! :)
Is there a way to pass any meaningful message, not “std::exception” to the promise’s fail callback? In the sources I found the following “void FB::variantDeferred::reject(std::exception e) const” specification. It seems when reject is called with any exception derived from std::exception the slicing happens and the right exception’s message is lost. Is there any workaround but to pass error through success callback?
std::exception is simply a base class for creating exceptions in C++. You can use a number of different methods to pass a specific string back; for example, you could throw a std::runtime_error, which accepts a message.
You could also subclass std::exception and provide an implementation of std::exception::what which returns a useful string representation of what you want.
FireBreath 2.0 will use the error message from e.what() when it creates the Error object. You can find this in the code, if you're curious how that works:
NPAPI
ActiveX
FireWyrm (used for Native Messaging)
I’m struggling fully understanding when/how exceptions are thrown in JSF 2.0. I’ve looked for a solution longer than I care to admit. Ultimately, the goal I want to achieve is “handle” an unhandled exceptions. When an exception is thrown, I want to be able to capture information of interest about the exception, and email that to the appropriate site administrators. I’m forcing an error by throwing a new FacesException() in the constructor of one of my backing beans. I had this working great in JSF 1.1 using MyFaces implementation. I was able to get this working by wrapping the Default Lifecycle and simply overriding the execute() and render() methods. I followed this awesome post by Hanspeter to get that working:
"http://insights2jsf.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/using-a-custom-lifecycle-implementation-to-handle-exceptions-in-jsf-1-2/#comment-103"
I am now undergoing a site upgrade to JSF 2.0 using Mojarra’s. And things work great still as long as the exception is thrown/caught in the execute() method, however; the moment I enter the render(), the HttpServletResponse.isCommitted() equals true, and the phase is PhaseId RENDER_RESPONSE which of course means I can’t perform a redirect or forward. I don’t understand what has changed between JSF 1.1 and 2.0 in regards to when/how the response is committed. As I indicated, I had this working perfectly in the 1.1 framework.
After much searching I found that JSF 2.0 provides a great option for exception handling via a Custom ExceptionHandler. I followed Ed Burns’ blog, Dealing Gracefully with ViewExpiredException in JSF2:
"http://weblogs.java.net/blog/edburns/archive/2009/09/03/dealing-gracefully-viewexpiredexception-jsf2"
As Ed indicates there is always the web.xml way by defining the tag and what type of exception/server error code and to what page one wants sent to for the error. This approach works great as long as I’m catching 404 errors. One interesting thing to note about that however, is if I force a 404 error by typing a non-exsitant URL like /myApp/9er the error handler works great, but as soon as I add “.xhtml” extension (i.e. /myApp/9er.xhtml) then the web.xml definition doesn’t handle it.
One thing I noticed Ed was doing that I hadn’t tried was instead of trying to do a HttpServletRespone.sendRedirect(), he is utilizing the Navigationhandler.handleNavigation() to forward the user to the custom error page. Unfortunately, this method didn’t do anything different than what Faclets does with the error by default. Along with that of course, I was unable to do HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() due to the same problems as mentioned above; response.isCommitted() equals true.
I know this post is getting long so I will make a quick note about trying to use a PhaseListener for the same purposes. I used the following posts as a guide with this route still being unsuccessful:
"http://ovaraksin.blogspot.com/2010/10/global-handling-of-all-unchecked.html" "http://ovaraksin.blogspot.com/2010/10/jsf-ajax-redirect-after-session-timeout.html"
All and all I have the same issues as already mentioned. When this exception is thrown, the response is already in the committed phase, and I’m unable to redirect/forward the user to a standard error page.
I apologize for such a long post, I’m just trying to give as much information as possible to help eliminate ambiguity. Anyone have any ideas/thoughts to a work around, and I’m curious what might be different between JSF 1.1 and 2.0 that would cause the response to be committed as soon as I enter the render() phase of the Lifecycle.
Thanks a ton for any help with this!!!
So this question is actually not just about a custom exception handler (for which JSF 2 has the powerful ExceptionHandlerFactory mechanism), but more about showing the user a custom error page when the response has already been committed.
One universal way to always be able to redirect the user even if the last bit has already been written to the response is using a HttpServletResponse wrapper that buffers headers and content being written to it.
This does have the adverse effect that the user doesn't see the page being build up gradually.
Maybe you can use this technique to only capture the very early response commit that JSF 2.0 seems to do. As soon as render response starts, you emit the headers you buffered till so far and write out the response content directly.
This way you might still be able to redirect the user to a custom error page if the exception occurs before render response.
I have successfully implemented a filter using response wrapper as described above which avoids the response being commited and allows redirection to a custom page even on an exception in the middle of rendering the page.
The response wrapper sets up its own internal PrintWriter on a StringWriter, which is returned by the getWriter method so that the faces output is buffered. In the happy path, the filter subsequently writes the internal StringWriter contents to the actual response. On an exception, the filter redirects to an error jsp which writes to the (as yet uncommitted) response.
For me, the key to avoiding the response getting committed was to intercept the flushBuffer() method (from ServletResponse, not HttpServletResponse), and avoid calling super.flushBuffer(). I suspect that depending on circumstances and as noted above, it might also be necessary to also override some of the other methods, eg the ones that set headers.
I found questions here Should a retrieval method return 'null' or throw an exception when it can't produce the return value? and Should functions return null or an empty object?, but I think my case is quite different.
I'm writing an application that consists of a webservice and a client. The webservice is responsible to access data, and return data to the client. I design my app like this:
//webservice
try
{
DataTable data = GetSomeData(parameter);
return data
}
catch (OopsException ex)
{
//write some log here
return null;
}
//client:
DataTable data = CallGetSomeData(parameter);
if(data == null)
{
MessageBox.Show("Oops Exception!");
return;
}
Well, there is a rule of not returning null. I don't think that I should just rethrow an exception and let the client catch SoapException. What's your comment? Is there better approach to solve this problem?
Thank you.
In your case, an exception has already been thrown and handled in some manner in your web service.
Returning null there is a good idea because the client code can know that something errored out in your web service.
In the case of the client, I think the way you have it is good. I don't think there is a reason to throw another exception (even though you aren't in the web service anymore).
I say this, because, technically, nothing has caused an error in your client code. You are just getting bad data from the web service. This is just a matter of handling potentially bad input from an outside source.
Personally, as a rule of thumb, I shy away from throwing exceptions when I get bad data since the client code can't control that.
Just make sure you handle the data == null condition in such a way that it doesn't crash your client code.
In general i try to design my webservices in such way that they return a flag of some sort that indicates whether there was a technical/functional error or not.
additionally i try to return a complex object for result not just a string, so that i can return things like:
result->Code = "MAINTENANCE"
result->MaintenanceTill = "2010-10-29 14:00:00"
so for a webservice that should get me a list of dataEntities i will return something like:
<result>
<result>
<Code>OK</Code>
</result>
<functionalResult>
<dataList>
<dataEntity>A</dataEntity>
</dataList>
</functionalResult>
</result>
so every failure that can occur behind my webservice is hidden in a error result.
the only exceptions that developers must care about while calling my webservice are the exceptions or errors that can occur before the webservice.
All the WebServices that I've used return objects, not simple data types. These objects usually contain a bool value named Success that lets you test very quickly whether or not to trust the data returned. In either event, I think any errors thrown should be untrappable (i.e. unintentional) and therefore signify a problem with the service itself.
I think there may be a few factors to consider when making a decision:
what is the idiomatic way to do this in the language your using (if it wasn't a webservice)
how good your soap/webservice library is (does it propogate exceptions or no)
what's the easiest thing for the client to do
I tend to make the client do the easiest, idiomatic thing, within the limitations of the library. If the client lib doesn't take care of auto restoring serialized exceptions I would probably wrap it with a lib that did so I could do the following.
Client:
try:
# Restore Serialized object, rethrow if exception
return CallGetSomeData(parameter);
except Timeout, e:
MessageBox.Show("timed out")
except Exception, e:
MessageBox.Show("Unknown error")
exit(1)
WebService:
try:
return GetSomeData(parameter) # Serialized
except Exception, e:
return e # Serialized
Your first problem is "a rule of not returning null". I would strongly suggest reconsidering that.
Returning a SoapException is a possibility, but like hacktick already mentioned, it would be better to return a complex object with a status flag {Success,Fail} with every response from the web service.
I think it all boils down to the question whether or not your client can use any info as to why no data was returned.
For example - if no data was returned because the (say sql) server that is called in GetSomeData was down, and the client can actually do something with that information (e.g. display an appropriate message) - you don't want to hide that information - throwing an error is more informative.
Another example - if parameter is null, and that causes an exception.. (although you probably should have taken care of that earlier in the code.. But you get the idea) - should have throw an appropriate (informative) exception.
If the client doesn't care at all why he didn't get any data back, you may return null, he'll ignore the error text anyhow and he's code will look the same..
If your client and service are running on different machines or different processes, it will be impossible to throw an error from the service and catch it on the client. If you insist on using exceptions, the best you can hope for is some proxy on the client to detect the error condition (either null or some other convention) and re-throw a new exception.
The general practice in handling exception is, when the sequence of flow is expected in the normal circumstance where as the sequence could not be completed due to non-availability of resources or expected input.
In your case, you still need to decide how do you want your client side code to react for null or exception.
How about passing in a delegate to be invoked when anything bad happens? The delegate could throw an exception if that's what the outside could would like, or let the function return null (if the outside code will check for that), or possibly take some other action. Depending upon the information passed to the delegate, it may be able to deal with problem conditions in such a way as to allow processing to continue (e.g. the delegate might set a 'retry' flag the first few times it's called, in case flaky network connections are expected). It may also be possible for a delegate to log information that wouldn't exist by the time an exception could get caught.
PS--It's probably best to pass a custom class to the problem-detected delegate. Doing that will allow for future versions of the method to provide additional information to the delegate, without breaking any implementations that expect the simpler information.
Exceptions are recommended in the same process space. Across processes, it is only through information that a success/failure is evaluated.
Since you are the client to your webservice, you can log the exception at the service layer and return null to the client, yet the client should still know if the CallGetSomeData returned null because a) data is not available, or b) there is a database exception as the table is locked. Hence its always good to know what has caused the error for easier reporting at client side. You should have a error code and description as part of your message.
If you are not consuming your webservice then you should definetly throw exception for the same reasons mentioned above, client should know what has happened and its upto them to decide to what to do with that.
I have a DLL with some COM objects. Sometimes, this objects crashes and register an error event in the Windows Event Log with lots of hexadecimal informations. I have no clue why this crashes happens.
So, How can I trace those COM objects exceptions?
The first step is to lookup the Fail code's hex value (E.G. E_FAIL 0x80004005). I've had really good luck with posting that value in Google to get a sense of what the error code means.
Then, I just use trial and error to try to isolate the location in code that's failing, and the root cause of the failure.
If you just want a really quick way to find out what the error code means, you could use the "Error Lookup" tool packaged with Visual Studio (details here). Enter the hex value, and it will give you the string describing that error code.
Of course, once you know that, you've still got to figure out why it's happening.
A good way to look up error (hresult) codes is HResult Plus or welt.exe (Windows Error Lookup Tool).
I use logging internally in the COM-classes to see what is going on. Also, once the COM-class is loaded by the executable, you can attach the VS debugger to it and debug the COM code with breakpoints, watches, and all that fun stuff.
COM objects don't throw exceptions. They return HRESULTs, most of which indicate a failure. So if you're looking for the equivalent of an exception stack trace, you're out of luck. You're going to have to walk through the code by hand and figure out what's going on.