I am using Parse.com in my app. I see that sometimes if Parse.ParseClient.Initialize() method fails, ParseAnalytics.TrackAppOpens still run and eventually crash my app.
So how can I detect if ParseClient failed to initialize?
In App constructor:
this.Startup += async (sender, args) =>
{
//crash if ParseClient is not initialized
//Parse.ParseAnalytics.TrackAppOpens(RootFrame);
};
One way is to make a Test Call to your Parse DB and wrap it around with try catch block before you use the ParseAnalytics.
Something like..
ParseClient.Initialize();
try
{
client.GetObject("SomeTestORDummyObject");
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//Indicates that Initialize failed..
}
ParseAnalytics.TrackAppOpens(RootFrame);
Related
I was working on a unit test for the sample vert.x app. But could not understand the purpose of TestContext#verify() method. Here are two test cases one with TestContext#verify() and another without it. Both are running fine. So when do we need to use TestContext#verify()?
Test Case without TestContext#verify():
#Test
#DisplayName("Handler Test3")
void successTestCase1(VertxTestContext testContext) {
Checkpoint checkpoint = testContext.checkpoint(1);
new SampleVerticle().doWorkWithAsyncresult("hello",
testContext.succeeding(future -> {
assertThat(future).isEqualTo("test from");
testContext.completeNow();
})
);
}
Test Case with TestContext#verify():
#Test
#DisplayName("Handler Test4")
void successTestCase2(VertxTestContext testContext) {
Checkpoint checkpoint = testContext.checkpoint(1);
new SampleVerticle().doWorkWithAsyncresult("vivek",
testContext.succeeding(future -> {
testContext.verify(() -> {
assertThat(future).isEqualTo("test from");
testContext.completeNow();
});
})
);
}
Test Method:
public void doWorkWithAsyncresult(String input, Handler<AsyncResult<String>> handler) {
handler.handle(Future.succeededFuture("test from"));
}
Thanks,
Vivek Kumar
The verify method is useful when the test fails, not when it passes.
If one of the asynchronous assertions fails, verify will report it correctly to the TestContext. Then the test will fail immediately with the right error message.
Otherwise the test would timeout after an arbitrary amount of time, and the error may or may not be printed to the console.
You code is not async. So both methods are same now. And testContext.completeNow() does nothing.
When code is async you should add to the bottom of test (VertxExtension does this for you):
assertTrue(testContext.awaitCompletion(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS), "Timeout");
assertFalse(testContext.failed());
And if assert throws exception, the test without verify will end with timeout.
To fix that you should wrap your assert and call failNow:
try {
assert...
testContext.completeNow();
} catch (Exception e) {
textContext.failNow(e);
return;
}
TextContext::verify does this wrapping for you.
In Python, I would do this:
try:
some_func()
except Exception:
handle_error()
else:
print("some_func was successful")
do_something_else() # exceptions not handled here, deliberately
finally:
print("this will be printed in any case")
I find this very elegant to read; the else block will only be reached if no exception was thrown.
How does one do this in Kotlin? Am I supposed to declare a local variable and check that below the block?
try {
some_func()
// do_something_else() cannot be put here, because I don't want exceptions
// to be handled the same as for the statement above.
} catch (e: Exception) {
handle_error()
} finally {
// reached in any case
}
// how to handle 'else' elegantly?
I found Kotlin docs | Migrating from Python | Exceptions, but this does not cover the else block functionality as found in Python.
Another way to use runCatching is to use the Result's extension functions
runCatching {
someFunc()
}.onFailure { error ->
handleError(error)
}.onSuccess { someFuncReturnValue ->
handleSuccess(someFuncReturnValue)
}.getOrDefault(defaultValue)
.also { finalValue ->
doFinalStuff(finalValue)
}
Take a look at the docs for Result: https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin/-result/index.html
If you do not care about the default value, for example, you want just to hide the loading you could use this:
runCatching {
show_loading(true) //show loading indicator
some_func() //this could throw an exception
}.onFailure {
handle_error(it.message)
}.getOrNull().run {
show_loading(false) //hide loading indicator regardless error or success
}
I have a service method which does some operation inside a transaction.
public User method1() {
// some code...
Vehicle.withTransaction { status ->
// some collection loop
// some other delete
vehicle.delete(failOnError:true)
}
if (checkSomething outside transaction) {
return throw some user defined exception
}
return user
}
If there is a runtime exception we dont have to catch that exception and the transaction will be rolled back automatically. But how to determine that transaction rolled back due to some exception and I want to throw some user friendly error message. delete() call also wont return anything.
If I add try/catch block inside the transaction by catching the Exception (super class) it is not getting into that exception block. But i was expecting it to go into that block and throw user friendly exception.
EDIT 1: Is it a good idea to add try/catch arround withTransaction
Any idea how to solver this?? Thanks in advance.
If I understand you question correctly, you want to know how to catch an exception, determine what the exception is, and return a message to the user. There are a few ways to do this. I will show you how I do it.
Before I get to the code there are a few things I might suggest. First, you don't need to explicitly declare the transaction in a service (I'm using v2.2.5). Services are transactional by default (not a big deal).
Second, the transaction will automatically roll back if any exception occurs while executing the service method.
Third, I would recommend removing failOnError:true from save() (I don't think it works on delete()... I may be wrong?). I find it is easier to run validate() or save() in the service then return the model instance to the controller where the objects errors can be used in a flash message.
The following is a sample of how I like to handle exceptions and saves using a service method and try/catch in the controller:
class FooService {
def saveFoo(Foo fooInstance) {
return fooInstance.save()
}
def anotherSaveFoo(Foo fooInstance) {
if(fooInstance.validate()){
fooInstance.save()
}else{
do something else or
throw new CustomException()
}
return fooInstance
}
}
class FooController {
def save = {
def newFoo = new Foo(params)
try{
returnedFoo = fooService.saveFoo(newFoo)
}catch(CustomException | Exception e){
flash.warning = [message(code: 'foo.validation.error.message',
args: [org.apache.commons.lang.exception.ExceptionUtils.getRootCauseMessage(e)],
default: "The foo changes did not pass validation.<br/>{0}")]
redirect('to where ever you need to go')
return
}
if(returnedFoo.hasErrors()){
def fooErrors = returnedFoo.errors.getAllErrors()
flash.warning = [message(code: 'foo.validation.error.message',
args: [fooErrors],
default: "The foo changes did not pass validation.<br/>${fooErrors}")]
redirect('to where ever you need to go')
return
}else {
flash.success = [message(code: 'foo.saved.successfully.message',
default: "The foo was saved successfully")]
redirect('to where ever you need to go')
}
}
}
Hope this helps, or gets some other input from more experienced Grails developers.
Here are a few other ways I've found to get exception info to pass along to your user:
request.exception.cause
request.exception.cause.message
response.status
A few links to other relevant questions that may help:
Exception handling in Grails controllers
Exception handling in Grails controllers with ExceptionMapper in Grails 2.2.4 best practice
https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/javadocs/api-2.6/org/apache/commons/lang/exception/ExceptionUtils.html
I am trying my first features with Behat and I am facing the problem I don't know how to implement expected exceptions.
I found the issue https://github.com/Behat/Behat/issues/140 and robocoder is talking about one possible way, which is used by Behat, too. But it seems that they aren't really handling exceptions.
My point is to achieve forced exception handling. I don't want any construct catching all exceptions and forget them.
One possible way would be:
When <player> transfers <transfer> from his account it should fail with <error>
Implementation
try {
...
} catch (\Exception $ex) {
assertEquals($error, $ex->getMessage());
}
I don't like the scenario description. I want to use the then keyword, e.g.
When <player> transfers <transfer> from his account
Then it should fail with error <error>
This description has the disadvantage I need two methods:
method1($arg1, $arg2) {
// Test the transfer
}
method2($arg1, $arg2) {
// Check if the exception is the right one
}
To be able to check in method2 the exception needs to be stored.
The only possible way I see is to use a try/catch and store it to a variable.
Someone else would catch it and do nothing with it. Nobody will notice, when running the tests.
How can I prevent that exceptions are discarded?
Has anybody else a similar scenario implemented?
Thanks for any hints.
EDIT:
Behat context:
playerTransfer($player, $amount) {
$player->transfer($amount);
}
Method from entity class:
transfer($amount) {
if ($this->getWealth() < $amount) {
throw NotEnoughMoney();
}
...
}
Always try to catch method outcome to context class field, for example:
//inside Behat context class method
try {
$this->outcome = $func();
}
catch(\Exception $ex) {
$this->outcome = $ex;
}
Now when expecting exception at next step just check if $this->outcome is instanceof desired exception with message/code.
I think the problem is in your implementation. Do you check if transfer is successful in "When transfers from his account" ? Do you need to check it ?
Failure test:
When <player> transfers <transfer> from his account
Then I should see error <error>
Successful step:
When <player> transfers <transfer> from his account
Then I should see "transfer successful"
Here's how I successfully did it in a project of mine where I had to repeat a few steps till the condition held true:
/**
* #Given /^I execute some conditions$/
*/
public function executeConditions()
{
$flag = 1;
do {
try {
<steps to be executed till the condition holds true>
$flag=1;
} catch (\Exception $ex) {
$flag = 0;
}
}while ($flag>0);
}
I have a method that creates some Tasks, and then waits on them with WaitAll before returning. The problem is, if those tasks got canceled, then WaitAll throws an AggregateException containing lots of TaskCanceledExceptions.
That means that WaitAll will throw exceptions in two different circumstances:
Exceptions that indicate a genuine error. These mean that there was a condition we didn't know how to handle; they need to propagate as unhandled exceptions, until they eventually terminate the process.
Exceptions that indicate that the user clicked a Cancel button. These mean that the task was canceled and cleaned up, and the program should continue running normally.
The latter fits squarely into the definition of a vexing exception: it's an exception thrown in a completely non-exceptional circumstance, so I have to catch it in order to resume normal control flow. Fortunately it's easy to catch, right? Just add catch (AggregateException) and -- oh wait, that's the same type that gets thrown when there's a fatal error.
I do need to wait for the tasks to finish running before I return (I need to know that they're no longer using their database connections, file handles, or anything else), so I do need the WaitAll or something similar. And if any of the tasks faulted, I do want those exceptions to propagate as unhandled exceptions. I just don't want exceptions for cancel.
How can I prevent WaitAll from throwing exceptions for canceled tasks?
The AggregateException provides a Handle method that can be used for these situations. If for example you want to ignore TaskCanceledException you can do:
var all = new AggregateException(
new NullReferenceException(),
new TaskCanceledException(),
new TaskCanceledException(),
new InvalidOperationException(),
new TaskCanceledException());
try
{
throw all;
}
catch (AggregateException errors)
{
errors.Handle(e => e is TaskCanceledException);
}
If all the exceptions are of type TaskCanceledException, the Handle method will not throw any exception; otherwise a new AggregateException containing only the unhandled exceptions will be thrown.
Based on João Angelo's suggestion, here goes a Task class extension
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace MySharedLibrary.Extensions
{
public static class TaskExtensions
{
// This code is based João Angelo's stackoverflow suggestion https://stackoverflow.com/a/8681687/378115
// Use this when a CancellationTokenSource is used
public static void SafeWait(this Task TargetTask, CancellationTokenSource TargetTaskCancellationTokenSource)
{
if (TargetTaskCancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested == false)
{
TargetTaskCancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
}
SafeWait(TargetTask);
}
// Use this when no CancellationTokenSource is used
public static void SafeWait(this Task TargetTask)
{
try
{
if (TargetTask.IsCanceled == false)
{
TargetTask.Wait();
}
}
catch (AggregateException errors)
{
errors.Handle(e => e is TaskCanceledException);
}
}
}
}