When an exception ocurrs in my .NET code, the X++ code just stops executing and drops out. It doesn't display any error message at all, it simply stops working.
Why is this? Is there a way to change it?
Here's one way to solve that:
System.Exception e; // declare
;
try
{
... code that can throw clr error
}
catch (Exception::CLRError)
{
e = CLRInterop::getLastException();
while( e )
{
info( e.get_Message() );
e = e.get_InnerException();
}
}
Also read more here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/emeadaxsupport/archive/2010/07/22/working-with-clr-exceptions-in-dynamics-ax-x-code.aspx
Related
I have following code
IAsyncOperation<bool> trythiswork()
{
bool contentFound{ false };
try
{
auto result = co_await someAsyncFunc();
winrt::check_bool(result)
if (result)
{
contentFound = true;
}
}
catch (...)
{
LOG_CAUGHT_EXCEPTION();
}
co_return contentFound;
}
When the result is false, it fails and throws but catch goes to fail fast and program terminates. How does log function terminate the program? Isn't it supposed to only log the exception? I assumed that I am handling this exception so program won't crash but it is crashing.
So how to throw and catch so that program does not terminate? I do want to throw. And also catch and preferably log the exception as well.
Thanks
The issue can be reproduced using the following code:
IAsyncOperation<bool> someAsyncFunc() { co_return false; }
IAsyncOperation<bool> trythiswork()
{
auto contentFound { false };
try
{
auto result = co_await someAsyncFunc();
winrt::check_bool(result);
// throw std::bad_alloc {};
contentFound = true;
}
catch (...)
{
LOG_CAUGHT_EXCEPTION();
}
co_return contentFound;
}
int main()
{
init_apartment();
auto result = trythiswork().get();
}
As it turns out, everything works as advertised, even if not as intended. When running the code with a debugger attached you will see the following debug output:
The exception %s (0x [trythiswork]
Not very helpful, but it shows that logging itself works. This is followed up by something like
FailFast(1) tid(b230) 8007023E {Application Error}
causing the process to terminate. The WIL only recognizes exceptions of type std::exception, wil::ResultException, and Platform::Exception^. When it handles an unrecognized exception type it will terminate the process by default. This can be verified by commenting out the call to check_bool and instead throwing a standard exception (such as std::bad_alloc). This produces a program that will log exception details, but continue to execute.
The behavior can be customized by registering a callback for custom exception types, giving clients control over translating between custom exception types and HRESULT values. This is useful in cases where WIL needs to interoperate with external library code that uses its own exception types.
For C++/WinRT exception types (based on hresult_error) the WIL already provides error handling helpers that can be enabled (see Integrating with C++/WinRT). To opt into this all you need to do is to #include <wil/cppwinrt.h> before any C++/WinRT headers. When using precompiled headers that's where the #include directive should go.
With that change, the program now works as desired: It logs exception information for exceptions that originate from C++/WinRT, and continues to execute after the exception has been handled.
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
}
Sometimes i have an EntityFramework exception where calling SaveChanges.
I see this kind of message: "An error occurred while updating the entries. See the inner exception for details."
I have logged the stack trace, the inner exception and stuff but there is no clear explanation of the problem. I would like to see the real query (it is a mysql database), with the parameters. Do you know how i can see or log the real query ?
Thanks
You can use DbEntityValidationException handler which will let you know what was wrong precisely.
try{
//Your code here
}
catch (DbEntityValidationException ex)
{
var errorMessages = ex.EntityValidationErrors
.SelectMany(x => x.ValidationErrors)
.Select(x => x.ErrorMessage);
var fullMessageError = string.Join("; ", errorMessages);
var exceptionMessage = string.Concat(ex.Message, "Exact Message " + fullMessageError);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//General Exception here
}
You can set log property of dbContext.Database and log the actual queries generated by EF.
using (var context = new MyDBContext())
{
context.Database.Log = Console.Write; // This is where you setup where to log queries
// Your code here...
}
There is a detailed documentation on MSDN https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/dn469464.aspx
I have an if condition which checks for value and the it throws new NumberFormatException
Is there any other way to code this
if (foo)
{
throw new NumberFormatException
}
// ..
catch (NumberFormatException exc)
{
// some msg...
}
If you are doing something such as this:
try
{
// some stuff
if (foo)
{
throw new NumberFormatException();
}
}
catch (NumberFormatException exc)
{
do something;
}
Then sure, you could avoid the exception completely and do the 'do something' part inside the conditional block.
If your aim is to avoid to throw a new exception:
if(foo)
{
//some msg...
} else
{
//do something else
}
Don't throw exceptions if you can handle them in another, more elegant manner. Exceptions are expensive and should only be used for cases where there is something going on beyond your control (e.g. a database server is not responding).
If you are trying to ensure that a value is set, and formatted correctly, you should try to handle failure of these conditions in a more graceful manner. For example...
if(myObject.value != null && Checkformat(myObject.Value)
{
// good to go
}
else
{
// not a good place to be. Prompt the user rather than raise an exception?
}
In Java, you can try parsing a string with regular expressions before trying to convert it to a number.
If you're trying to catch your own exception (why???) you could do this:
try { if (foo) throw new NumberFormatException(); }
catch(NumberFormatexception) {/* ... */}
if you are trying to replace the throwing of an exception with some other error handling mechanism your only option is to return or set an error code - the problem is that you then have to go and ensure it is checked elsewhere.
the exception is best.
If you know the flow that will cause you to throw a NumberFormatException, code to handle that case. You shouldn't use Exception hierarchies as a program flow mechanism.
I'm trying to leverage the using block more and more these days when I have an object that implements IDisposable but one thing I have not figured out is how to catch an exception as I would in a normal try/catch/finally ... any code samples to point me in the right direction?
Edit: The question was modified after reading through the replies. It was "How to Throw an exception in a using block with .NET 2.0?" but I was actually looking for a way to catch these exceptions inside a using block.
I'm looking for more detail on rolling my own catching block inside a using block.
Edit: What I wanted to avoid is having to use a try/catch/finally inside my using block like #Blair showed. But maybe this is a non issue...
Edit: #Blair, this is exactly what I was looking for, thanks for the detailed reply!
I don't really understand the question - you throw an exception as you normally would.
If MyThing implements IDisposable, then:
using ( MyThing thing = new MyThing() )
{
...
throw new ApplicationException("oops");
}
And thing.Dispose will be called as you leave the block, as the exception's thrown. If you want to combine a try/catch/finally and a using, you can either nest them:
try
{
...
using ( MyThing thing = new MyThing() )
{
...
}
...
}
catch ( Exception e )
{
....
}
finally
{
....
}
(Or put the try/catch/finally in the using):
using ( MyThing thing = new MyThing() )
{
...
try
{
...
}
catch ( Exception e )
{
....
}
finally
{
....
}
...
} // thing.Dispose is called now
Or you can unroll the using and explicitly call Dispose in the finally block as #Quarrelsome demonstrated, adding any extra exception-handling or -recovery code that you need in the finally (or in the catch).
EDIT: In response to #Toran Billups, if you need to process exceptions aside from ensuring that your Dispose method is called, you'll either have to use a using and try/catch/finally or unroll the using - I don't thinks there's any other way to accomplish what you want.
Yeah there is nothing different about throwing exceptions in using blocks.
Remember that the using block basically translates to:
IDisposable disposable = null;
try
{
disposable = new WhateverYouWantedToMake();
}
finally
{
disposable.Dispose()
}
So you will have to roll your own catching if you want to catch anything but catching/throwing is a completely separate concern from the using. The finally is almost guaranteed to execute (save an uncatchable exception (e.g. stackoverflow or outofmemory) or someone pulling the power out of the PC).
You need to have a try statement to catch an exception
Either you can use an try statement within the using block or you can use a using block in a try block
But you need to use a try block to catch any exceptions occuring