Related
I have always been of the belief that if a method can throw an exception then it is reckless not to protect this call with a meaningful try block.
I just posted 'You should ALWAYS wrap calls that can throw in try, catch blocks.' to this question and was told that it was 'remarkably bad advice' - I'd like to understand why.
A method should only catch an exception when it can handle it in some sensible way.
Otherwise, pass it on up, in the hope that a method higher up the call stack can make sense of it.
As others have noted, it is good practice to have an unhandled exception handler (with logging) at the highest level of the call stack to ensure that any fatal errors are logged.
As Mitch and others stated, you shouldn't catch an exception that you do not plan on handling in some way. You should consider how the application is going to systematically handle exceptions when you are designing it. This usually leads to having layers of error handling based on the abstractions - for example, you handle all SQL-related errors in your data access code so that the part of the application that is interacting with domain objects is not exposed to the fact that there is a DB under the hood somewhere.
There are a few related code smells that you definitely want to avoid in addition to the "catch everything everywhere" smell.
"catch, log, rethrow": if you want scoped based logging, then write a class that emits a log statement in its destructor when the stack is unrolling due to an exception (ala std::uncaught_exception()). All that you need to do is declare a logging instance in the scope that you are interested in and, voila, you have logging and no unnecessary try/catch logic.
"catch, throw translated": this usually points to an abstraction problem. Unless you are implementing a federated solution where you are translating several specific exceptions into one more generic one, you probably have an unnecessary layer of abstraction... and don't say that "I might need it tomorrow".
"catch, cleanup, rethrow": this is one of my pet-peeves. If you see a lot of this, then you should apply Resource Acquisition is Initialization techniques and place the cleanup portion in the destructor of a janitor object instance.
I consider code that is littered with try/catch blocks to be a good target for code review and refactoring. It indicates that either exception handling is not well understood or the code has become an amœba and is in serious need of refactoring.
Because the next question is "I've caught an exception, what do I do next?" What will you do? If you do nothing - that's error hiding and the program could "just not work" without any chance to find what happened. You need to understand what exactly you will do once you've caught the exception and only catch if you know.
You don't need to cover every block with try-catches because a try-catch can still catch unhandled exceptions thrown in functions further down the call stack. So rather than have every function have a try-catch, you can have one at the top level logic of your application. For example, there might be a SaveDocument() top-level routine, which calls many methods which call other methods etc. These sub-methods don't need their own try-catches, because if they throw, it's still caught by SaveDocument()'s catch.
This is nice for three reasons: it's handy because you have one single place to report an error: the SaveDocument() catch block(s). There's no need to repeat this throughout all the sub-methods, and it's what you want anyway: one single place to give the user a useful diagnostic about something that went wrong.
Two, the save is cancelled whenever an exception is thrown. With every sub-method try-catching, if an exception is thrown, you get in to that method's catch block, execution leaves the function, and it carries on through SaveDocument(). If something's already gone wrong you likely want to stop right there.
Three, all your sub-methods can assume every call succeeds. If a call failed, execution will jump to the catch block and the subsequent code is never executed. This can make your code much cleaner. For example, here's with error codes:
int ret = SaveFirstSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
ret = SaveSecondSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
ret = SaveThirdSection();
if (ret == FAILED)
{
/* some diagnostic */
return;
}
Here's how that might be written with exceptions:
// these throw if failed, caught in SaveDocument's catch
SaveFirstSection();
SaveSecondSection();
SaveThirdSection();
Now it's much clearer what is happening.
Note exception safe code can be trickier to write in other ways: you don't want to leak any memory if an exception is thrown. Make sure you know about RAII, STL containers, smart pointers, and other objects which free their resources in destructors, since objects are always destructed before exceptions.
Herb Sutter wrote about this problem here. For sure worth reading.
A teaser:
"Writing exception-safe code is fundamentally about writing 'try' and 'catch' in the correct places." Discuss.
Put bluntly, that statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of exception safety. Exceptions are just another form of error reporting, and we certainly know that writing error-safe code is not just about where to check return codes and handle error conditions.
Actually, it turns out that exception safety is rarely about writing 'try' and 'catch' -- and the more rarely the better. Also, never forget that exception safety affects a piece of code's design; it is never just an afterthought that can be retrofitted with a few extra catch statements as if for seasoning.
As stated in other answers, you should only catch an exception if you can do some sort of sensible error handling for it.
For example, in the question that spawned your question, the questioner asks whether it is safe to ignore exceptions for a lexical_cast from an integer to a string. Such a cast should never fail. If it did fail, something has gone terribly wrong in the program. What could you possibly do to recover in that situation? It's probably best to just let the program die, as it is in a state that can't be trusted. So not handling the exception may be the safest thing to do.
If you always handle exceptions immediately in the caller of a method that can throw an exception, then exceptions become useless, and you'd better use error codes.
The whole point of exceptions is that they need not be handled in every method in the call chain.
The best advice I've heard is that you should only ever catch exceptions at points where you can sensibly do something about the exceptional condition, and that "catch, log and release" is not a good strategy (if occasionally unavoidable in libraries).
I was given the "opportunity" to salvage several projects and executives replaced the entire dev team because the app had too many errors and the users were tired of the problems and run-around. These code bases all had centralized error handling at the app level like the top voted answer describes. If that answer is the best practice why didn't it work and allow the previous dev team to resolve issues? Perhaps sometimes it doesn't work? The answers above don't mention how long devs spend fixing single issues. If time to resolve issues is the key metric, instrumenting code with try..catch blocks is a better practice.
How did my team fix the problems without significantly changing the UI? Simple, every method was instrumented with try..catch blocked and everything was logged at the point of failure with the method name, method parameters values concatenated into a string passed in along with the error message, the error message, app name, date, and version. With this information developers can run analytics on the errors to identify the exception that occurs the most! Or the namespace with the highest number of errors. It can also validate that an error that occurs in a module is properly handled and not caused by multiple reasons.
Another pro benefit of this is developers can set one break-point in the error logging method and with one break-point and a single click of the "step out" debug button, they are in the method that failed with full access to the actual objects at the point of failure, conveniently available in the immediate window. It makes it very easy to debug and allows dragging execution back to the start of the method to duplicate the problem to find the exact line. Does centralized exception handling allow a developer to replicate an exception in 30 seconds? No.
The statement "A method should only catch an exception when it can handle it in some sensible way." This implies that developers can predict or will encounter every error that can happen prior to release. If this were true a top level, app exception handler wouldn't be needed and there would be no market for Elastic Search and logstash.
This approach also lets devs find and fix intermittent issues in production! Would you like to debug without a debugger in production? Or would you rather take calls and get emails from upset users? This allows you to fix issues before anyone else knows and without having to email, IM, or Slack with support as everything needed to fix the issue is right there. 95% of issues never need to be reproduced.
To work properly it needs to be combined with centralized logging that can capture the namespace/module, class name, method, inputs, and error message and store in a database so it can be aggregated to highlight which method fails the most so it can be fixed first.
Sometimes developers choose to throw exceptions up the stack from a catch block but this approach is 100 times slower than normal code that doesn't throw. Catch and release with logging is preferred.
This technique was used to quickly stabilize an app that failed every hour for most users in a Fortune 500 company developed by 12 Devs over 2 years. Using this 3000 different exceptions were identified, fixed, tested, and deployed in 4 months. This averages out to a fix every 15 minutes on average for 4 months.
I agree that it is not fun to type in everything needed to instrument the code and I prefer to not look at the repetitive code, but adding 4 lines of code to each method is worth it in the long run.
I agree with the basic direction of your question to handle as many exceptions as possible at the lowest level.
Some of the existing answer go like "You don't need to handle the exception. Someone else will do it up the stack." To my experience that is a bad excuse to not think about exception handling at the currently developed piece of code, making the exception handling the problem of someone else or later.
That problem grows dramatically in distributed development, where you may need to call a method implemented by a co-worker. And then you have to inspect a nested chain of method calls to find out why he/she is throwing some exception at you, which could have been handled much easier at the deepest nested method.
The advice my computer science professor gave me once was: "Use Try and Catch blocks only when it's not possible to handle the error using standard means."
As an example, he told us that if a program ran into some serious issue in a place where it's not possible to do something like:
int f()
{
// Do stuff
if (condition == false)
return -1;
return 0;
}
int condition = f();
if (f != 0)
{
// handle error
}
Then you should be using try, catch blocks. While you can use exceptions to handle this, it's generally not recommended because exceptions are expensive performance wise.
If you want to test the outcome of every function, use return codes.
The purpose of Exceptions is so that you can test outcomes LESS often. The idea is to separate exceptional (unusual, rarer) conditions out of your more ordinary code. This keeps the ordinary code cleaner and simpler - but still able to handle those exceptional conditions.
In well-designed code deeper functions might throw and higher functions might catch. But the key is that many functions "in between" will be free from the burden of handling exceptional conditions at all. They only have to be "exception safe", which does not mean they must catch.
I would like to add to this discussion that, since C++11, it does make a lot of sense, as long as every catch block rethrows the exception up until the point it can/should be handled. This way a backtrace can be generated. I therefore believe the previous opinions are in part outdated.
Use std::nested_exception and std::throw_with_nested
It is described on StackOverflow here and here how to achieve this.
Since you can do this with any derived exception class, you can add a lot of information to such a backtrace!
You may also take a look at my MWE on GitHub, where a backtrace would look something like this:
Library API: Exception caught in function 'api_function'
Backtrace:
~/Git/mwe-cpp-exception/src/detail/Library.cpp:17 : library_function failed
~/Git/mwe-cpp-exception/src/detail/Library.cpp:13 : could not open file "nonexistent.txt"
I feel compelled to add another answer although Mike Wheat's answer sums up the main points pretty well. I think of it like this. When you have methods that do multiple things you are multiplying the complexity, not adding it.
In other words, a method that is wrapped in a try catch has two possible outcomes. You have the non-exception outcome and the exception outcome. When you're dealing with a lot of methods this exponentially blows up beyond comprehension.
Exponentially because if each method branches in two different ways then every time you call another method you're squaring the previous number of potential outcomes. By the time you've called five methods you are up to 256 possible outcomes at a minimum. Compare this to not doing a try/catch in every single method and you only have one path to follow.
That's basically how I look at it. You might be tempted to argue that any type of branching does the same thing but try/catches are a special case because the state of the application basically becomes undefined.
So in short, try/catches make the code a lot harder to comprehend.
Besides the above advice, personally I use some try+catch+throw; for the following reason:
At boundary of different coder, I use try + catch + throw in the code written by myself, before the exception being thrown to the caller which is written by others, this gives me a chance to know some error condition occured in my code, and this place is much closer to the code which initially throw the exception, the closer, the easier to find the reason.
At the boundary of modules, although different module may be written my same person.
Learning + Debug purpose, in this case I use catch(...) in C++ and catch(Exception ex) in C#, for C++, the standard library does not throw too many exception, so this case is rare in C++. But common place in C#, C# has a huge library and an mature exception hierarchy, the C# library code throw tons of exception, in theory I(and you) should know every exceptions from the function you called, and know the reason/case why these exception being thrown, and know how to handle them(pass by or catch and handle it in-place)gracefully. Unfortunately in reality it's very hard to know everything about the potential exceptions before I write one line of code. So I catch all and let my code speak aloud by logging(in product environment)/assert dialog(in development environment) when any exception really occurs. By this way I add exception handling code progressively. I know it conflit with good advice but in reality it works for me and I don't know any better way for this problem.
You have no need to cover up every part of your code inside try-catch. The main use of the try-catch block is to error handling and got bugs/exceptions in your program. Some usage of try-catch -
You can use this block where you want to handle an exception or simply you can say that the block of written code may throw an exception.
If you want to dispose your objects immediately after their use, You can use try-catch block.
I understand that "Exceptions are for exceptional cases" [a], but besides just being repeated over and over again, I've never found an actual reason for this fact.
Being that they halt execution, it makes sense that you wouldn't want them for plain conditional logic, but why not input validation?
Say you were to loop through a group of inputs and catch each exception to group them together for user notification... I continually see that this is somehow "wrong" because users enter incorrect input all the time, but that point seems to be based on semantics.
The input is Not what was expected and hence is exceptional. Throwing an exception allows me to define exactly what was wrong like StringValueTooLong or or IntegerValueTooLow or InvalidDateValue or whatever. Why is this considered wrong?
Alternatives to throwing an exception would be to either return (and eventually collect) an error code or far worse an error string. Then I would either show those error strings directly, or parse the error codes and then show corresponding error messages to the user. Wouldn't a exception be considered a malleable error code? Why create a separate table of error codes and messages, when these could be generalized with the exception functionality already built into my language?
Also, I found this article by Martin Fowler as to how to handle such things - the Notification pattern. I'm not sure how I see this as being anything other than Exceptions that don't halt execution.
a: Everywhere I've read anything about Exceptions.
--- Edit ---
Many great points have been made. I've commented on most and +'d the good points, but I'm not yet completely convinced.
I don't mean to advocate Exceptions as the proper means to resolve Input Validation, but I would like to find good reasons why the practice is considered so evil when it seems most alternate solutions are just Exceptions in disguise.
Reading these answers, I find it very unhelpful to say, "Exceptions should only be used for exceptional conditions". This begs the whole question of what is an "exceptional condition". This is a subjective term, the best definition of which is "any condition that your normal logic flow doesn't deal with". In other words, an exceptional condition is any condition you deal with using exceptions.
I'm fine with that as a definition, I don't know that we'll get any closer than that anyway. But you should know that that's the definition you are using.
If you are going to argue against exceptions in a certain case, you have to explain how to divide the universe of conditions into "exceptional" and "non-exceptional".
In some ways, it's similar to answering the question, "where are the boundaries between procedures?" The answer is, "Wherever you put the begin and end", and then we can talk about rules of thumb and different styles for determining where to put them. There are no hard and fast rules.
A user entering 'bad' input is not an exception: it's to be expected.
Exceptions should not be used for normal control flow.
In the past many authors have said that Exceptions are inherently expensive. Jon Skeet has blogged contrary to this (and mentioned a few time in answers here on SO), saying that they are not as expensive as reported (although I wouldn’t advocate using them in a tight loop!)
The biggest reason to use them is ‘statement of intent’ i.e. if you see an exception handling block you immediately see the exceptional cases which are dealt with outside of normal flow.
There is one important other reason than the ones mentioned already:
If you use exceptions only for exceptional cases you can run in your debugger with the debugger setting "stop when exception is thrown". This is extremely convenient because you drop into the debugger on the exact line that is causing the problem. Using this feature saves you a fair amount of time every day.
In C# this is possible (and I recommend it wholeheartedly), especially after they added the TryParse methods to all the number classes. In general, none of the standard libraries require or use "bad" exception handling. When I approach a C# codebase that has not been written to this standard, I always end up converting it to exception-free-for-regular cases, because the stop-om-throw is so valuable.
In the firebug javascript debugger you can also do this, provided that your libraries don't use exceptions badly.
When I program Java, this is not really possible because so many things uses exceptions for non-exceptional cases, including a lot of the standard java libraries. So this time-saving feature is not really available for use in java. I believe this is due to checked exceptions, but I won't start ranting about how they are evil.
Errors and Exceptions – What, When and Where?
Exceptions are intended to report errors, thereby making code more robust. To understand when to use exceptions, one must first understand what errors are and what is not an error.
A function is a unit of work, and failures should be viewed as errors or otherwise based on their impact on functions. Within a function f, a failure is an error if and only if it prevents f from meeting any of its callee’s preconditions, achieving any of f’s own postconditions, or reestablishing any invariant that f shares responsibility for maintaining.
There are three kinds of errors:
a condition that prevents the function from meeting a precondition (e.g., a parameter restriction) of another function that must be called;
a condition that prevents the function from establishing one of its own postconditions (e.g., producing a valid return value is a postcondition); and
a condition that prevents the function from re-establishing an invariant that it is responsible for maintaining. This is a special kind of postcondition that applies particularly to member functions. An essential postcondition of every non-private member function is that it must re-establish its class’s invariants.
Any other condition is not an error and should not be reported as an error.
Why are Exceptions said to be so bad for Input Validation?
I guess it is because of a somewhat ambiguous understanding of “input” as either meaning input of a function or value of a field, where the latter should’t throw an exception unless it is part of a failing function.
Maintainability - Exceptions create
odd code paths, not unlike GOTOs.
Ease of Use (for other classes) -
Other classes can trust that
exceptions raised from your user
input class are actual errors
Performance - In most languages, an
exception incurs a performance and
memory usage penalty.
Semantics - The meaning of words
does matter. Bad input is not
"exceptional".
I think the difference depends on the contract of the particular class, i.e.
For code that is meant to deal with user input, and program defensively for it (i.e. sanitise it) it would be wrong to throw an exception for invalid input - it is expected.
For code that is meant to deal with already sanitised and validated input, which may have originated with the user, throwing an exception would be valid if you found some input that is meant to be forbidden. The calling code is violating the contract in that case, and it indicates a bug in the sanitising and/or calling code.
When using exceptions, the error handling code is separated from the code causing the error. This is the intent of exception handling - being an exceptional condition, the error can not be handled locally, so an exception is thrown to some higher (and unknown) scope. If not handled, the application will exit before any more hard is done.
If you ever, ever, ever throw exception when you are doing simple logic operations, like verifying user input, you are doing something very, very very, wrong.
The input is Not what was expected and
hence is exceptional.
This statement does not sit well with me at all. Either the UI constrains user input (eg, the use of a slider that bounds min/max values) and you can now assert certain conditions - no error handling required. Or, the user can enter rubbish and you expect this to happen and must handle it. One or the other - there is nothing exception going here whatsoever.
Throwing an exception allows me to
define exactly what was wrong like
StringValueTooLong or or
IntegerValueTooLow or InvalidDateValue
or whatever. Why is this considered
wrong?
I consider this beyond - closer to evil. You can define an abstract ErrorProvider interface, or return a complex object representing the error rather than a simple code. There are many, many options on how you retrieve error reports. Using exceptions because the are convenient is so, so wrong. I feel dirty just writing this paragraph.
Think of throwing an exception as hope. A last chance. A prayer. Validating user input should not lead to any of these conditions.
Is it possible that some of the disagreement is due to a lack of consensus about what 'user input' means? And indeed, at what layer you're coding.
If you're coding a GUI user interface, or a Web form handler, you might well expect invalid input, since it's come direct from the typing fingers of a human being.
If you're coding the model part of an MVC app, you may have engineered things so that the controller has sanitised inputs for you. Invalid input getting as far as the Model would indeed be an exception, and may be treated as such.
If you're coding a server at the protocol level, you might reasonably expect the client to be checking user input. Again, invalid input here would indeed be an exception. This is quite different from trusting the client 100% (that would be very stupid indeed) - but unlike direct user input, you predict that most of the time inputs would be OK. The lines blur here somewhat. The more likely it is that something happens, the less you want to use exceptions to handle it.
This is a linguistic pov( point of view) on the matter.
Why are Exceptions said to be so bad for Input Validation?
conclusion :
Exceptions are not defined clearly enough, so there are different opinions.
Wrong input is seen as a normal thing, not as an exception.
thoughts ?
It probably comes down to the expectations one takes about the code that is created.
the client can not be trusted
validation has to happen at the server's side.
stronger : every validation happens at server's side.
because validation happens at the server's side it is expected to be done there and what is expected is not an exception, since it is expected.
However,
the client's input can not to be trusted
the client's input-validation can be trusted
if validation is trusted it can be expected to produce valid input
now every input is expected to be valid
invalid input is now unexpected, an exception
.
exceptions can be a nice way to exit the code.
A thing mentioned to consider is if your code is left in a proper state.
I would not know what would leave my code in an improper state.
Connections get closed automatically, leftover variables are garbage-collected, what's the problem?
Another vote against exception handling for things that aren't exceptions!
In .NET the JIT compiler won't perform optimizations in certain cases even when exceptions aren't thrown. The following articles explain it well.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/peterritchie/archive/2007/06/22/performance-implications-of-try-catch-finally.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/peterritchie/archive/2007/07/12/performance-implications-of-try-catch-finally-part-two.aspx
When an exception gets thrown it generates a whole bunch of information for the stack trace which may not be needed if you were actually "expecting" the exception as is often the case when converting strings to int's etc...
In general, libraries throw exceptions and clients catch them and do something intelligent with them. For user input I just write validation functions instead of throwing exceptions. Exceptions seem excessive for something like that.
There are performance issues with exceptions, but in GUI code you won't generally have to worry about them. So what if a validation takes an extra 100 ms to run? The user isn't going to notice that.
In some ways it's a tough call - On the one hand, you might not want to have your entire application come crashing down because the user entered an extra digit in a zip code text box and you forgot to handle the exception. On the other, a 'fail early, fail hard' approach ensures that bugs get discovered and fixed quickly and keeps your precious database sane. In general I think most frameworks recommend that you don't use exception handling for UI error checking and some, like .NET Windows Forms, provide nice ways to do this (ErrorProviders and Validation events) without exceptions.
Exceptions should not be used for input validation, because not only should exceptions be used in exceptional circumstances (which as it has been pointed out incorrect user entry is not) but they create exceptional code (not in the brilliant sense).
The problem with exceptions in most languages is they change the rules of program flow, this is fine in a truly exceptional circumstance where it is not necessarily possible to figure our what the valid flow should be and therefore just throw an exception and get out however where you know what the flow should be you should create that flow (in the case listed it would be to raise a message to the user telling them they need to reenter some information).
Exceptions were truly overused in an application I work on daily and even for the case where a user entered an incorrect password when logging in, which by your logic would be an exception result because it is not what the application wants. However when a process has one of two outcomes either correct or incorrect, I dont think we can say that, incorrect, no matter how wrong, is exceptional.
One of the major problems I have found with working with this code is trying to follow the logic of the code without getting deeply involved with the debugger. Although debuggers are great, it should be possible to add logic to what happens when a user enters an incorrect password without having to fire one up.
Keep exceptions for truly exceptional execution not just wrong. In the case I was highlighting getting your password wrong is not exceptional, but not being able to contact the domain server may be!
When I see exceptions being thrown for validation errors I often see that the method throwing the exception is performing lots of validations all at once. e.g.
public bool isValidDate(string date)
{
bool retVal = true;
//check for 4 digit year
throw new FourDigitYearRequiredException();
retVal = false;
//check for leap years
throw new NoFeb29InANonLeapYearException();
retVal = false;
return retVal;
}
This code tends to be pretty fragile and hard to maintain as the rules pile up over the months and years. I usually prefer to break up my validations into smaller methods that return bools. It makes it easier to tweak the rules.
public bool isValidDate(string date)
{
bool retVal = false;
retVal = doesDateContainAFourDigitYear(date);
retVal = isDateInALeapYear(date);
return retVal;
}
public bool isDateInALeapYear(string date){}
public bool doesDateContainAFourDigitYear(string date){}
As has been mentioned already, returning an error struct/object containing information about the error is a great idea. The most obvious advantage being that you can collect them up and display all of the error messages to the user at once instead of making them play Whack-A-Mole with the validation.
i used a combination of both a solution:
for each validation function, i pass a record that i fill with the validation status (an error code).
at the end of the function, if a validation error exists, i throw an exception, this way i do not throw an exception for each field, but only once. i also took advantage that throwing an exception will stop execution because i do not want the execution to continue when data is invalid.
for example
procedure Validate(var R:TValidationRecord);
begin
if Field1 is not valid then
begin
R.Field1ErrorCode=SomeErrorCode;
ErrorFlag := True;
end;
if Field2 is not valid then
begin
R.Field2ErrorCode=SomeErrorCode;
ErrorFlag := True;
end;
if Field3 is not valid then
begin
R.Field3ErrorCode=SomeErrorCode;
ErrorFlag := True;
end;
if ErrorFlag then
ThrowException
end;
if relying on boolean only, the developer using my function should take this into account writing:
if not Validate() then
DoNotContinue();
but he may forgot and only call Validate() (i know that he should not, but maybe he might).
so, in the code above i gained the two advantages:
1-only one exception in the validation function.
2-exception, even uncaught, will stop the execution, and appear at test time.
8 years later, and I'm running into the same dilemma trying to apply the CQS pattern. I'm on the side that input validation can throw an exception, but with an added constraint. If any input fails, you need to throw ONE type of exception: ValidationException, BrokenRuleException, etc. Don't throw a bunch of different types as it'll be impossible to handle them all. This way, you get a list of all the broken rules in one place. You create a single class that is responsible for doing validation (SRP) and throw an exception if at least 1 rule is broken. That way, you handle one situation with one catch and you know you are good. You can handle that scenario no matter what code is called. This leaves all the code downstream much cleaner as you know it is in a valid state or it wouldn't have gotten there.
To me, getting invalid data from a user is not something you would normally expect. (If every user sends invalid data to you the first time, I'd take a second look at your UI.) Any data that prevents you from processing the true intent whether it is user or sourced elsewhere needs to abort processing. How is it any different than throwing an ArgumentNullException from a single piece of data if it was user input vs. it being a field on a class that says This is required.
Sure, you could do validation first and write that same boilerplate code on every single "command", but I think that is a maintenance nightmare than catching invalid user input all in one place at the top that gets handled the same way regardless. (Less code!) The performance hit will only come if the user gives invalid data, which should not happen that often (or you have bad UI). Any and all rules on the client side have to be re-written on the server, anyway, so you could just write them once, do an AJAX call, and the < 500 ms delay will save you a ton of coding time (only 1 place to put all your validation logic).
Also, while you can do some neat validation with ASP.NET out of the box, if you want to re-use your validation logic in other UIs, you can't since it is baked into ASP.NET. You'd be better off creating something below and handling it above regardless of the UI being used. (My 2 cents, at least.)
I agree with Mitch that that "Exceptions should not be used for normal control flow". I just want to add that from what I remember from my computer science classes, catching exceptions is expensive. I've never really tried to do benchmarks, but it would be interesting to compare performance between say, an if/else vs try/catch.
One problem with using exceptions is a tendency to detect only one problem at a time. The user fixes that and resubmits, only to find another problem! An interface that returns a list of issues that need resolving is much friendlier (though it could be wrapped in an exception).
Should a business rule violation throw an exception?
No. It's part of normal conditional-handling logic in the program (and often just a disguised form of user error).
It depends on what the business rule is, IMO. I would venture to say "not usually" but I'd view it on a case-by-case basis. I don't think there is any one answer, as different business rules might warrant it while others might not.
First, a couple of quotes from chapter 18 of Applied Microsoft .NET Framework Programming (page 402) by Jeffrey Richter:
"Another common misconception is that an 'exception' identifies an 'error'."
"An exception is the violation of a programmatic interface's implicit assumptions."
If I'm inferring correctly from your question that a business rule violation would be data that falls outside a certain range (for example), this is an error that you could handle with a conditional as #ahockley suggested. Based on the definition of an exception from Richter, the appropriate use of an exception would be if your code wasn't able to retrieve a business rule from whatever repository you're using. Being able to retrieve a business rule would be a reasonable implicit assumption for that interface to have, so an exception should be thrown if this assumption was violated.
One good example of Richter's first quote (exception != error) is the ThreadAbortException. If you call Response.Redirect(url) (in ASP.NET), a ThreadAbortException is thrown even though the redirect succeeds. Why? The implicit assumption of ASP.NET page execution is that a page will execute completely. Response.Redirect(url) violates this assumption, hence the exception.
Because of the way I do my validation and my use of LINQtoSQL for ORM, yes. If an entity fails validation on a business rule during the OnValidate method, the only way to notify the calling code is to throw an Exception. In this case, I throw a custom DataValidationException. Using the OnValidate method hook in a partial class implementation of the entity makes it possible for me to enforce validation on update/insert so only valid data gets saved to the database.
EDIT I should make it clear that I typically do validation of user input at the client so the persistence layer validation is typically more insurance and rarely, if ever, fails. I don't handle the client-side validation as exceptions, but rather with conditional logic.
Do you mean, for example, that a value is supposed to be in the range 0-99 but somehow ended up being 105?
If it's coming from the user it's a matter of validation. Whether it is handled using exceptions or not depends on the idioms of your language.
If it's coming from your data store then yes, it seems reasonable to throw an exception. It means you have bad data and you need to figure out how it got there and prevent it from happening again.
No
Violating a business rule is a BUSINESS issue where an exception is a technical one. Violating a business rule is something that the system should regard as normal operation and for which it should have a programmed response, not an exception.
As an alternative view to most of the answers...
It can be useful to throw exceptions from the business logic, particularly if they are cuased by a failure in validation. If you are expecting an object and you get a null, it suggests that some problem has evaded detection in the user interface (or other interface). It may be completely valid to throw exceptions at this point. Indeed, you may decide to place this type of validation in the business logic when there are multiple interfaces.
Throwing exceptions in some languages / frameworks (I am thinking .NET) can be costly but this should not immediately worry you. It does mean that, at the name suggests, they are used for exceptional circumstances and not as part of the standard flow of a program. You certainly shouldn't throw an exception just to exit a method. You should also consider a graceful recovery where possible that may not include throwing an exception.
So, summing up... It depends...
I would say not normally but I don't think you can say never.
For instance it depends on who/what is handling of the failed rule. If it is a user interface/user then I would use conditional logic to deal with the failure appropriately. However if it is a business rule failure in, for instance, a faceless process that logs any errors to an event log which will be monitored by for a technical resource then an exception may be just as appropriate. In this later case an appropriately named exception can be just as helpful as a nicely formatted message.
Business rules could throw exception but they shouldn't.
If you have another way to communicate information about common and predictable validation error, you should use it.
Throwing exceptions can be computationally intensive, they are outside of the norm. For example in .net you have performance counters that are incremented - that is a heavyweight acitivty and so not something you would want to do instead of a simple conditional.
It really depends on what it is and where it is.
If it's some data coming from the user then as levand said it's a matter of validation. Validation can turn up both successful and failed, both are expected options with clear further action scenarios.
If it's something like method execution errors it could be a better idea to throw an exception and stop right there before more harm is done (such as producing inconsistencies in the database).
It is often a matter of perspective and your application design.
Usualy I put the condition in a Specification object that implements
bool IsVerfiedBy(T entity);
So you can check the condition without exception.
If there is a place in your code where the specification should be verified beforehand, you can throw an exception because this is a prerequisit of you function.
For instance if your entity must be in a specific state before persistance, throw an exception when the specification is not verified, but use the specification before persisting so that the exception does not happen.
Business rules should not throw an exception, unless they are used to validate parameters of some API (i.e.: checking requests validity) or in unit tests (i.e.: using business rules to simplify .NET unit tests).
Generally business rules output error and warning messages to the validation scope, though.
There is good guidance in the wiki for the book 97 Things Every Project Manager Should Know, in particular in the chapter Distinguish Business Exceptions from Technical.
So, if your programming language supports it, the best thing is to create custom exception classes so the their workflow and handling can be different from technical exceptions.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
It's my understanding that common wisdom says to only use exceptions for truly exceptional conditions (In fact, I've seen that statement here at SO several times).
However, Krzysztof Cwalina says:
One of the biggest misconceptions about exceptions is that they are for “exceptional conditions.” The reality is that they are for communicating error conditions. From a framework design perspective, there is no such thing as an “exceptional condition”. Whether a condition is exceptional or not depends on the context of usage, --- but reusable libraries rarely know how they will be used. For example, OutOfMemoryException might be exceptional for a simple data entry application; it’s not so exceptional for applications doing their own memory management (e.g. SQL server). In other words, one man’s exceptional condition is another man’s chronic condition.
He then also goes on to say that exceptions should be used for:
Usage errors
Program errors
System failures
Considering Krzysztof Cwalina is the PM for the CLR team at MS I ask: What do you think of his statement?
This sounds over-simplistic, but I think it makes sense to simply use exceptions where they are appropriate. In languages like Java and Python, exceptions are very common, especially in certain situations. Exceptions are appropriate for the type of error you want to bubble up through a code path and force the developer to explicitly catch. In my own coding, I consider the right time to add an exception when the error either can't be ignored, or it's simply more elegant to throw an exception instead of returning an error value to a function call etc.
Some of the most appropriate places for exceptions that I can think of offhand:
NotImplementedException - very appropriate way of designating that a particular
method or function isn't available, rather than simply returning without doing
anything.
OutOfMemory exceptions - it's difficult to imagine a better way of handling this
type of error, since it represents a process-wide or OS-wide memory allocation
failure. This is essential to deal with, of course!
NullPointerException - Accessing a null variable is a programmer mistake, and IMO
this is another good place to force an error to bubble to the surface
ArrayIndexException - In an unforgiving language like C, buffer overflows
are disastrous. Nicer languages might return a null value of some type, or in
some implementations, even wrap around the array. In my opinion, throwing an
exception is a much more elegant response.
This is by no means a comprehensive list, but hopefully it illustrates the point. Use exceptions where they are elegant and logical. As always with programming, the right tool for the right job is good advice. There's no point going exception-crazy for nothing, but it's equally unwise to completely ignore a powerful and elegant tool at your disposal.
For people who write frameworks, perhaps it's interesting.
For the rest of us, it's confusing (and possibly useless.) For ordinary applications, exceptions have to be set aside as "exceptional" situations. Exceptions interrupt the ordinary sequential presentation of your program.
You should be circumspect about breaking the ordinary top-to-bottom sequential processing of your program. The exception handling is -- intentionally -- hard to read. Therefore, reserve exceptions for things that are outside the standard scenarios.
Example: Don't use exceptions to validate user input. People make input mistakes all the time. That's not exceptional, that's why we write software. That's what if-statements are for.
When your application gets an OutOfMemory exception, there's no point in catching it. That's exceptional. The "sequential execution" assumption is out the window. Your application is doomed, just crash and hope that your RDBMS transaction finishes before you crash.
It is indeed difficult to know what exactly construes an "exceptional condition" which warrants the use of an exception in a program.
One instance that is very helpful for using communicating the cause of errors. As the quote from Krzysztof Cwalina mentions:
One of the biggest misconceptions
about exceptions is that they are for
“exceptional conditions.” The reality
is that they are for communicating
error conditions.
To give a concrete example, say we have a getHeader(File f) method that is reading some header from a file and returns a FileHeader object.
There can be several problems which can arise from trying to read data from a disk. Perhaps the file specified doesn't exist, file contains data that can't be read, unexpected disk access errors, running out of memory, etc. Having multiple means of failure means that there should be multiple ways to report what went wrong.
If exceptions weren't used, but there was a need to communicate the kind of error that occurred, with the current method signature, the best we can do is to return a null. Since getting a null isn't very informative, the best communication we get from that result is that "some kind of error happened, so we couldn't continue, sorry." -- It doesn't communicate the cause of the error.
(Or alternatively, we may have class constants for FileHeader objects which indicate FileNotFound conditions and such, emulating error codes, but that really reeks of having a boolean type with TRUE, FALSE, FILE_NOT_FOUND.)
If we had gotten a FileNotFound or DeviceNotReady exception (hypothetical), at least we know what the source of the error was, and if this was an end user application, we could handle the error in ways to solve the problem.
Using the exception mechanism gives a means of communication that doesn't require a fallback to using error codes for notification of conditions that aren't within the normal flow of execution.
However, that doesn't mean that everything should be handled by exceptions. As pointed out by S.Lott:
Don't use exceptions to validate user
input, for example. People make
mistakes all the time. That's what
if-statements are for.
That's one thing that can't be stressed enough. One of the dangers of not knowing when exactly to use exceptions is the tendency to go exception-happy; using exceptions where input validation would suffice.
There's really no point in defining and throwing a InvalidUserInput exception when all that is required to deal in such a situation is to notify the user of what is expected as input.
Also, it should be noted that user input is expected to have faulty input at some point. It's a defensive measure to validate input before handing off input from the outside world to the internals of the program.
It's a little bit difficult to decide what is exceptional and what is not.
Since I usually program in Python, and in that language exceptions are everywhere, to me an exception may represent anything from a system error to a completely legitimate condition.
For example, the "pythonic" way to check if a string contains an integer is to try int(theString) and see if it raises an exception. Is that an "exceptional error"?
Again, in Python the for loop is always thought of as acting on an iterator, and an iterator must raise a 'StopIteration' exception when it finishes its job (the for loop catches that exception). Is that "exceptional" by any means?
I think the closer to the ground are you are the less appropriate exceptions as a means of error communication become. At a higher abstraction such as in Java or .net, an exception may make for an elegant way to pass error messages to your callers. This however is not the case in C. This is also a framework vs api design decision.
If you practice "tell, don't ask" then an exception is just the way a program says "I can't do that". It is "exceptional" in that you say "do X" and it cannot do X. A simple error-handling situation. In some languages it is quite common to work this way, in Java and C++ people have other opinions because exceptions become quite costly.
General: exception just means "I can't"
Pragmatic: ... if you can afford to work that way in your language.
Citizenship: ... and your team allows it.
Here is the definition for exception: An exception is an event, which occurs during the execution of a program, that disrupts the normal flow of the program's instructions.
Therefore, to answer your question, no. Exceptions are for disruptive events, which may or may not be exceptional. I love this definition, it's simple and works every time - if you buy into exceptions like I do. E.g., a user submits an incorrect un/pw, or you have an illegal argument/bad user input. Throwing an exception here is the most straightforward way of solving these problems, which are disruptive, but not exceptional, nor even unanticipated.
They probably should have been called disruptions, but that boat has sailed.
I think there are a couple of good reasons why exceptions should be used to catch unexpected problems.
Firstly, they create an object to encapsulate the exception, which by definition must make it a lot more expensive than processing a simple if-statement. As a Java example, you should call File.exists() rather than routinely expecting and handling a FileNotFoundException.
Secondly, exceptions that are caught outside the current method (or maybe even class) make the code much harder to read than if the handling is all there in in the one method.
Having said that, I personally love exceptions. They relieve you of the need of explicitly handling all of those may-happen-but-probably-never-will type errors, which cause you to repetitively write print-an-error-and-abort-on-non-zero-return-code handling of every method call.
My bottom line is... if you can reasonably expect it to happen then it's part of your application and you should code for it. Anything else is an exception.
I've been wondering about this myself. What do we mean by "exceptional"? Maybe there's no strict definition, but are there any rules of thumb that we can use to decide what's exceptional, in a given context?
For example, would it be fair to say that an "exceptional" condition is one that violates the contract of a function?
KCwalina has a point.
It will be good to identify cases where the code will fail (upto a limit)
I agree with S.Lott that sometimes validating is better than to throw Exception.
Having said that, OutOfMemory is not what you might expect in your application (unless it is allocating a large memory & needs memory to go ahead).
I think, it depends on the domain of the application.
The statement from Krzysztof Cwalina is a little misleading. The original statement refers 'exceptional conditions', for me it is natural that I am the one who defines what's exceptional or not. Nevertheless, I think the message passed through OK, since I think we are all talking about 'developer' exceptions.
Exceptions are great for communication, but with a little hierarchy design they are also great for some separation of concerns, specially between layers (DAO, Business, etc). Of course, this is only useful if you treat these exceptions differently.
A nice example of hierarchy is spring's data access exception hierarchy.
I think he is right. Take a look at number parsing in java. You cant even check input string before parsing. You are forced to parse and retrieve NFE if something went wrong. Is parse failure something exceptional? I think no.
I certainly believe exceptions should be used only if you have an exceptional condition.
The trouble is in the definition of "exceptional". Here is mine:
A condition is exceptional if it is outside the assumed normal
behaviour of the part of the system that raises the exception.
This has some implications:
Exceptional depends on your assumptions. If a function assumes that it is passed valid parameters, then throwing an IllegalArgumentException is OK. However if a function's contract says that it will correct input errors in input in some way, then this usage is "normal" and it shouldn't throw an exception on an input error.
Exceptional depends on sub-system layering. A network IO function could certainly raise an exception if the network is discommented, as it assumes a valid connection. A ESB-based message broker however would be expected to handle dropped connections, so if it used such a network IO function internally then it would need to catch and handle the error appropriately. In case it isn't obvious, try/catch is effectively equivalent to a subsystem saying "a condition which is exceptional for one of my components is actually considered normal by me, so I need to handle it".
The saying that exceptions should be used for exceptional circumstances is used in "Effective Java Second Edition": one of the best java books.
The trouble is that this is taken out of context. When the author states that exceptions should be exceptional, he had just shown an example of using exceptions to terminate a while loop - a bad exception use. To quote:
exceptions are, as their name implies, to
be used only for exceptional conditions; they should never be used for ordinary
control flow.
So it all depends on your definition of "exception condition". Taken out of context you can imply that it should very rarely be used.
Using exceptions in place of returning error codes is good, while using them in order to implement a "clever" or "faster" technique is not good. That's usually what is meant by "exceptional condition".
Checked exception - minor errors that aren't bugs and shouldn't halt execution. ex. IO or file parsing
Unchecked exception - programming "bug" that disobeys a method contract - ex. OutOfBoundsException. OR a error that makes continuing of execution a very bad idea - ex IO or file parsing of a very important file. Perhaps a config file.
What it comes down to is what tool is needed to do the job.
Exceptions are a very powerful tool. Before using them ask if you need this power and the complexity that comes with it.
Exceptions may appear simple, because you know that when the line with the exception is hit everything comes to a halt. What happens from here though?
Will an uncaught exception occur?
Will the exception be caught by global error handling?
Will the exception be handled by more nested and detailed error handling?
You have to know everything up the stack to know what that exception will do. This violates the concept of independence. That method now is dependent on error handling to do what you expect it to.
If I have a method I shouldn't care what is outside of that method. I should only care what the input is, how to process it, and how to return the response.
When you use an exception you are essentially saying, I don't care what happens from here, something went wrong and I don't want it getting any worse, do whatever needs to be done to mitigate the issue.
Now if you care about how to handle the error, you will do some more thinking and build that into the interface of the method e.g. if you are attempting to find some object possibly return the default of that object if one can't be found rather than throwing some exception like "Object not found".
When you build error handling into your methods interface, not only is that method's signature more descriptive of what it can do, but it places the responsibility of how to handle the error on the caller of the method. The caller method may be able to work through it or not, and it would report again up the chain if not. Eventually you will reach the application's entry point. Now it would be appropriate to throw an exception, since you better have a good understanding of how exceptions will be handled if you're working with the applications public interface.
Let me give you an example of my error handling for a web service.
Level 1. Global error handling in global.asax - That's the safety net to prevent uncaught exceptions. This should never intentionally be reached.
Level 2. Web service method - Wrapped in a try/catch to guarantee it will always comply with its json interface.
Level 3. Worker methods - These get data, process it, and return it raw to the web service method.
In the worker methods it's not right to throw an exception. Yes I have nested web service method error handling, but that method can be used in other places where this may not exist.
Instead if a worker method is used to get a record and the record can't be found, it just returns null. The web service method checks the response and when it finds null it knows it can't continue. The web service method knows it has error handling to return json so throwing an exception will just return the details in json of what happened. From a client's perspective it's great that it got packaged into json that can be easily parsed.
You see each piece just knows what it needs to do and does it. When you throw an exception in the mix you hijack the applications flow. Not only does this lead to hard to follow code, but the response to abusing exceptions is the try/catch. Now you are more likely to abuse another very powerful tool.
All too often I see a try/catch catching everything in the middle of an a application, because the developer got scared a method they use is more complex than it appears.
I have exceptions created for every condition that my application does not expect. UserNameNotValidException, PasswordNotCorrectException etc.
However I was told I should not create exceptions for those conditions. In my UML those ARE exceptions to the main flow, so why should it not be an exception?
Any guidance or best practices for creating exceptions?
My personal guideline is: an exception is thrown when a fundamental assumption of the current code block is found to be false.
Example 1: say I have a function which is supposed to examine an arbitrary class and return true if that class inherits from List<>. This function asks the question, "Is this object a descendant of List?" This function should never throw an exception, because there are no gray areas in its operation - every single class either does or does not inherit from List<>, so the answer is always "yes" or "no".
Example 2: say I have another function which examines a List<> and returns true if its length is more than 50, and false if the length is less. This function asks the question, "Does this list have more than 50 items?" But this question makes an assumption - it assumes that the object it is given is a list. If I hand it a NULL, then that assumption is false. In that case, if the function returns either true or false, then it is breaking its own rules. The function cannot return anything and claim that it answered the question correctly. So it doesn't return - it throws an exception.
This is comparable to the "loaded question" logical fallacy. Every function asks a question. If the input it is given makes that question a fallacy, then throw an exception. This line is harder to draw with functions that return void, but the bottom line is: if the function's assumptions about its inputs are violated, it should throw an exception instead of returning normally.
The other side of this equation is: if you find your functions throwing exceptions frequently, then you probably need to refine their assumptions.
Because they're things that will happen normally. Exceptions are not control flow mechanisms. Users often get passwords wrong, it's not an exceptional case. Exceptions should be a truly rare thing, UserHasDiedAtKeyboard type situations.
My little guidelines are heavily influenced by the great book "Code complete":
Use exceptions to notify about things that should not be ignored.
Don't use exceptions if the error can be handled locally
Make sure the exceptions are at the same level of abstraction as the rest of your routine.
Exceptions should be reserved for what's truly exceptional.
It is NOT an exception if the username is not valid or the password is not correct. Those are things you should expect in the normal flow of operation. Exceptions are things that are not part of the normal program operation and are rather rare.
I do not like using exceptions because you can not tell if a method throws an exception just by looking at the call. Thats why exceptions should only be used if you can't handle the situation in a decent manner (think "out of memory" or "computer is on fire").
One rule of thumb is to use exceptions in the case of something you couldn't normally predict. Examples are database connectivity, missing file on disk, etc. For scenarios that you can predict, ie users attempting to log in with a bad password you should be using functions that return booleans and know how to handle the situation gracefully. You don't want to abruptly end execution by throwing an exception just because someone mistyped their password.
Others propose that exceptions should not be used because the bad login is to be expected in a normal flow if the user mistypes. I disagree and I don't get the reasoning. Compare it with opening a file.. if the file doesn't exist or is not available for some reason then an exception will be thrown by the framework. Using the logic above this was a mistake by Microsoft. They should have returned an error code. Same for parsing, webrequests, etc., etc..
I don't consider a bad login part of a normal flow, it's exceptional. Normally the user types the correct password, and the file does exist. The exceptional cases are exceptional and it's perfectly fine to use exceptions for those. Complicating your code by propagating return values through n levels up the stack is a waste of energy and will result in messy code. Do the simplest thing that could possibly work. Don't prematurely optimize by using error codes, exceptional stuff by definition rarely happens, and exceptions don't cost anything unless you throw them.
I think you should only throw an exception when there's nothing you can do to get out of your current state. For example if you are allocating memory and there isn't any to allocate. In the cases you mention you can clearly recover from those states and can return an error code back to your caller accordingly.
You will see plenty of advice, including in answers to this question, that you should throw exceptions only in "exceptional" circumstances. That seems superficially reasonable, but is flawed advice, because it replaces one question ("when should I throw an exception") with another subjective question ("what is exceptional"). Instead, follow the advice of Herb Sutter (for C++, available in the Dr Dobbs article When and How to Use Exceptions, and also in his book with Andrei Alexandrescu, C++ Coding Standards): throw an exception if, and only if
a precondition is not met (which typically makes one of the following
impossible) or
the alternative would fail to meet a post-condition or
the alternative would fail to maintain an invariant.
Why is this better? Doesn't it replace the question with several questions about preconditions, postconditions and invariants? This is better for several connected reasons.
Preconditions, postconditions and invariants are design characteristics of our program (its internal API), whereas the decision to throw is an implementation detail. It forces us to bear in mind that we must consider the design and its implementation separately, and our job while implementing a method is to produce something that satisfies the design constraints.
It forces us to think in terms of preconditions, postconditions and invariants, which are the only assumptions that callers of our method should make, and are expressed precisely, enabling loose coupling between the components of our program.
That loose coupling then allows us to refactor the implementation, if necessary.
The post-conditions and invariants are testable; it results in code that can be easily unit tested, because the post-conditions are predicates our unit-test code can check (assert).
Thinking in terms of post-conditions naturally produces a design that has success as a post-condition, which is the natural style for using exceptions. The normal ("happy") execution path of your program is laid out linearly, with all the error handling code moved to the catch clauses.
Exceptions are a somewhat costly effect, if for example you have a user that provides an invalid password, it is typically a better idea to pass back a failure flag, or some other indicator that it is invalid.
This is due to the way that exceptions are handled, true bad input, and unique critical stop items should be exceptions, but not failed login info.
I would say there are no hard and fast rules on when to use exceptions. However there are good reasons for using or not using them:
Reasons to use exceptions:
The code flow for the common case is clearer
Can return complex error information as an object (although this can also be achieved using error "out" parameter passed by reference)
Languages generally provide some facility for managing tidy cleanup in the event of the exception (try/finally in Java, using in C#, RAII in C++)
In the event no exception is thrown, execution can sometimes be faster than checking return codes
In Java, checked exceptions must be declared or caught (although this can be a reason against)
Reasons not to use exceptions:
Sometimes it's overkill if the error handling is simple
If exceptions are not documented or declared, they may be uncaught by calling code, which may be worse than if the the calling code just ignored a return code (application exit vs silent failure - which is worse may depend on the scenario)
In C++, code that uses exceptions must be exception safe (even if you don't throw or catch them, but call a throwing function indirectly)
In C++, it is hard to tell when a function might throw, therefore you must be paranoid about exception safety if you use them
Throwing and catching exceptions is generally significantly more expensive compared to checking a return flag
In general, I would be more inclined to use exceptions in Java than in C++ or C#, because I am of the opinion that an exception, declared or not, is fundamentally part of the formal interface of a function, since changing your exception guarantee may break calling code. The biggest advantage of using them in Java IMO, is that you know that your caller MUST handle the exception, and this improves the chance of correct behaviour.
Because of this, in any language, I would always derive all exceptions in a layer of code or API from a common class, so that calling code can always guarantee to catch all exceptions. Also I would consider it bad to throw exception classes that are implementation-specific, when writing an API or library (i.e. wrap exceptions from lower layers so that the exception that your caller receives is understandable in the context of your interface).
Note that Java makes the distinction between general and Runtime exceptions in that the latter need not be declared. I would only use Runtime exception classes when you know that the error is a result of a bug in the program.
If it's code running inside a loop that will likely cause an exception over and over again, then throwing exceptions is not a good thing, because they are pretty slow for large N. But there is nothing wrong with throwing custom exceptions if the performance is not an issue. Just make sure that you have a base exception that they all inherite, called BaseException or something like that. BaseException inherits System.Exception, but all of your exceptions inherit BaseException. You can even have a tree of Exception types to group similar types, but this may or may not be overkill.
So, the short answer is that if it doesn't cause a significant performance penalty (which it should not unless you are throwing a lot of exceptions), then go ahead.
Exception classes are like "normal" classes. You create a new class when it "is" a different type of object, with different fields and different operations.
As a rule of thumb, you should try balance between the number of exceptions and the granularity of the exceptions. If your method throws more than 4-5 different exceptions, you can probably merge some of them into more "general" exceptions, (e.g. in your case "AuthenticationFailedException"), and using the exception message to detail what went wrong. Unless your code handles each of them differently, you needn't creates many exception classes. And if it does, may you should just return an enum with the error that occured. It's a bit cleaner this way.
the rule of thumb for throwing exceptions is pretty simple. you do so when your code has entered into an UNRECOVERABLE INVALID state. if data is compromised or you cannot wind back the processing that occurred up to the point then you must terminate it. indeed what else can you do? your processing logic will eventually fail elsewhere. if you can recover somehow then do that and do not throw exception.
in your particular case if you were forced to do something silly like accept money withdrawal and only then check user/pasword you should terminate the process by throwing an exception to notify that something bad has happened and prevent further damage.
I agree with japollock way up there--throw an acception when you are uncertain about the outcome of an operation. Calls to APIs, accessing filesystems, database calls, etc. Anytime you are moving past the "boundaries" of your programming languages.
I'd like to add, feel free to throw a standard exception. Unless you are going to do something "different" (ignore, email, log, show that twitter whale picture thingy, etc), then don't bother with custom exceptions.
I'd say that generally every fundamentalism leads to hell.
You certainly wouldn't want to end up with exception driven flow, but avoiding exceptions altogether is also a bad idea. You have to find a balance between both approaches. What I would not do is to create an exception type for every exceptional situation. That is not productive.
What I generally prefer is to create two basic types of exceptions which are used throughout the system: LogicalException and TechnicalException. These can be further distinguished by subtypes if needed, but it is not generally not necessary.
The technical exception denotes the really unexpected exception like database server being down, the connection to the web service threw the IOException and so on.
On the other hand the logical exceptions are used to propagate the less severe erroneous situation to the upper layers (generally some validation result).
Please note that even the logical exception is not intended to be used on regular basis to control the program flow, but rather to highlight the situation when the flow should really end. When used in Java, both exception types are RuntimeException subclasses and error handling is highly aspect oriented.
So in the login example it might be wise to create something like AuthenticationException and distinguish the concrete situations by enum values like UsernameNotExisting, PasswordMismatch etc. Then you won't end up in having a huge exception hierarchy and can keep the catch blocks on maintainable level. You can also easily employ some generic exception handling mechanism since you have the exceptions categorized and know pretty well what to propagate up to the user and how.
Our typical usage is to throw the LogicalException during the Web Service call when the user's input was invalid. The Exception gets marshalled to the SOAPFault detail and then gets unmarshalled to the exception again on the client which is resulting in showing the validation error on one certain web page input field since the exception has proper mapping to that field.
This is certainly not the only situation: you don't need to hit web service to throw up the exception. You are free to do so in any exceptional situation (like in the case you need to fail-fast) - it is all at your discretion.
In general you want to throw an exception for anything that can happen in your application that is "Exceptional"
In your example, both of those exceptions look like you are calling them via a password / username validation. In that case it can be argued that it isn't really exceptional that someone would mistype a username / password.
They are "exceptions" to the main flow of your UML but are more "branches" in the processing.
If you attempted to access your passwd file or database and couldn't, that would be an exceptional case and would warrant throwing an exception.
Firstly, if the users of your API aren't interested in specific, fine-grained failures, then having specific exceptions for them isn't of any value.
Since it's often not possible to know what may be useful to your users, a better approach is to have the specific exceptions, but ensure they inherit from a common class (e.g., std::exception or its derivatives in C++). That allows your client to catch specific exceptions if they choose, or the more general exception if they don't care.
Exceptions are intended for events that are abnormal behaviors, errors, failures, and such. Functional behavior, user error, etc., should be handled by program logic instead. Since a bad account or password is an expected part of the logic flow in a login routine, it should be able to handle those situations without exceptions.
The simple answer is, whenever an operation is impossible (because of either application OR because it would violate business logic). If a method is invoked and it impossible to do what the method was written to do, throw an Exception. A good example is that constructors always throw ArgumentExceptions if an instance cannot be created using the supplied parameters. Another example is InvalidOperationException, which is thrown when an operation cannot be performed because of the state of another member or members of the class.
In your case, if a method like Login(username, password) is invoked, if the username is not valid, it is indeed correct to throw a UserNameNotValidException, or PasswordNotCorrectException if password is incorrect. The user cannot be logged in using the supplied parameter(s) (i.e. it's impossible because it would violate authentication), so throw an Exception. Although I might have your two Exceptions inherit from ArgumentException.
Having said that, if you wish NOT to throw an Exception because a login failure may be very common, one strategy is to instead create a method that returns types that represent different failures. Here's an example:
{ // class
...
public LoginResult Login(string user, string password)
{
if (IsInvalidUser(user))
{
return new UserInvalidLoginResult(user);
}
else if (IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
{
return new PasswordInvalidLoginResult(user, password);
}
else
{
return new SuccessfulLoginResult();
}
}
...
}
public abstract class LoginResult
{
public readonly string Message;
protected LoginResult(string message)
{
this.Message = message;
}
}
public class SuccessfulLoginResult : LoginResult
{
public SucccessfulLogin(string user)
: base(string.Format("Login for user '{0}' was successful.", user))
{ }
}
public class UserInvalidLoginResult : LoginResult
{
public UserInvalidLoginResult(string user)
: base(string.Format("The username '{0}' is invalid.", user))
{ }
}
public class PasswordInvalidLoginResult : LoginResult
{
public PasswordInvalidLoginResult(string password, string user)
: base(string.Format("The password '{0}' for username '{0}' is invalid.", password, user))
{ }
}
Most developers are taught to avoid Exceptions because of the overhead caused by throwing them. It's great to be resource-conscious, but usually not at the expense of your application design. That is probably the reason you were told not to throw your two Exceptions. Whether to use Exceptions or not usually boils down to how frequently the Exception will occur. If it's a fairly common or an fairly expectable result, this is when most developers will avoid Exceptions and instead create another method to indicate failure, because of the supposed consumption of resources.
Here's an example of avoiding using Exceptions in a scenario like just described, using the Try() pattern:
public class ValidatedLogin
{
public readonly string User;
public readonly string Password;
public ValidatedLogin(string user, string password)
{
if (IsInvalidUser(user))
{
throw new UserInvalidException(user);
}
else if (IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
{
throw new PasswordInvalidException(password);
}
this.User = user;
this.Password = password;
}
public static bool TryCreate(string user, string password, out ValidatedLogin validatedLogin)
{
if (IsInvalidUser(user) ||
IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
{
return false;
}
validatedLogin = new ValidatedLogin(user, password);
return true;
}
}
for me Exception should be thrown when a required technical or business rule fails.
for instance if a car entity is associated with array of 4 tires ... if one tire or more are null ... an exception should be Fired "NotEnoughTiresException" , cuz it can be caught at different level of the system and have a significant meaning through logging.
besides if we just try to flow control the null and prevent the instanciation of the car .
we might never never find the source of the problem , cuz the tire isn't supposed to be null in the first place .
the main reason for avoiding throwing an exception is that there is a lot of overhead involved with throwing an exception.
One thing the article below states is that an exception is for an exceptional conditions and errors.
A wrong user name is not necessarily a program error but a user error...
Here is a decent starting point for exceptions within .NET:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229030(VS.80).aspx
Throwing exceptions causes the stack to unwind, which has some performance impacts (admitted, modern managed environments have improved on that). Still repeatedly throwing and catching exceptions in a nested situation would be a bad idea.
Probably more important than that, exceptions are meant for exceptional conditions. They should not be used for ordinary control flow, because this will hurt your code's readability.
I have three type of conditions that I catch.
Bad or missing input should not be an exception. Use both client side js and server side regex to detect, set attributes and forward back to the same page with messages.
The AppException. This is usually an exception that you detect and throw with in your code. In other words these are ones you expect (the file does not exist). Log it, set the message, and forward back to the general error page. This page usually has a bit of info about what happened.
The unexpected Exception. These are the ones you don't know about. Log it with details and forward them to a general error page.
Hope this helps
Security is conflated with your example: You shouldn't tell an attacker that a username exists, but the password is wrong. That's extra information you don't need to share. Just say "the username or password is incorrect."
I have philosophical problems with the use of exceptions. Basically, you are expecting a specific scenario to occur, but rather than handling it explicitly you are pushing the problem off to be handled "elsewhere." And where that "elsewhere" is can be anyone's guess.
To my mind, the fundamental question should be whether one would expect that the caller would want to continue normal program flow if a condition occurs. If you don't know, either have separate doSomething and trySomething methods, where the former returns an error and the latter does not, or have a routine that accepts a parameter to indicate whether an exception should be thrown if it fails). Consider a class to send commands to a remote system and report responses. Certain commands (e.g. restart) will cause the remote system to send a response but then be non-responsive for a certain length of time. It is thus useful to be able to send a "ping" command and find out whether the remote system responds in a reasonable length of time without having to throw an exception if it doesn't (the caller would probably expect that the first few "ping" attempts would fail, but one would eventually work). On the other hand, if one has a sequence of commands like:
exchange_command("open tempfile");
exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
exchange_command("close tempfile");
exchange_command("copy tempfile to realfile");
one would want failure of any operation to abort the whole sequence. While one could check each operation to ensure it succeeded, it's more helpful to have the exchange_command() routine throw an exception if a command fails.
Actually, in the above scenario it may be helpful to have a parameter to select a number of failure-handling modes: never throw exceptions, throw exceptions for communication errors only, or throw exceptions in any cases where a command does not return a "success" indication.
You may use a little bit generic exceptions for that conditions. For e.g. ArgumentException is meant to be used when anything goes wrong with the parameters to a method (with the exception of ArgumentNullException). Generally you would not need exceptions like LessThanZeroException, NotPrimeNumberException etc. Think of the user of your method. The number of the conditions that she will want to handle specifically is equal to the number of the type of the exceptions that your method needs to throw. This way, you can determine how detailed exceptions you will have.
By the way, always try to provide some ways for users of your libraries to avoid exceptions. TryParse is a good example, it exists so that you don't have to use int.Parse and catch an exception. In your case, you may want to provide some methods to check if user name is valid or password is correct so your users (or you) will not have to do lots of exception handling. This will hopefully result in more readble code and better performance.
Ultimately the decision comes down to whether it is more helpful to deal with application-level errors like this using exception handling, or via your own home-rolled mechanism like returning status codes. I don't think there's a hard-and-fast rule about which is better, but I would consider:
Who's calling your code? Is this a public API of some sort or an internal library?
What language are you using? If it's Java, for example, then throwing a (checked) exception puts an explicit burden on your caller to handle this error condition in some way, as opposed to a return status which could be ignored. That could be good or bad.
How are other error conditions in the same application handled? Callers won't want to deal with a module that handles errors in an idiosyncratic way unlike anything else in the system.
How many things can go wrong with the routine in question, and how would they be handled differently? Consider the difference between a series of catch blocks that handle different errors and a switch on an error code.
Do you have structured information about the error you need to return? Throwing an exception gives you a better place to put this information than just returning a status.
Some useful things to think about when deciding whether an exception is appropriate:
what level of code you want to have run after the exception candidate occurs - that is, how many layers of the call stack should unwind. You generally want to handle an exception as close as possible to where it occurs. For username/password validation, you would normally handle failures in the same block of code, rather than letting an exception bubble up. So an exception is probably not appropriate. (OTOH, after three failed login attempts, control flow may shift elsewhere, and an exception may be appropriate here.)
Is this event something you would want to see in an error log? Not every exception is written to an error log, but it's useful to ask whether this entry in an error log would be useful - i.e., you would try to do something about it, or would be the garbage you ignore.
"PasswordNotCorrectException" isn't a good example for using exceptions. Users getting their passwords wrong is to be expected, so it's hardly an exception IMHO. You probably even recover from it, showing a nice error message, so it's just a validity check.
Unhandled exceptions will stop the execution eventually - which is good. If you're returning false, null or error codes, you will have to deal with the program's state all by yourself. If you forget to check conditions somewhere, your program may keep running with wrong data, and you may have a hard time figuring out what happened and where.
Of course, you could cause the same problem with empty catch statements, but at least spotting those is easier and doesn't require you to understand the logic.
So as a rule of thumb:
Use them wherever you don't want or simply can't recover from an error.
I would say that exceptions should be thrown if an unexpected behaviour is occuring that wasnt meant to be.
Like trying to update or delete a non existing entity. And it should be catched where the Exception can be handled and has meaning. For working in an alternative way to continue, add logging or returning a specific result on Api level.
If you expect something to be the case, you should build code to check and ensure it.