exception handling

Question

5.00/5 (1 vote)

See more:

When it comes to exception handling in a .net application, does one need to develop a custom class to handle all exceptions for the application or there exist an inbuilt class that can be used for exception handling in the application. Furthermore, can errors such as empty strings, only alphabets etc be handled by some inbuilt functionality in .net or do i need to include this also in a custom class.

I am asking because i have written the code below and the compiler seems to skip the catch blocks when i run the program

C#

try
{
    conn.Open();
    dept = deptName.Text;
    cmd.Parameters.Add(new SqlParameter("dept", dept));
    cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
    MessageBox.Show("The department has been created.", "Task Confirmation", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Information);
}
catch (ArgumentNullException)
{
    MessageBox.Show("empty text box");
}
catch (FormatException)
{
    MessageBox.Show("Please enter only alphanumeric characters", "Input Problem", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
    MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}

Posted 26-Jan-11 6:21am

Member 7250221

Updated 26-Jan-11 6:47am

v2

Add a Solution

Comments

Nish Nishant 26-Jan-11 13:18pm

Updated my reply based on your updated question.

4 solutions

Solution 3

The base class of all the exceptions is Exception. When you create your own exception class, you would need to derive from Exception or one of its derived classes.

When you handling exceptions, it gets processed sequentially. Thus you need to handle it the way you you have shown

C#

catch (ArgumentNullException)
{
    MessageBox.Show("empty text box");
}
catch (FormatException)
{
    MessageBox.Show("Please enter only alphanumeric characters", "Input Problem", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
    MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}

The top most class needs to be the last in your catch block. Otherwise, the derived class below it won't be visible. The way you have the code is ok, and since (Exception ex) is your last catch block, as it should be, you don't have any exception at all. If you had any no matter of any exception type, it would have been caught by your last catch block.

So, your source of problem may not be exception.

Posted 26-Jan-11 8:36am

Yusuf

Solution 2

Give this a try. It should catch all exceptions:

C#

try
{
    // Do some stuff.
}
catch
{
    MessageBox.Show("an unknown exception was caught.");
}

Could be that you are experiencing a timeout, so you are stopping the debug session before the exception gets a chance to be thrown.

Posted 26-Jan-11 7:20am

AspDotNetDev

Comments

AspDotNetDev 26-Jan-11 13:21pm

Also, but a messagebox in a finally block. That way, you can be sure you are not just experiencing a timeout.

Solution 4

Exception is the parent class of all exception classes (.NET Class Library classes and your own classes). So if an exception ocurrs, it will be caught in one of your catch blocks. If not, it means that there were no exceptions thrown.

BTW, you shouldn't be calling GUI code (MessageBox.Show) in DAL (Data Access Layer). You should throw .NET Framework exception or your own exception type to the invoker. Eventually, the GUI will get and exception and it will call MessageBox.Show. Summary:
* DAL: exception occurs. You can throw .NET exception or wrap .NET exception with your own exception and throw that exception
* GUI: You catch the exception and call MessageBox.Show

Another key points:
* Always close connections to DB
* Use try-catch-finally or using keyword to make sure the connection gets closed not matter what happend (executes successfully or not).

Posted 26-Jan-11 8:46am

fgoldenstein

Updated 27-Jan-11 15:27pm

v2

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Nish Nishant · Accepted Answer · 2011-01-26T06:29:00

There are several Exception derived class built into the framework that you can use for specific purposes. Examples are ArgumentException, InvalidOperationException etc.

For errors specific to your application it's usually a good idea to have your app-specific exception type. Most big apps will probably have their base exception type and then more specific derived classes for more specific errors and exceptions. One pattern/approach I've observed is that sometimes when an unknown exception is thrown, and there's no handler for it it's caught by the application and re-thrown as an app-specific exception with the original exception specified as the InnerException.

[Update]
----------

This is in response to your updated question. If it skips all three catch blocks, it's likely that there is no exception being thrown.