DO | DON'T |
---|---|
Control flow with control statements | Control flow with exceptions |
Keep track of ignored (absorbed) exception by logging | Ignore exception |
Repeat exception by using throw | Re-throw exception - throw new ArgumentNullException() or throw ex |
Throw predefined system exceptions | Throw custom exceptions similar to predefined system exceptions |
Throw custom/predefined exception if it is crucial to application logic | Throw custom/predefined exceptions to state a warning in flow |
Catch exceptions that you want to handle | Catch every exception |
Flow control should NOT be done by exceptions. Use conditional statements instead. If a control can be done with if-else
statement clearly, don't use exceptions because it reduces readability and performance.
Consider the following snippet by Mr. Bad Practices:
// This is a snippet example for DO NOT
object myObject;
void DoingSomethingWithMyObject()
{
Console.WriteLine(myObject.ToString());
}
When execution reaches Console.WriteLine(myObject.ToString());
application will throw an NullReferenceException. Mr. Bad Practices realized that myObject
is null and edited his snippet to catch & handle NullReferenceException
:
// This is a snippet example for DO NOT
object myObject;
void DoingSomethingWithMyObject()
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine(myObject.ToString());
}
catch(NullReferenceException ex)
{
// Hmmm, if I create a new instance of object and assign it to myObject:
myObject = new object();
// Nice, now I can continue to work with myObject
DoSomethingElseWithMyObject();
}
}
Since previous snippet only covers logic of exception, what should I do if myObject
is not null at this point? Where should I cover this part of logic? Right after Console.WriteLine(myObject.ToString());
? How about after the try...catch
block?
How about Mr. Best Practices? How would he handle this?
// This is a snippet example for DO
object myObject;
void DoingSomethingWithMyObject()
{
if(myObject == null)
myObject = new object();
// When execution reaches this point, we are sure that myObject is not null
DoSomethingElseWithMyObject();
}
Mr. Best Practices achieved same logic with fewer code and a clear & understandable logic.
Re-throwing exceptions is expensive. It negatively impact performance. For code that routinely fails, you can use design patterns to minimize performance issues. This topic describes two design patterns that are useful when exceptions might significantly impact performance.
try
{
//Some code that might throw an exception
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//empty catch block, bad practice
}
Never swallow exceptions. Ignoring exceptions will save that moment but will create a chaos for maintainability later. When logging exceptions, you should always log the exception instance so that the complete stack trace is logged and not the exception message only.
try
{
//Some code that might throw an exception
}
catch(NullException ex)
{
LogManager.Log(ex.ToString());
}
Many resources, such as this one, strongly urge you to consider why you are catching an exception in the place that you are catching it. You should only catch an exception if you can handle it at that location. If you can do something there to help mitigate the problem, such as trying an alternative algorithm, connecting to a backup database, trying another filename, waiting 30 seconds and trying again, or notifying an administrator, you can catch the error and do that. If there is nothing that you can plausibly and reasonably do, just "let it go" and let the exception be handled at a higher level. If the exception is sufficiently catastrophic and there is no reasonable option other than for the entire program to crash because of the severity of the problem, then let it crash.
try
{
//Try to save the data to the main database.
}
catch(SqlException ex)
{
//Try to save the data to the alternative database.
}
//If anything other than a SqlException is thrown, there is nothing we can do here. Let the exception bubble up to a level where it can be handled.