|
Tired, and some joints hurt, but mostly I'm OK.
Went upstairs, emptied the waste from the cat's litter tray, sorted the washing into light and dark wash, brought them downstairs, started one wash going - and I'm knackered. Takes me right back to just after the Full Covid Experience ... 
And Randal got it right, again: xkcd: Immune Response[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Glad you're feeling better - that cartoon is spot on.
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Good to hear - go, go, you are doing great.
|
|
|
|
|
I was fine for 8 hours. Then came the aching joints and a couple of hours of violent shivering then became very hot.
Today, it feels like the flu.
Never had any sort of reaction to other vaccines so was expecting to get away with it 
|
|
|
|
|
Thankfully I have a robust constitution and delete it viciously...
But I thought I should purge here for all to see!
The kind of code below makes me sick to the bone... When I see it I need to immediately incinerate this try/catch never to be caught again!
try {
DoX();
}
catch (Exception ex) {
throw new Exception("Having problem Doing X!", ex);
}
And don't give me the horseradish about "but they use this opportunity to do logging and stuff". I mean this exact code above! No additional stuff! 
And speaking of logging, I have seen such try/catch/logging being nested zillion of time resulting in zillion of log entry for one single exception... yuk...
All of that can surmised with this simple hypothetical dialog
Q: (Newbye Dev) How do I throw an exception in case of exception?
A: (Captain Obvious) Just don't catch the goddamn exception you donkey!
modified 29-Mar-21 22:17pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it should probably be something more like:
try {
DoX();
}
catch {
throw;
}
because that will preserve the error, while still putting in an opportunity to add logging, and kind of a placeholder in the code. Avoiding catching the exception type not only makes explicit that you don't care what kind of exception it is, it also forces you to define your exceptions once you add logging. After all you can't log an exception if you don't capture it in a type, so when you do get around to logging it forces you to consider your exception types at that point, leading to at least a half step toward solving your second complaint about throwing a zillion errors, because you're more selective about what you throw.
However, I'd argue the above is probably not worth it, but I think that comes down to a matter of style. I certainly wouldn't balk at the above code, but I probably wouldn't write it myself.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Because you haven't imagined the horror to its full extent yet!!!
void Method_1()
{
try {
Method_2();
} catch (Exception ex) {
throw new Exception("Method_2", ex);
}
}
void Method_2()
{
try {
Method_3();
} catch (Exception ex) {
throw new Exception("Method_3", ex);
}
}
void Method_3()
{
try {
Something();
} catch (Exception ex) {
throw new Exception("Something", ex);
}
}
I'd say how about that?
void Method_1()
{
Method_2();
}
void Method_2()
{
Method_3();
}
void Method_3()
{
Something();
}
or that
void Method_1()
{
try {
Method_2();
} catch (Exception ex) {
throw new Exception("Method_2", ex);
}
}
void Method_2()
{
Method_3();
}
void Method_3()
{
Something();
}
instead!
|
|
|
|
|
I think this deserves a post in the Weird and the Wonderful forum-
|
|
|
|
|
Yea, I realized that afterwards! ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid to look at some of my early code because I'm afraid I'd see something like this. 
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh, I've seen code like that many times!
try {
DoX();
}
catch (Exception ex) {
throw new Exception("Having problem Doing X.", ex);
}Fixed it.
That exclamation mark is just screamy and unprofessional 
|
|
|
|
|
Glad you understand!
|
|
|
|
|
I always think that putting an exclamation mark at the end of an error message is the equivalent of adding "you idiot!".
"Value must be numeric, you idiot!"
"Date must be in d-ddd:mmm/yyyyy format, you idiot!"
"Credit card number must not include spaces, you idiot!" (world's most annoying message: why can't you remove the spaces yourself?)
Or in "success" messages:
"File has been saved!" (like it's some sort of special achievement, and the computer is being extra kind to you in doing it)
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14885955 wrote: "File has been saved!" (like it's some sort of special achievement, and the computer is being extra kind to you in doing it)
Maybe the software is so bad that successfully saving a file is the exceptional case...
|
|
|
|
|
I actually know someone who puts an exclamation behind pretty much every message box!
Or three in case of an error!!!
Really childish and unprofessional and this is a smart guy with good business instincts (but no programming instincts whatsoever ).
|
|
|
|
|
ditching original exception seems like a good idea (no)
|
|
|
|
|
<JOKE>
Well, obviously it should be more like:
try
{
DoX();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
} 
</JOKE>
Personally, I wish the Exception class had been declared abstract. If you need to throw a new exception, it should always be something more specific than the base Exception class.
Especially prior to .NET 4 and the HandleProcessCorruptedStateExceptions attribute[^] , when a catch block for the base Exception class would also catch "corrupted process state" exceptions, which should pretty much never be caught.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
another tragic mistake! You should have just
throw;
That preserve the calllstack ^_^
Hey, I didn't know this attribute!
|
|
|
|
|
That was my whole point - I've lost track of the number of times I've seen catch (Exception ex) { throw ex; } used in QA questions. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, got me!
|
|
|
|
|
While the message reported here is rather useless, I could see it containing useful details, and the expectation is that somebody among the callers will log it.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be better to add info at each step up the call stack (for debugging info) into the exception's Data collection, then just a throw; statement. Once at the top of the call stack, handle the exception and log the contents of the exception and its data collection.
|
|
|
|
|
try catch statements should only be used in the UI/client layer, not in business layer or data layer - usually.
you should ALWAYS log your exceptions to a database or file log without exception.
you should not use try/catch/exceptions to control logic flow, whenever possible.
my 2 cents.
the code you referenced is crap IMHO. instead of re-throwing the exception, it should be logged, and handled gracefully and informatively for the end user.
|
|
|
|
|
*clapping*
Finally, another dev gets it!
If you are not going to take care of the exception then don't catch it.
And by taking care of the exception, I don't mean to log it and forget it. Actually, do something about it.
|
|
|
|
|
It's perfectly legal. There's nothing wrong with that.
I do that all the time.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
