Brilliant exception handling I found in an app i had to work on

    • grimmi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If this is C# (and it looks like it is), this leads to you losing the original stack trace up until this point.

      The correct way to do this in C# is to just throw; after you’re done with whatever you wanted to do in the catch.

      • jyte@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        wait what ?

        So you are saying that the following code will keep throwing e but if I used throw e; it would basically be the same except for the stack trace that would be missing the important root cause ?!

        try {
        } catch (WhateverException e) {
            // stuff, or nothing, or whatever
            throw; 
        }
        
    • chillhelm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depending on the language it either does nothing and just adds code bloat or (and this would be much worse) it will catch any exception that can be implicitly cast to type Exception and throw it as type Exception. So the next higher scope would not be able to catch e.g. a RuntimeException or w.e. to handle appropriately. It could only catch a regular Exception even if the original error was a more detailed type.

      • StudioLE@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s C# so it’s just rethrowing the original exception.

        It might also be messing with the stack trace though which can be a bit frustrating for future debugging. But that’s only a vague recollection of something I read in the past so I could be wrong

        • Pieisawesome@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Throwing exceptions are very costly due to the stack trace, so building the stack trace twice will cause a big performance hit

          • TwilightKiddy@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but this will actually cut the stack trace and then start another one from your try-catch block, which is an evil thing to do towards those who will actually read your stack traces. To preserve the stack trace you do throw;, not throw ex;, and I’m assuming IDE is underlining that statement exactly for this reason.

    • js10@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then the parent function would catch the original exception if it was never caught in the first place. All this does is bork the stacktrace.