Hi there something weird has happended to intellisense in my VS2022 development environment. For example, if I refer to an object or enumerator, intellisense offers me a list of properties/methods completely unrelated to the object I am working with, the required properties are listed, its just that they are buried amongst completely unrelated stuff.
In addition, and probably related, when I put in exception handling as in for example:
Try
Catch ex as exception
End Try
When I type 'as' a whole raft of what appears to be boilerplate code gets dumped in place of the code that I am writing, I then have to execute an undo to get back to the original code.
Can someone clarify what is happening here and perhaps suggest a solution.
Kind Regards
Paul J.
Related
All of a sudden, I'm seeing floods of first chance exceptions in the VS.NET Output window.
There are 3 of us working on the project. We've all updated our code to the latest in SVN and I'm the only one seeing all the exceptions, so the issue is not our app, but I suspect, some setting that I accidentally triggered in VS.NET.
If I right click the Output window, "Exception Messages" is checked. It always has been and is for my co-workers, so that's not the issue.
I cannot see any options in Tools/Options/Debugging that could be responsible. I suspect I probably just accidentally hit some accelerator key combo that did it. These appear to be perfectly normal first chance exceptions (like setting a property in a dynamic object for the first time causing a RuntimeBindingException). The app seems to operate just fine. But the flood of messages is annoying and makes debug output hard to follow.
By far the most common exception is an ArgumentException with the message, "A property with the name 'UriTemplateMatchResults' already exists."
We use WCF very heavily (but no REST) and have a number of WCF services that our app communicates with, so I'm assuming that's just standard WCF stuff because the calls are all working fine.
Can anyone think of anything I might have done?
I discovered the source of the problem. As I suspected, it was something I had accidentally done, but I'm not sure when or exactly how. Hopefully this solution will help others.
The solution was Tools/Options/Debugging in the General section, I had somehow unchecked Enable Just My Code. I'm not sure how I unchecked it. That fixed the problem.
My program runs for about 10 hours during the night, sometimes I wake up to see that it has crashed (for whatever reason). It is usually a "Program Name" has stopped working, and the only button there is to close the program. I have tried watching and waiting for it to crash but the problem seems very hard to reproduce (and I can't watch it 24/7). I have used try and catch statements in my program in potentially problematic areas and told the program to dump to a text file if it catches an exception. But this isn't good enough it seems.
TLDR: Is it possible to tell my program to run a particular function when an exception has been detected in the program in general (without specifics) so that I can dump the stacktrace to a text file and investigate later?
Is it possible to tell my program to run a particular function when an exception has been detected...
Yes, but the specifics depend on the platform that you are using:
If you have a Console application, put a big Try ... Catch around Sub Main.
If you use WPF, add an event handler to AppDomain's or Dispatcher's UnhandledException event. Specifics can be found in the following question:
WPF global exception handler
In you use WinForms, you can also wrap Sub Main (which might be auto-generated) or attach to AppDomain.UnhandledException, see here for details:
WinForms Global Exception Handling?
For completeness, global exception handling in web applications is done in global.asax's Application_Error method:
How to catch unhandled exceptions in an asp.net application?
It's generally not a good idea to do this. You could, however, look at AppDomain.UnhandledException. This is pretty much restricted to one domain, and you'll also receive (potentially) notifications for all unhandled exceptions unrelated to your program.
This is usually used for class libraries, but I think with a bit of fiddle, you might get it to work.
I have just asked one question here.
It is about handling exception in a dummy Library management condition. The answers on the post are convincing that I should not go for Exceptions.
But then I just read article here which very well states that and which adheres to answers given on my earlier question
You should only create a new exception if you expect developers to
take corrective action for the problem or to log for post mortem
debugging.
As we should write them to assist developers not users, does this means that Exception have their place only in libraries that will be used by developers? , and if the code is not used by other developer then we should not use any exception in it?
If this is not the case, then can anyone tell me any instance that I may need to/should use Exception in Library management project, so that I can get an idea about when I should write Exception in code which are not meant to be called by another code.
I want to focus on when and where should I write Exceptions and especially if only in Libraries.
That is perfectly fine.
Any library should not throw exception (checked exception), for the calling code. It should be handled properly by library itself.
Regarding RunTimeExceptions, it depends on design of application/library. If user can/should take any corrective measures then we should throw RuntimeExceptions else not, just log them for developer.
Options:
1) When there is bad input, the app crashes and prints a message to the console saying what happened
2) When there is bad input, the app throws away the input and continues on as if nothing happened (though nothing the problem in a separate log file).
While 2 may seem like the obvious solution, the app is an engine and framework for game development, so if a user is writing something and does something wrong, it may be beneficial for that problem to be immediately obvious (app crashing) rather than it being ignored and the user potentially forgetting to check the log to see if there were any problems (may forget if the programmed behavior isn't very noticeable on screen, so he doesn't catch that it is missing).
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. It really depends on the situation and how bad the input is.
However, since you specifically mentioned this is for an engine or framework, then I would say it should never crash. It should raise exceptions or provide notable return codes or whatever is relevant for your environment, and then the application developer using your framework can decide how to handle. The framework itself should not make this decision for all apps that utilize the framework.
I would use exceptions if the language you are using allows them..
Since your framework will be used by other developers you shouldn't really constraint any approach, you should let the developers catch your exception (or errors) and manage what to do..
Generally speaking nothing should crash on user input. Whether the app can continue with the error logged or stop right there is something that is useful to be able to configure.
If it's too easy to ignore errors, people will just do so, instead of fixing them. On the other hand, sometimes an error is not something you can fix, or it's totally unrelated to what you're working on, and it's holding up your current task. So it depends a bit on who the user is.
Logging libraries often let you switch logs on and off by module and severity. It might be that you want something similar, to let users configure the "stop on error" behaviour for certain modules or only when above a certain level of severity.
Personally I would avoid the crash approach and opt for (2) that said make sure that the error is detected and logged and above all avoid any swallowing of errors (e.g. empty catch).
It is always helpful to have some kind of tracing/logging module, for instance later when you are doing performance tuning or general troubleshooting.
It depends on what the problem is. When I'm programming and writing error handling I use this as my mantra:
Is this exception really exceptional?
Meaning, is the error in input or whatever condition is "not normal" recoverable? In the case of a game, a File not Found exception on a texture could be recoverable and you could show a default texture so you know something broke.
However, if you have textures in a compressed file and you keep getting checksum errors, that would be an exceptional exception and I would crash the game with the details.
It really boils down to: can the application keep running without issue?
The one exception to this rule though (ha ha) is, if something is corrupted you can no longer trust your validation methods and you should crash as quickly as you can to prevent the corruption from spreading.
I've been mostly working with VB.Net for over a year and just noticed this
Am I going insane, or does VB.Net NOT have an "Unreachable code" warning?
The following compiles quite happily with nary a warning or error, even though there is a return between the two writeline calls.
Sub Main()
Console.WriteLine("Hello World")
Return
Console.WriteLine("Unreachable code, will never run")
End Sub
Am I missing something? Is there some way to switch this on that I can't find.
If not, is there a good reason for its omission? (i.e. or am I right in thinking this is a woeful state of affairs)
Forgive the air of rant about this question, it's not a rant, I would like an answer.
Thanks
I've raised this on MS Connect, as bug# 428529
Update
I received the following from the VB Teams program manager
Thanks for taking the time to report
this issue. The compiler has limited
support for this scenario, and as you
point out we don't have warnings for
unreachable code. There are some
scenarios that our flow analysis
algorithm does handle, such as the
following:
Sub Main()
Dim x As Integer
Return
x = 4
End Sub
In this case you'll get a warning that
x has never been assigned. For the
case you mentioned however we'll have
to look at implementing that for a
future release.
My guess is that it's an oversight in the compiler. Flow control is a very difficult problem to get correct in any language, but especially in a language like VB which has so many different flow control mechanisms. For instance,
Exceptions
Goto
On Error (Resume, Goto, etc ...)
Exit calls
If you feel strongly about this issue, please file a bug on Connect. We do take bugs filed via Connect very seriously and do our best to fix as many as possible.
They mention this in the following post:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/210187/usage-statistics-c-versus-vb-net
See the last post.
I guess you could use FXCop to check your code instead or get a copy of Resharper from:
http://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/
I'd like to address Jared's answer.
Most of the issues he brings up are not problematic for data flow analysis.
The one exception is "On Error / Resume". They mess up data flow analysis pretty bad.
However, it's a pretty simple problem to mitigate:
If more than one "On Error" statement is used in a method, or the "Resume next" statement is used, you can just turn off data flow analysis and report a generic warning. A good one might be something like "On Error / Resume are deprecated, use exceptions instead." :)
In the common case of one only "On Error" statement and no "resume" statement, you can pretty much do normal data flow analysis, and should get reasonable results from it.
The big problem is with the way the existing DFA code is implemented. It doesn't use a control flow graph, and so changing it ends up being really expensive. I think if you want to address these kinds of issues you really need rip out the existing DFA code and replace it with something that uses a control flow graph.
AFAIK, you are correct that VB.NET does not give you a warning. C# does though.