While porting a regular C++ class to a Windows Runtime class, I hit a fairly significant road block. My C++ class reports certain error conditions by throwing custom error objects. This allows clients to conveniently filter on exceptions, documented in the public interface.
I cannot seem to find a reliable way to pass enough information across the ABI to replicate the same fidelity1 using the Windows Runtime. Under the assumption, that an HRESULT is the only generalized error reporting information, I have evaluated the following options:
The 'obvious' choice: Map the exception condition to any of the predefined HRESULT values. While this technically works (presumably), there is no way at the call site to distinguish between errors originating from the implementation, and errors originating from callees of the implementation.
Invent custom HRESULTs. If this layout still applies to the Windows Runtime, I could easily set the Customer bit and go crazy with my 27 bits worth of error code representation. This works, until someone else does the same. I'm not aware of any way to attribute an HRESULT to an interface, which would solve this ambiguity.
Even if either of the above could be made to work as intended, throwing hresult_errors as prescribed, the call site would still be at the mercy of the language projection. While C# seemingly allows to pass any System.Exception(-derived) error object across the ABI, and have them re-thrown at the call site, C++/WinRT only supports some 14 distinct exception types (see throw_hresult).
With neither of these options allowing for sufficiently complete error information to cross the ABI, it seems that an HRESULT simply may not be enough. Does the Windows Runtime have any provisioning to allow for additional (arbitrary) error information to cross the ABI?
1 I'm not strictly interested in passing actual C++ exceptions across. Instead, I'm looking for a way to allow clients to uniquely identify documented error conditions, in a natural way. Passing custom Windows Runtime error types would be fine.
There are a few options here. Our general API guidance for Windows Runtime APIs that have well-defined, expected failure modes is that failure information should be part of the normal parameters and return value. We would normally create a TryDoSomething API in this situation and provide extended error information via either a return or out parameter. This works best for us due to the fact that there's no consistent way to map exceptions across all languages. This is a topic we hope to revisit more in xlang in the future.
HRESULTs are usable with a caveat. HRESULT values can be a nuisance in anything but C++, where you need to redefine them locally because you can't just use the header. They will generate exceptions in most languages, so if this is common, you'll be creating debugger noise for your components' clients.
The last option allows you to transit a language-specific exception stored in a COM object across the ABI boundary (and up the COM logical stack, including across marshalled calls). In practice it will only be usable by C++ code compiled with the same compiler, settings, and type definitions as the component itself. E.g. passing it from a component compiled with VC to a component compiled with Clang could potentially lead to memory corruption.
Assuming I haven't scared you off, you'll want to look at RoOriginateLanguageException. It allows you to wrap the exception in a COM object and store it with other winrt error data in the TLS. We use this in projections to enable exceptions thrown within a callback to propagate to the outer code using the same projection in a controlled way that unwinds safely through other code potentially written using other languages or tools. This is how the support in C# and other languages is implemented.
Thanks,
Ben
In my experience, every language which supports exceptions has a hierarchy of exception types. This allows a single catch clause to match a group of related exceptions by catching their common parent. For example, part of Python's hierarchy:
FloatingPointError < ArithmeticError < Exception < BaseException
Go, on the other hand, famously does not support exceptions and also has "no type hierarchy". Some people think exceptions should be added to Go - would it be possible to do this without adding a type hierarchy?
Are there other languages which have exceptions but no type hierarchy? Do they group related exceptions in some other way?
SuperTalk has effectively no data types, but has exceptions. Basically you throw an error code and check that. That's also how many early macOS application frameworks worked, even in C++.
So just as an object can be approximated by using a simple data structure with a type selector, exceptions can be made to work.
on doFoo
throw "myError"
end doFoo
on startUp
try
doFoo
catch tError
if tError = "myError" then
-- do something about it
else
throw tError
end if
end try
end startUp
Instead of "myError", you can throw any string or number, so you could use a formatted string, like "copyFileError,/path/to/source/file.txt,/path/to/dest/file.txt" (of course with proper escaping of dangerous characters like "," in this case) and then just compare the first item in this list to tell whether it's the error you want to handle.
If you're just going with error numbers without any additional payload, you can segment the number space to get error "classes" e.g. "fatal errors are negative, recoverable ones positive" or "1-100 are file system errors" or whatever (see HTTP status code for an example of using error code ranges to define error classes).
I'd rather post this as a comment, but the sentiment was too long to get across within the limitations of a comment. I am aware that this is primarily opinion based, and I apologize for that.
Go does not support exceptions because it does not need to. Exceptions are a crutch that developers have been lured into becoming dependent on because they don't want to handle errors properly. In Go, it is idiomatic to handle every error, on the spot, every time. If you do this, your programs run better, and you are aware of exactly when/where errors happen and you can fix them. Using catch in other languages ends up being more difficult to debug as you are not always aware of exactly where the error originally happened. By wrapping your code in try catch blocks, you essentially mask the bugs in your code. try and catch are also terribly inefficient because all of the optimizations in the binary grind to a halt as the program has to figure out what unexpectedly happened. Using errors properly in Go circumvents this because you capture errors and handle them, thereby "expecting" them as an eventuality and handling them properly.
It's easy to crash at runtime with unwrap:
fn main() {
c().unwrap();
}
fn c() -> Option<i64> {
None
}
Result:
Compiling playground v0.0.1 (file:///playground)
Running `target/debug/playground`
thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value', ../src/libcore/option.rs:325
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
error: Process didn't exit successfully: `target/debug/playground` (exit code: 101)
Is unwrap only designed for quick tests and proofs-of-concept?
I can not affirm "My program will not crash here, so I can use unwrap" if I really want to avoid panic! at runtime, and I think avoiding panic! is what we want in a production application.
In other words, can I say my program is reliable if I use unwrap? Or must I avoid unwrap even if the case seems simple?
I read this answer:
It is best used when you are positively sure that you don't have an error.
But I don't think I can be "positively sure".
I don't think this is an opinion question, but a question about Rust core and programming.
While the whole “error handling”-topic is very complicated and often opinion based, this question can actually be answered here, because Rust has rather narrow philosophy. That is:
panic! for programming errors (“bugs”)
proper error propagation and handling with Result<T, E> and Option<T> for expected and recoverable errors
One can think of unwrap() as converting between those two kinds of errors (it is converting a recoverable error into a panic!()). When you write unwrap() in your program, you are saying:
At this point, a None/Err(_) value is a programming error and the program is unable to recover from it.
For example, say you are working with a HashMap and want to insert a value which you may want to mutate later:
age_map.insert("peter", 21);
// ...
if /* some condition */ {
*age_map.get_mut("peter").unwrap() += 1;
}
Here we use the unwrap(), because we can be sure that the key holds a value. It would be a programming error if it didn't and even more important: it's not really recoverable. What would you do when at that point there is no value with the key "peter"? Try inserting it again ... ?
But as you may know, there is a beautiful entry API for the maps in Rust's standard library. With that API you can avoid all those unwrap()s. And this applies to pretty much all situations: you can very often restructure your code to avoid the unwrap()! Only in a very few situation there is no way around it. But then it's OK to use it, if you want to signal: at this point, it would be a programming bug.
There has been a recent, fairly popular blog post on the topic of “error handling” whose conclusion is similar to Rust's philosophy. It's rather long but worth reading: “The Error Model”. Here is my try on summarizing the article in relation to this question:
deliberately distinguish between programming bugs and recoverable errors
use a “fail fast” approach for programming bugs
In summary: use unwrap() when you are sure that the recoverable error that you get is in fact unrecoverable at that point. Bonus points for explaining “why?” in a comment above the affected line ;-)
In other words, can I say my program is reliable if I use unwrap? Or must I avoid unwrap even if the case seems simple?
I think using unwrap judiciously is something you have to learn to handle, it can't just be avoided.
My rhetorical question barrage would be:
Can I say my program is reliable if I use indexing on vectors, arrays or slices?
Can I say my program is reliable if I use integer division?
Can I say my program is reliable if I add numbers?
(1) is like unwrap, indexing panics if you make a contract violation and try to index out of bounds. This would be a bug in the program, but it doesn't catch as much attention as a call to unwrap.
(2) is like unwrap, integer division panics if the divisor is zero.
(3) is unlike unwrap, addition does not check for overflow in release builds, so it may silently result in wraparound and logical errors.
Of course, there are strategies for handling all of these without leaving panicky cases in the code, but many programs simply use for example bounds checking as it is.
There are two questions folded into one here:
is the use of panic! acceptable in production
is the use of unwrap acceptable in production
panic! is a tool that is used, in Rust, to signal irrecoverable situations/violated assumptions. It can be used to either crash a program that cannot possibly continue in the face of this failure (for example, OOM situation) or to work around the compiler knowing it cannot be executed (at the moment).
unwrap is a convenience, that is best avoided in production. The problem about unwrap is that it does not state which assumption was violated, it is better instead to use expect("") which is functionally equivalent but will also give a clue as to what went wrong (without opening the source code).
unwrap() is not necessarily dangerous. Just like with unreachable!() there are cases where you can be sure some condition will not be triggered.
Functions returning Option or Result are sometimes just suited to a wider range of conditions, but due to how your program is structured those cases might never occur.
For example: when you create an iterator from a Vector you buid yourself, you know its exact length and can be sure how long invoking next() on it returns a Some<T> (and you can safely unwrap() it).
unwrap is great for prototyping, but not safe for production. Once you are done with your initial design you go back and replace unwrap() with Result<Value, ErrorType>.
In a COM object generally there are two ways of indicating that a function failed (that I'm aware of):
return S_OK and have an [out] parameter to give failure info
return a failure HRESULT, and use ICreateErrorInfo to set the info.
Currently what I am doing is using the failure-HRESULT method for failures that are "really bad", i.e. my object will be basically inoperable because this function failed. For example, unable to open its configuration file.
Is this correct, or should failure HRESULTs be reserved only for things like dispatch argument type mismatches?
The short version:
In COM you should use HRESULTs (and strive to use ISupportErrorInfo, etc.) for most/all types of error conditions. The HRESULT mechanism should be viewed as a form of exception throwing. If you are familiar with that, consider "Error conditions" as anything for which you would normally throw an exception in a language that supports them. Use custom return values for things for which you would not normally use exceptions.
For example, use a failure HRESULT for invalid parameters, invalid sequence of operations, network failures, database errors, unexpected conditions such as out-of-memory, etc. On the other hand, use custom out parameters for things like 'polling, data is not ready yet', EOF conditions, maybe 'checked data and it doesn't pass validations'. There is plenty of discussions out there discussing what each should be (e.g. Stroustrup's TC++PL). The specifics will heavily depend on your particular object's semantics.
The longer version:
At a fundamental level, the COM HRESULT mechanism is just an error code mechanism which has been standardized by the infrastructure. This is mostly because COM must support a number of features such as inter-process (DCOM) and inter-threaded (Apartments) execution, system managed services (COM+), etc. The infrastructure has a need to know when something has failed, and it has a need to communicate to both sides its own infrastructure-related errors. Everybody needs to agree on how to communicate errors.
Each language and programmer has a choice of how to present or handle those errors. In C++, we typically handle the HRESULTs as error codes (although you can translate them into exceptions if you prefer error handling that way). In .NET languages, failure HRESULTs are translated into exceptions because that's the preferred error mechanism in .NET.
VB6 supports "either". Now, I know VB6's so-called exception handling has a painful syntax and limited scoping options for handlers, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to. You can always use ON ERROR RESUME NEXT and do it by hand if you think the usage pattern justifies it in a specific situation. It's just that instead of writing something like this:
statusCode = obj.DoSomething(param1)
If IS_FAILURE(statusCode) Then
'handle error
End If
Your write it like this:
ON ERROR RESUME NEXT
...
obj.DoSomething param1
IF Error.Number <> 0 Then
'handle error
End If
VB6 is simply hiding the error code return value from the method call (and allowing the object's programmer to substitute it for a "virtual return value" via [retval]).
If you make up your own error reporting mechanism instead of using HRESULTs, you will:
Spend a lot of time reinventing a rich error reporting mechanism that will probably mirror what ISupportsErrorInfo already gives you (or most likely, not provide any rich error information).
Hide the error status from COM's infrastructure (which might or might not matter).
Force your VB6 clients to make one specific choice out of the two options they have: they must do explicit line-by-line check, or more likely just ignore the error condition by mistake, even if they would prefer an error handler.
Force your (say) C# clients to handle your errors in ways that runs contrary to the natural style of the language (to have to check every method call explicitly and... likely throw an exception by hand).
I've been a professional software engineer for about a year now, having graduated with a CS degree. I've known about assertions for a while in C++ and C, but had no idea they existed in C# and .NET at all until recently.
Our production code contains no asserts whatsoever and my question is this...
Should I begin using Asserts in our production code? And if so, When is its use most appropriate? Would it make more sense to do
Debug.Assert(val != null, "message");
or
if ( val == null )
throw new exception("message");
In Debugging Microsoft .NET 2.0 Applications John Robbins has a big section on assertions. His main points are:
Assert liberally. You can never have too many assertions.
Assertions don't replace exceptions. Exceptions cover the things your code demands; assertions cover the things it assumes.
A well-written assertion can tell you not just what happened and where (like an exception), but why.
An exception message can often be cryptic, requiring you to work backwards through the code to recreate the context that caused the error. An assertion can preserve the program's state at the time the error occurred.
Assertions double as documentation, telling other developers what implied assumptions your code depends on.
The dialog that appears when an assertion fails lets you attach a debugger to the process, so you can poke around the stack as if you had put a breakpoint there.
PS: If you liked Code Complete, I recommend following it up with this book. I bought it to learn about using WinDBG and dump files, but the first half is packed with tips to help avoid bugs in the first place.
Put Debug.Assert() everywhere in the code where you want have sanity checks to ensure invariants. When you compile a Release build (i.e., no DEBUG compiler constant), the calls to Debug.Assert() will be removed so they won't affect performance.
You should still throw exceptions before calling Debug.Assert(). The assert just makes sure that everything is as expected while you're still developing.
FWIW ... I find that my public methods tend to use the if () { throw; } pattern to ensure that the method is being called correctly. My private methods tend to use Debug.Assert().
The idea is that with my private methods, I'm the one under control, so if I start calling one of my own private methods with parameters that are incorrect, then I've broken my own assumption somewhere--I should have never gotten into that state. In production, these private asserts should ideally be unnecessary work since I am supposed to be keeping my internal state valid and consistent. Contrast with parameters given to public methods, which could be called by anyone at runtime: I still need to enforce parameter constraints there by throwing exceptions.
Additionally, my private methods can still throw exceptions if something doesn't work at runtime (network error, data access error, bad data retrieved from a third party service, etc.). My asserts are just there to make sure that I haven't broken my own internal assumptions about the state of the object.
From Code Complete (Wikipedia):
8 Defensive Programming
8.2 Assertions
An assertion is code that’s used during development—usually a routine
or macro—that allows a program to check itself as it runs. When an
assertion is true, that means everything is operating as expected.
When it’s false, that means it has detected an unexpected error in the
code. For example, if the system assumes that a customer-information
file will never have more than 50,000 records, the program might
contain an assertion that the number of records is lessthan or equal
to 50,000. As long as the number of records is less than or equal to
50,000, the assertion will be silent. If it encounters more than
50,000 records, however, it will loudly “assert” that there is an
error in the program.
Assertions are especially useful in large, complicated programs and
in high reliability programs. They enable programmers to more quickly
flush out mismatched interface assumptions, errors that creep in when
code is modified, and so on.
An assertion usually takes two arguments: a boolean expression that
describes the assumption that’s supposed to be true and a message to
display if it isn’t.
(…)
Normally, you don’t want users to see assertion messages in
production code; assertions are primarily for use during development
and maintenance. Assertions are normally compiled into the code at
development time and compiled out of the code for production. During
development, assertions flush out contradictory assumptions,
unexpected conditions, bad values passed to routines, and so on.
During production, they are compiled out of the code so that the
assertions don’t degrade system performance.
Use asserts to check developer assumptions and exceptions to check environmental assumptions.
If I were you I would do:
Debug.Assert(val != null);
if ( val == null )
throw new exception();
Or to avoid repeated condition check
if ( val == null )
{
Debug.Assert(false,"breakpoint if val== null");
throw new exception();
}
If you want Asserts in your production code (i.e. Release builds), you can use Trace.Assert instead of Debug.Assert.
This of course adds overhead to your production executable.
Also if your application is running in user-interface mode, the Assertion dialog will be displayed by default, which may be a bit disconcerting for your users.
You can override this behaviour by removing the DefaultTraceListener: look at the documentation for Trace.Listeners in MSDN.
In summary,
Use Debug.Assert liberally to help catch bugs in Debug builds.
If you use Trace.Assert in user-interface mode, you probably want to remove the DefaultTraceListener to avoid disconcerting users.
If the condition you're testing is something your app can't handle, you're probably better off throwing an exception, to ensure execution doesn't continue. Be aware that a user can choose to ignore an assertion.
Asserts are used to catch programmer (your) error, not user error. They should be used only when there is no chance a user could cause the assert to fire. If you're writing an API, for example, asserts should not be used to check that an argument is not null in any method an API user could call. But it could be used in a private method not exposed as part of your API to assert that YOUR code never passes a null argument when it isn't supposed to.
I usually favour exceptions over asserts when I'm not sure.
In Short
Asserts are used for guards and for checking Design by Contract constraints, i.e. to ensure that the state of your code, objects, variables and parameters is operating within the boundaries and limits of your intended design.
Asserts should be for Debug and non-Production builds only. Asserts are typically ignored by the compiler in Release builds.
Asserts can check for bugs / unexpected conditions which ARE in the control of your system
Asserts are NOT a mechanism for first-line validation of user input or business rules
Asserts should not be used to detect unexpected environmental conditions (which are outside the control of the code) e.g. out of memory, network failure, database failure, etc. Although rare, these conditions are to be expected (and your app code cannot fix issues like hardware failure or resource exhaustion). Typically, exceptions will be thrown - your application can then either take corrective action (e.g. retry a database or network operation, attempt to free up cached memory), or abort gracefully if the exception cannot be handled.
A failed Assertion should be fatal to your system - i.e. unlike an exception, do not try and catch or handle failed Asserts - your code is operating in unexpected territory. Stack Traces and crash dumps can be used to determine what went wrong.
Assertions have enormous benefit:
To assist in finding missing validation of user inputs, or upstream bugs in higher level code.
Asserts in the code base clearly convey the assumptions made in the code to the reader
Assert will be checked at runtime in Debug builds.
Once code has been exhaustively tested, rebuilding the code as Release will remove the performance overhead of verifying the assumption (but with the benefit that a later Debug build will always revert the checks, if needed).
... More Detail
Debug.Assert expresses a condition which has been assumed about state by the remainder of the code block within the control of the program. This can include the state of the provided parameters, state of members of a class instance, or that the return from a method call is in its contracted / designed range.
Typically, asserts should crash the thread / process / program with all necessary info (Stack Trace, Crash Dump, etc), as they indicate the presence of a bug or unconsidered condition which has not been designed for (i.e. do not try and catch or handle assertion failures), with one possible exception of when an assertion itself could cause more damage than the bug (e.g. Air Traffic Controllers wouldn't want a YSOD when an aircraft goes submarine, although it is moot whether a debug build should be deployed to production ...)
When should you use Asserts?
At any point in a system, or library API, or service where the inputs to a function or state of a class are assumed valid (e.g. when validation has already been done on user input in the presentation tier of a system, the business and data tier classes typically assume that null checks, range checks, string length checks etc on input have been already done).
Common Assert checks include where an invalid assumption would result in a null object dereference, a zero divisor, numerical or date arithmetic overflow, and general out of band / not designed for behaviour (e.g. if a 32 bit int was used to model a human's age, it would be prudent to Assert that the age is actually between 0 and 125 or so - values of -100 and 10^10 were not designed for).
.Net Code Contracts
In the .Net Stack, Code Contracts can be used in addition to, or as an alternative to using Debug.Assert. Code Contracts can further formalize state checking, and can assist in detecting violations of assumptions at ~compile time (or shortly thereafter, if run as a background check in an IDE).
Design by Contract (DBC) checks available include:
Contract.Requires - Contracted Preconditions
Contract.Ensures - Contracted PostConditions
Invariant - Expresses an assumption about the state of an object at all points in its lifespan.
Contract.Assumes - pacifies the static checker when a call to non-Contract decorated methods is made.
Mostly never in my book.
In the vast majority of occasions if you want to check if everything is sane then throw if it isn't.
What I dislike is the fact that it makes a debug build functionally different to a release build. If a debug assert fails but the functionality works in release then how does that make any sense? It's even better when the asserter has long left the company and no-one knows that part of the code. Then you have to kill some of your time exploring the issue to see if it is really a problem or not. If it is a problem then why isn't the person throwing in the first place?
To me this suggests by using Debug.Asserts you're deferring the problem to someone else, deal with the problem yourself. If something is supposed to be the case and it isn't then throw.
I guess there are possibly performance critical scenarios where you want to optimise away your asserts and they're useful there, however I am yet to encounter such a scenario.
According to the IDesign Standard, you should
Assert every assumption. On average, every fifth line is an assertion.
using System.Diagnostics;
object GetObject()
{...}
object someObject = GetObject();
Debug.Assert(someObject != null);
As a disclaimer I should mention I have not found it practical to implement this IRL. But this is their standard.
All asserts should be code that could be optimised to:
Debug.Assert(true);
Because it's checking something that you have already assumed is true. E.g.:
public static void ConsumeEnumeration<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
if(source != null)
using(var en = source.GetEnumerator())
RunThroughEnumerator(en);
}
public static T GetFirstAndConsume<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
if(source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
using(var en = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if(!en.MoveNext())
throw new InvalidOperationException("Empty sequence");
T ret = en.Current;
RunThroughEnumerator(en);
return ret;
}
}
private static void RunThroughEnumerator<T>(IEnumerator<T> en)
{
Debug.Assert(en != null);
while(en.MoveNext());
}
In the above, there are three different approaches to null parameters. The first accepts it as allowable (it just does nothing). The second throws an exception for the calling code to handle (or not, resulting in an error message). The third assumes it can't possibly happen, and asserts that it is so.
In the first case, there's no problem.
In the second case, there's a problem with the calling code - it shouldn't have called GetFirstAndConsume with null, so it gets an exception back.
In the third case, there's a problem with this code, because it should already have been checked that en != null before it was ever called, so that it isn't true is a bug. Or in other words, it should be code that could theoretically be optimised to Debug.Assert(true), sicne en != null should always be true!
Use assertions only in cases where you want the check removed for release builds. Remember, your assertions will not fire if you don't compile in debug mode.
Given your check-for-null example, if this is in an internal-only API, I might use an assertion. If it's in a public API, I would definitely use the explicit check and throw.
I thought I would add four more cases, where Debug.Assert can be the right choice.
1) Something I have not seen mentioned here is the additional conceptual coverage Asserts can provide during automated testing. As a simple example:
When some higher-level caller is modified by an author who believes they have expanded the scope of the code to handle additional scenarios, ideally (!) they will write unit tests to cover this new condition. It may then be that the fully integrated code appears to work fine.
However, actually a subtle flaw has been introduced, but not detected in test results. The callee has become non-deterministic in this case, and only happens to provide the expected result. Or perhaps it has yielded a rounding error that was unnoticed. Or caused an error that was offset equally elsewhere. Or granted not only the access requested but additional privileges that should not be granted. Etc.
At this point, the Debug.Assert() statements contained in the callee coupled with the new case (or edge case) driven in by unit tests can provide invaluable notification during test that the original author's assumptions have been invalidated, and the code should not be released without additional review. Asserts with unit tests are the perfect partners.
2) Additionally, some tests are simple to write, but high-cost and unnecessary given the initial assumptions. For example:
If an object can only be accessed from a certain secured entry point, should an additional query be made to a network rights database from every object method to ensure the caller has permissions? Surely not. Perhaps the ideal solution includes caching or some other expansion of features, but the design does not require it. A Debug.Assert() will immediately show when the object has been attached to an insecure entry point.
3) Next, in some cases your product may have no helpful diagnostic interaction for all or part of its operations when deployed in release mode. For example:
Suppose it is an embedded real-time device. Throwing exceptions and restarting when it encounters a malformed packet is counter-productive. Instead the device may benefit from best-effort operation, even to the point of rendering noise in its output. It also may not have a human interface, logging device, or even be physically accessible by human at all when deployed in release mode, and awareness of errors is best provided by assessing the same output. In this case, liberal Assertions and thorough pre-release testing are more valuable than exceptions.
4) Lastly, some tests are unneccessary only because the callee is perceived as extremely reliable. In most cases, the more reusable code is, the more effort has been put into making it reliable. Therefore it is common to Exception for unexpected parameters from callers, but Assert for unexpected results from callees. For example:
If a core String.Find operation states it will return a -1 when the search criteria is not found, you may be able to safely perform one operation rather than three. However, if it actually returned -2, you may have no reasonable course of action. It would be unhelpful to replace the simpler calculation with one that tests separately for a -1 value, and unreasonable in most release environments to litter your code with tests ensuring core libraries are operating as expected. In this case Asserts are ideal.
Quote Taken from The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master
Leave Assertions Turned On
There is a common misunderstanding about assertions, promulgated by
the people who write compilers and language environments. It goes
something like this:
Assertions add some overhead to code. Because they check for things
that should never happen, they'll get triggered only by a bug in the
code. Once the code has been tested and shipped, they are no longer
needed, and should be turned off to make the code run faster.
Assertions are a debugging facility.
There are two patently wrong assumptions here. First, they assume that
testing finds all the bugs. In reality, for any complex program you
are unlikely to test even a miniscule percentage of the permutations
your code will be put through (see Ruthless Testing).
Second, the optimists are forgetting that your program runs in a
dangerous world. During testing, rats probably won't gnaw through a
communications cable, someone playing a game won't exhaust memory, and
log files won't fill the hard drive. These things might happen when
your program runs in a production environment. Your first line of
defense is checking for any possible error, and your second is using
assertions to try to detect those you've missed.
Turning off assertions when you deliver a program to production is
like crossing a high wire without a net because you once made it
across in practice. There's dramatic value, but it's hard to get life
insurance.
Even if you do have performance issues, turn off only those
assertions that really hit you.
You should always use the second approach (throwing exceptions).
Also if you're in production (and have a release-build), it's better to throw an exception (and let the app crash in the worst-case) than working with invalid values and maybe destroy your customer's data (which may cost thousand of dollars).
You should use Debug.Assert to test for logical errors in your programs. The complier can only inform you of syntax errors. So you should definetely use Assert statements to test for logical errors. Like say testing a program that sells cars that only BMWs that are blue should get a 15% discount. The complier could tell you nothing about if your program is logically correct in performing this but an assert statement could.
I've read the answers here and I thought I should add an important distinction. There are two very different ways in which asserts are used. One is as a temporary developer shortcut for "This shouldn't really happen so if it does let me know so I can decide what to do", sort of like a conditional breakpoint, for cases in which your program is able to continue. The other, is a as a way to put assumptions about valid program states in your code.
In the first case, the assertions don't even need to be in the final code. You should use Debug.Assert during development and you can remove them if/when no longer needed. If you want to leave them or if you forget to remove them no problem, since they won't have any consequence in Release compilations.
But in the second case, the assertions are part of the code. They, well, assert, that your assumptions are true, and also document them. In that case, you really want to leave them in the code. If the program is in an invalid state it should not be allowed to continue. If you couldn't afford the performance hit you wouldn't be using C#. On one hand it might be useful to be able to attach a debugger if it happens. On the other, you don't want the stack trace popping up on your users and perhaps more important you don't want them to be able to ignore it. Besides, if it's in a service it will always be ignored. Therefore in production the correct behavior would be to throw an Exception, and use the normal exception handling of your program, which might show the user a nice message and log the details.
Trace.Assert has the perfect way to achieve this. It won't be removed in production, and can be configured with different listeners using app.config.
So for development the default handler is fine, and for production you can create a simple TraceListener like below which throws an exception and activate it in the production config file.
using System.Diagnostics;
public class ExceptionTraceListener : DefaultTraceListener
{
[DebuggerStepThrough]
public override void Fail(string message, string detailMessage)
{
throw new AssertException(message);
}
}
public class AssertException : Exception
{
public AssertException(string message) : base(message) { }
}
And in the production config file:
<system.diagnostics>
<trace>
<listeners>
<remove name="Default"/>
<add name="ExceptionListener" type="Namespace.ExceptionTraceListener,AssemblyName"/>
</listeners>
</trace>
</system.diagnostics>
I don't know how it is in C# and .NET, but in C will assert() only work if compiled with -DDEBUG - the enduser will never see an assert() if it's compiled without. It's for developer only. I use it really often, it's sometimes easier to track bugs.
I would not use them in production code. Throw exceptions, catch and log.
Also need to be careful in asp.net, as an assert can show up on the console and freeze the request(s).