Background
Trying to switch from using Interceptor to Events.
I have a ValidationInterceptor that overrides OnFlushDirty and OnSave and runs my custom validation logic. If the entity has validation errors, an exception is thrown which makes its way back to the UI.
My new ValidationHandler which implements IPreUpdate and IPreInsert EventListeners does the same validation logic, but returns "true" to indicate to NHibernate to veto the operation. Which does work, but the UI does not know that the veto occurred.
Question
How does the UI know that a veto occurred during a PreInsert or PreUpdate event?
I tried to throw an exception from those events, but had the effect of allowing the save to occur and the exception did not make it back to the UI.
All the information the UI has points to a successful save:
the id of the entity has been set.
checking the session IsDirty() is false.
no exceptions during save attempt.
Oh I am dumb.
Let me present my code for proof:
public bool OnPreInsert(PreInsertEvent #event)
{
try
{
var entity = #event.Entity as Api.IValidatable;
if (entity == false)
return false;
if (entity.HasErrors())
throw new ObjectIsInvalidException(entity.ValidationErrorMessage());
return false;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
log.Error("Unable to perform PreInsert validation on entity", ex);
}
}
Yup, the exception was being swallowed before it ever made it out of the method.
Changed to rethrow the exception and all is working as it should.
Related
I'm developing an application using Play 2.3.1.
I'm annotating all my controllers with the following Action :
#Override
public Promise<Result> call(final Context ctx) throws Throwable {
try {
return delegate.call(ctx);
} catch (MyCustomException e) {
return handleCustomException(e);
} catch (Exception e) {
return handleUnexpectedError(e);
}
}
The aim of this action is to catch any exception thrown by a controller method in order to send a clean message to the user.
MyCustomException is my application specific exception that extends Exception.
The problem is that even if I throw a MyCustomException in the method of my controller, the corresponding catch statement is never executed.
I always have a RuntimeException caused by my MyCustomException.
The consequence is that no matter what exception occured, the user always sees the result sent by handleUnexpectedError(e).
What am I doing wrong ? Thanks.
After some investigation, the guilty is the Security action of Play.
More details here : https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/play-framework/AY4NuQziYyM
Because I added my custom actions at AbstractController level and the #Authenticated(Authenticator.class) annotation at the controller level, the security action composition is the last one to be executed.
Because of the Security.java at line 51, even if my exception is expected, Play throws a RuntimeException.
So the solution is to add the security annotation at method level in order to be sure that it is executed before the first execution of the method.
I've seen a number of posts and articles but am not able to see the solution crisply.
I've installed Elmah.MVC via NuGet and have commented out this line from FilterConfig.cs:
//filters.Add(new HandleErrorAttribute());
So that Elmah would pick up the errors.
It works when I provide an invalid action name and I get a yellow page as well as an email.
I want to know about two other types of errors that my code may generate... how are we supposed to handle them:
1.E.g. if my repository or manager (business logic) layer throws an exception when trying to access database or send an email etc.
a. Is the correct way to NOT implement any kind of try catch in Controllers (or anywhere else for that matter) and let Elmah take care of exceptions?
b. If so, and if it shows a yellow error page, how can we show a view of our own liking?
2.If my view contains ajax calls, e.g. via jqgrid, and behind the scenes there are errors, I've noticed they also get picked up properly by Elmah. But how do I show some kind of an error message to the user as well?
Thanks
Here is what I did:
In controller, I placed try catch:
try
{
//model = getmodelfromdb();
return View("MyView", model);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Elmah.ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(ex);
return View("../Error/ShowException", ex);
}
For custom view for 404, I did this in global.asax:
protected void Application_OnError( )
{
var exception = Server.GetLastError( );
Elmah.ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(exception);
Helper.SetSessionValue(SessionKeys.EXCEPTION, exception);
Response.Redirect( "~/Error/ShowException");
}
For jqgrid, I did this in my controller:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult ListRecords( int page , DateTime? fromdate , DateTime? todate)
{
try
{
var list = FetchListFromDB();
var result = new
{
total = Math.Ceiling(list.Count / (decimal)Helper.PAGE_SIZE),
page = page, //--- current page
records = list.Count, //--- total items
rows = list.List.Select(x => new
{
id = x.EntityID,
cell = new string[]
{
x.Property1,
x.Property2
}
}).ToArray()
};
return Json(result, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
var result = new
{
errorMessage = "An unexpected error occurred while fetching data. An automatic email has been generated for the support team who will address this issue shortly. Details: " + ex.Message,
records = 0
};
Elmah.ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(ex);
return Json(result, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet);
}
And this in the View (in the jqgrid definition):
loadComplete:function(data)
{
if (data.errorMessage)
{
alert(data.errorMessage);
}
},
In a general ajax scenario:
success: function(data)
{
if (data.errorMessage)
{
alert(data.errorMessage);
}
else
{
//...
}
},
a. Is the correct way to NOT implement any kind of try catch in Controllers (or anywhere else for that matter) and let Elmah take care of exceptions?
I'd say that Elmah doesn't "take care" of exceptions, it records them. Ideally, you should try to handle the errors - by all means log them, but also add logic to deal with them so that they don't interrupt the user's workflow.
I'd wrap logic in try blocks, and in the catch use
Elmah.ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(exception);
to record anything that goes wrong. Immediately after that line, however, I'd then do something to try to recover from the exception - catch specific exception types, never just catch (Exception e), and deal with them after logging them. The idea is that you should be reviewing your logs, working out what's causing the exceptions, and improving your program so that it doesn't throw exceptions any more.
To show your own error pages, there's the HandleErrorAttribute, or if you don't want to use that there's also the controller's OnException() method, which is called when a controller action method quits with an exception rather than finishing normally. An ExceptionContext object is passed into that method, so you can use that to get the exception that was thrown and log it, do any cleanup that might be required etc.
I know i'm very late to the party but I stumbled upon this answer while searching something similar form Google.
I don't like using try catch blocks everywhere in my code, especially in web apps. I let Elmah catch everything and log it behind the scenes. Then in the web.config file you can redirect based on the error type...
<customErrors mode="RemoteOnly" defaultRedirect="~/Error" >
<error statusCode="500" redirect="~/Error"/>
<error statusCode="404" redirect="~/NotFound"/>
</customErrors>
I've got a WCF operation conceptually like this:
[OperationBehavior(TransactionScopeRequired = true)]
public void Foo()
{
try { DAL.Foo(); return Receipt.CreateSuccessReceipt(); }
catch (Exception ex) { return Receipt.CreateErrorReceipt(ex); }
}
If something goes wrong (say, foreign key constraint violaion) in executing the DAL code, control passes to the catch block as I'd expect. But when the method returns, it seems the transaction scope has sniffed out that the transaction failed, and it decides it better throw an exception to make sure to notify the caller about it.
In turn my client application does not get the receipt I want to return, but rather an exception:
System.ServiceModel.FaultException:
The transaction under which this method call was executing was asynchronously aborted.
What is wrong with my design?
I could have the service not catch anything, but this has it's own problems as the service needs to use exception shielding and the client (a batch tool internal to the system) needs to log the error information. The service logs errors too, but not in the same way and to the same place as the batch.
Be careful here! If you set TransactionAutoComplete=true then if the service returns normally the transaction will be committed. Only if there is an unhandled exception (which for the most part you don't have because you are catching exceptions and returning a receipt message) will the transaction be rolled back. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.servicemodel.operationbehaviorattribute.transactionautocomplete.aspx.
Think about a scenario where you successfully executed some DAL calls but some other exception (e.g. NullReferenceException) occurs. Now the transaction will be committed when the method completes because no unhandled exception has occurred but the client receives an ErrorReceipt.
For your scenario, I think you will have to manage the transactions yourself. For example:
[OperationBehavior(TransactionScopeRequired = true, TransactionAutoComplete = false)]
public Receipt Foo()
{
// Create TransactionScope using the ambient transaction
using (var scope = new TransactionScope() )
{
try { DAL.Foo(); return Receipt.CreateSuccessReceipt(); scope.Complete(); }
catch (Exception ex) { return Receipt.CreateErrorReceipt(ex); }
}
}
You could eliminate boilerplate code by creating a helper method that wraps it all within the transaction or you could use policy injection/interception/aspects to manage transactions.
[OperationBehavior(TransactionScopeRequired = true, TransactionAutoComplete = false)]
public Receipt Foo()
{
return ProcessWithTransaction(() =>
{
DAL.Foo();
return Receipt.CreateSuccessReceipt();
}
, (ex) =>
{
return Receipt.CreateErrorReceipt(ex);
}
);
}
T ProcessWithTransaction<T>(Func<T> processor, Func<Exception, T> exceptionHandler)
{
using (var scope = new TransactionScope())
{
try
{
T returnValue = processor();
scope.Complete();
return returnValue;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return exceptionHandler(e);
}
}
}
You mention that you need to use exception shielding. If you are not averse to throwing faults when an error occurs then you could use Enterprise Library Exception Handling Block's exception shielding which also lets you log the information on the way out (if you desire).
If you decided to go that route your code would look something like this:
[OperationBehavior(TransactionScopeRequired = true)]
public void Foo()
{
// Resolve the default ExceptionManager object from the container.
ExceptionManager exManager = EnterpriseLibraryContainer.Current.GetInstance<ExceptionManager>();
exManager.Process(() =>
{
DAL.Foo();
return Receipt.CreateSuccessReceipt();
},
"ExceptionShielding");
}
Enterprise Library (via configuration) would then catch any exceptions and replace them with a new FaultException that is returned to the client.
[OperationBehavior(TransactionAutoComplete = true, TransactionScopeRequired = true)]
Presumably because the transaction is now rolled back as soon as the error occurs, rather than asynchronously when the scope goes out of scope :D, this behaves like I expected things to behave originally, and I can leave my design as it is.
(I had already written up the question when trying this occured to me. Hopefully posting it Q&A style will be more helpful than not posting the question at all.)
I am currently developing a Windows Phone 7 App that calls a WCF web service which I also control. The service offers an operation that returns the current user's account information when given a user's login name and password:
[ServiceContract]
public interface IWindowsPhoneService
{
[OperationContract]
[FaultContract(typeof(AuthenticationFault))]
WsAccountInfo GetAccountInfo(string iamLogin, string password);
}
Of course, there is always the possibility of an authentication failure and I want to convey that information to the WP7 app. I could simply return null in that case, but I would like to convey the reason why the authentication failed (i.e. login unknown, wrong password, account blocked, ...).
This is my implementation of the above operation (for testing purposes, all it does is throwing an exception):
public WsAccountInfo GetAccountInfo(string iamLogin, string password)
{
AuthenticationFault fault = new AuthenticationFault();
throw new FaultException<AuthenticationFault>(fault);
}
Now, if I call this operation in my WP7 app, like this:
Global.Proxy.GetAccountInfoCompleted += new EventHandler<RemoteService.GetAccountInfoCompletedEventArgs>(Proxy_GetAccountInfoCompleted);
Global.Proxy.GetAccountInfoAsync(txbLogin.Text, txbPassword.Password);
void Proxy_GetAccountInfoCompleted(object sender, RemoteService.GetAccountInfoCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error != null)
{
MessageBox.Show(e.Error.Message);
return;
}
}
The debugger breaks in Reference.cs, saying that FaultException'1 was unhandled, here:
public PhoneApp.RemoteService.WsAccountInfo EndGetAccountInfo(System.IAsyncResult result) {
object[] _args = new object[0];
PhoneApp.RemoteService.WsAccountInfo _result = ((PhoneApp.RemoteService.WsAccountInfo)(base.EndInvoke("GetAccountInfo", _args, result)));
return _result;
}
BEGIN UPDATE 1
When pressing F5, the exception bubbles to:
public PhoneApp.RemoteService.WsAccountInfo Result {
get {
base.RaiseExceptionIfNecessary(); // <-- here
return ((PhoneApp.RemoteService.WsAccountInfo)(this.results[0]));
}
}
and then to:
private void Application_UnhandledException(object sender, ApplicationUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
if (System.Diagnostics.Debugger.IsAttached)
{
// An unhandled exception has occurred; break into the debugger
System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break();
}
}
After that, the app terminates (with or without the debugger).
END UPDATE 1
Now, I would love to catch the exception in my code, but I am never given the chance, since my Completed handler is never reached.
Based on similar questions on this site, I have already tried the following:
Re-add the service reference --> no change
Re-create a really simple WCF service from scratch --> same problem
Start the app without the debugger to keep the app from breaking into the debugger --> well, it doesn't break, but the exception is not caught either, the app simply exits
Tell VS 2010 not to break on FaultExceptions (Debug > Options) --> does not have any effect
wrap every line in my app in try { ... } catch (FaultException) {} or even catch (Exception) --> never called.
BEGIN UPDATE 2
What I actually would like to achieve is one of the following:
ideally, reach GetAccountInfoCompleted(...) and be able to retrieve the exception via the GetAccountInfoCompletedEventArgs.Error property, or
be able to catch the exception via a try/catch clause
END UPDATE 2
I would be grateful for any advice that would help me resolve this issue.
The framework seems to read your WsAccountInfo.Result property.
This rethrows the exception on client side.
But you should be the first to read this property.
I don't know your AuthenticationFault class, does it have a DataContractAttribute and is it a known type like the example in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.servicemodel.faultcontractattribute.aspx ?
I believe I had the same problem. I resolved it by extending the proxy class and calling the private Begin.../End... methods within the Client object rather than using the public auto-generated methods on the Client object.
For more details, please see:
http://cbailiss.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/wcf-on-windows-phone-unable-to-catch-faultexception/
I have a class that handles all the interaction in my application with my WCF service and it seems that MSDN say that the use of Using)_ statement with WCF is bad - I can see why this is bad and agree with it (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa355056.aspx)
my problem is that their suggested method of implementation will mean that i have 10 methods [as 10 public methods in my service] that will have the same structure code and this of course does not follow the DRY principal - the code looks similar to the following:
try
{
results = _client.MethodCall(input parameteres);
_client.Close();
}
catch (CommunicationException)
{
if (_client != null && _client.State != CommunicationState.Closed)
{
_client.Abort();
}
}
catch (TimeoutException)
{
if (_client != null && _client.State != CommunicationState.Closed)
{
_client.Abort();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (_client != null && _client.State != CommunicationState.Closed)
{
_client.Abort();
}
throw;
}
This doesn't have any logging yet but of course when I do come to start logging it then I will have to add the logging work in almost 10 different places
does anyone have any tips on how I can be a bit more resourceful here in reusing code
thanks
paul
I would use some general-purpose, configurable exception handling component that allows basic exception handling processing like logging, re-throwing etc. to be decoupled from the actual place of handling. One example of such a component is Microsoft's Exception Handling Application Block.
Then you could end up with a code like this:
try
{
results = _client.MethodCall(input parameteres);
_client.Close();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_client.CloseIfNeeded();
if (!ex.Handle("Wcf.Policy")) throw;
}
where CloseIfNeeded denotes a custom extension method encapsulating the WCF channel closing logic, and the Handle exception method calls the exception handling mechanism, passing in a name of the exception policy that shall be applied on this place.
In most cases, you can reduce exception handling logic to a decent one or two lines of code, giving you several benefits:
instant configurability of exception handling behavior (policies)
extensibility with custom exception handlers bound to specific types of exceptions and exception policies
better manageability and readability of code