WCF FaultException - crashes App Pool when "re-throwing" from internal WCF call - wcf

I have a WCF service that's hosted in IIS, and uses a WS HTTP binding (the external service). This service ends up calling a second WCF service that's hosted in a Windows service, over Net TCP (the internal service). When the internal service throws a FaultException, the external service crashes rather than throwing it to the client. All the client sees is the connection being forcibly closed.
The internal service uses the Enterprise Library Validation Application Block to validate the incoming messages. When validation errors occur, the service throws a FaultException<ValidationFault>.
Both the internal and external service have a [FaultContract(typeof(ValidationFault)] attribute in the service contract. If I change the external service to just immediately throw a new FaultException<ValidaitonFault>, this gets back to the client fine. I can catch the exception from the internal service in the external service, but if I try to re-throw it, or even wrap it in a new exception and throw that, the whole Application Pool in IIS crashses. I can't see anything useful in the event log, so I'm not sure exactly what the problem is.
The client object the external service uses to communicate with the internal service is definitely being closed and disposed of correctly. How can I get the internal service's faults to propagate out to the client?
updated:
Below is a simplified version of the external service code. I can catch the validation fault from the internal service call. If I throw a brand new FaultException<ValidationFault>, everything is fine. If I use the caught exception, the connection to the external client is broken. The only difference I can see is when debugging the service - trying to use the caught exception results in a message box appearing when exiting the method, which says
An unhandled exception of type
'System.ServiceModel.FaultException`1'
occurred in mscorlib.dll
This doesn't appear if I throw a brand new exception. Maybe the answer is to manually copy the details of the validation fault into a new object, but this seems crazy.
public class ExternalService : IExternalService
{
public ExternalResponse DoSomething(ExternalRequest)
{
try
{
var response = new ExternalResponse();
using (var internalClient = new InternalClient())
{
response.Data = internalClient.DoSomething().Data;
}
return response;
}
catch (FaultException<ValidationFault> fEx)
{
// throw fEx; <- crashes
// throw new FaultException<ValidationFault>(
// fEx.Detail as ValidationFault); <- crashses
throw new FaultException<ValidationFault>(
new ValidationFault(new List<ValidationDetail> {
new ValidationDetail("message", "key", "tag") }),
"fault message", new FaultCode("faultCode"))); // works fine!
}
}
}

I have almost the exact design as you and hit a similar issue (not sure about a crash, though!).
If I remember correctly, even though the ValidationFault is a common class when the Fault travels over the wire the type is specific to the WCF interface. I think this is because of the namespace qualifiers on the web services (but this was a while back so I could be mistaken).
It's not terribly elegant, but what I did was to manually re-throw the exceptions:
try
{
DoStuff();
}
catch (FaultException<ValidationFault> fe)
{
HandleFault(fe);
throw;
}
...
private void HandleFault(FaultException<ValidationFault> fe)
{
throw new FaultException<ValidationFault>(fe.Detail as ValidationFault);
}

Well, it works if I do this, but there must be a better way...
This only seems to be a problem for FaultException<ValidationFault>. I can re-throw FaultException and FaultException<SomethingElse> objects with no problems.
try
{
DoStuff();
}
catch (FaultException<ValidationFault> fe)
{
throw this.HandleFault(fe);
}
...
private FaultException<ValidationFault> HandleFault(
FaultException<ValidationFault> fex)
{
var validationDetails = new List<ValidationDetail>();
foreach (ValidationDetail detail in fex.Detail.Details)
{
validationDetails.Add(detail);
}
return new FaultException<ValidationFault>(
new ValidationFault(validationDetails));
}

Related

How can my WCF service recover from unavailable message queue?

I have a WCF service that receives messages from the Microsoft Message Queue (netMsmqBinding).
I want my service to recover if the message queue is unavailable. My code should fail to open the service, but then try again after a delay.
I have code to recognize the error when the queue is unavailable:
static bool ExceptionIsBecauseMsmqNotStarted(TypeInitializationException ex)
{
MsmqException msmqException = ex.InnerException as MsmqException;
return ((msmqException != null) && msmqException.HResult == (unchecked((int)(0xc00e000b))));
}
So this should be straightforward: I call ServiceHost.Open(), catch this exception, wait for a second or two, then repeat until my Open call is successful.
The problem is, if this exception gets thrown once, it continues to be thrown. The message queue might have become available, but my running process is in a bad state and I continue to get the TypeInitializationException until I shut down my process and restart it.
Is there a way around this problem? Can I make WCF forgive the queue and genuinely try to listen to it again?
Here is my service opening code:
public async void Start()
{
try
{
_log.Debug("Starting the data warehouse service");
while(!_cancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
try
{
_serviceHost = new ServiceHost(_dataWarehouseWriter);
_serviceHost.Open();
return;
}
catch (TypeInitializationException ex)
{
_serviceHost.Abort();
if(!ExceptionIsBecauseMsmqNotStarted(ex))
{
throw;
}
}
await Task.Delay(1000, _cancellationTokenSource.Token);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_log.Error("Failed to start the service host", ex);
}
}
And here is the stack information. The first time it is thrown the stack trace of the inner exception is:
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.MsmqQueue.GetMsmqInformation(Version& version, Boolean& activeDirectoryEnabled)
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.Msmq..cctor()
And the top entries of the outer exception stack:
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.MsmqChannelListenerBase`1.get_TransportManagerTable()
at System.ServiceModel.Channels.TransportManagerContainer..ctor(TransportChannelListener listener)
Microsoft have made the source code to WCF visible, so now we can work out exactly what's going on.
The bad news: WCF is implemented in such a way that if the initial call to ServiceModel.Start() triggers a queueing error there is no way to recover.
The WCF framework includes an internal class called MsmqQueue. This class has a static constructor. The static constructor invokes GetMsmqInformation, which can throw an exception.
Reading the C# Programming Guide on static constructors:
If a static constructor throws an exception, the runtime will not invoke it a second time, and the type will remain uninitialized for the lifetime of the application domain in which your program is running.
There is a programming lesson here: Don't put exception throwing code in a static constructor!
The obvious solution lies outside of the code. When I create my hosting service, I could add a service dependency on the message queue service. However, I would rather fix this problem with code then configuration.
Another solution is to manually check that the queue is available using non-WCF code.
The method System.Messaging.MessageQueue.Exists returns false if the message queue service is unavailable. Knowing this, the following works:
private const string KNOWN_QUEUE_PATH = #".\Private$\datawarehouse";
private static string GetMessageQueuePath()
{
// We can improve this by extracting the queue path from the configuration file
return KNOWN_QUEUE_PATH;
}
public async void Start()
{
try
{
_log.Debug("Starting the data warehouse service");
string queuePath = GetMessageQueuePath();
while(!_cancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (!(System.Messaging.MessageQueue.Exists(queuePath)))
{
_log.Warn($"Unable to find the queue {queuePath}. Will try again shortly");
await Task.Delay(60000, _cancellationTokenSource.Token);
}
else
{
_serviceHost = new ServiceHost(_dataWarehouseWriter);
_serviceHost.Open();
return;
}
}
}
catch(System.OperationCanceledException)
{
_log.Debug("The service start operation was cancelled");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_log.Error("Failed to start the service host", ex);
}
}

Silverlight fault propagation and UserNamePasswordValidator

Scenario is a Silverlight client using Wcf service & custom authentication. To mitigate the 500/200 status code problem (avoid EndPointNotFound exception) I've applied the SilverLightFaultBehaviour. However, this does not work with UserNamePasswordValidator - When a FaultException is thrown from Validate(), it is not caught by the SilverLightFaultMessageInspector's implementation of BeforeSendReply.
So far, the only workaround I've found is using the alternative client stack instead ( WebRequest.RegisterPrefix("http://", WebRequestCreator.ClientHttp);), but there are complications with using it which can no longer be ignored as a lot of our clients are on virtual machines, the silverlight client keeps crashing ( Silverlight 5 - Debugging npctrl.dll crash , http://communities.vmware.com/thread/394306?tstart=0 ).
My primary motivation is that I want to be able to distinguish a failed login from a connection error (the following code is from a client-side async callback method, and only works with the Client stack):
if (e.Error is MessageSecurityException)
{
this.HasLoginFailed.Value = Captions.Login_FailedLogin;
}
else
{
this.HasLoginFailed.Value = Captions.Login_FailedConnection;
}
Is there any other way of modifying the message sent when throwing a FaultException from UserNamePasswordValidator? Or any conceptually different way of doing custom authentication rather than what I am using which enables me to modify the message status or to keep it 200, or just to be able to distinguish a connection failure from bad credentials?
my server-side code for usernamepassword reg:
var serviceCredential = host.Description.Behaviors.Find<ServiceCredentials>();
serviceCredential.UserNameAuthentication.UserNamePasswordValidationMode =
UserNamePasswordValidationMode.Custom;
serviceCredential.UserNameAuthentication.CustomUserNamePasswordValidator =
new MyValidator();
When you throw a FaultException from MyValidator, it is wrapped as the InnerException of a MessageSecurityException, that's probably why you weren't able to catch it directly as a FaultException.
To add some information to the fault you are throwing, what you can do is adding a FaultCode:
throw new FaultException(
"Invalid user name or bad password.",
new FaultCode("BadUserNameOrPassword")
);
Then, catch the exception client-side and retrieve your FaultCode:
try { ... }
catch (MessageSecurityException e)
{
FaultException fault = (FaultException) e.InnerException;
String faultCode = fault.Code.Name;
// you can now display a meaningful error with the faultCode
}
I hope it will help!

how do i get an exception out of a web service?

I have a web service that runs perfectly when i reference it from within the project solution. As soon as i upload it to the remote server, it starts blowing up. Unfortunately, the only error message I get is on the client side "faultexception was unhandled by user code". Inside of the web service, I have exceptions handled in all of the methods, so I'm pretty sure it's getting caught somewhere, but I don't know how to see it. I suspect that the problem is permissions related, but I can't see where it's happening.
I tried placing an error message into object returns, but it's still not making it out; something like this:
public bool SetDirectReports(ADUser user)
{
try
{
var adEntry = new DirectoryEntry(string.Format("LDAP://<GUID={0}>", user.Guid), "administrator", "S3cur1ty");
if (adEntry.Properties["directReports"].Count > 0)
{
user.DirectReports = new List<ADUser>();
foreach (string directReport in adEntry.Properties["directReports"]) //is being returned as full distinguished name
{
var dr = new DirectoryEntry(string.Format("LDAP://{0}", directReport), "administrator", "S3cur1ty");
user.DirectReports.Add(GetUserByGuid(dr.NativeGuid));
}
return true;
}
else
{
user.DirectReports = new List<ADUser>();
return false;
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
user.HasError = true;
user.ErrorMessage = "Error setting direct reports: " + ex.Message;
return false;
}
}
but its' still not catching. I was hoping for a better approach. I'm not sure if I could add something that would output the exception to the console or what. Any help would be appreciated. TIA
P.S. this isn't necessarily the method thats crashing, there's a web of them in the service.
You should dump all of your exceptions to a log file on the server side; exposing error information to the client is a potential security risk, which is why it's turned off by default.
If you really want to send exception information to the client, you can turn it on. If you are using a WCF service you should set the "includeExceptionDetailsInFaults" property on for the service behavior, as described in this MSDN article on dealing with unhandled exceptions in WCF. Once you do so, you will have a property on the FaultException called Detail that should itself be a type of Exception.
For better error handling you should also take a look at typed faults using the FaultContract and FaultException<> class; these have the benefit that they don't throw the channel into a faulted state and can be handled correctly:
try
{
// do stuff here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
var detail = new CustomFaultDetail
{
Message = "Error setting direct reports: " + ex.Message
};
throw new FaultException<CustomFaultDetail>(detail);
}
If you are using an ASP.NET Web Service, you should set the customErrors mode to "Off" in your web.config. This will send back the entire exception detail as HTML, which the client should receive as part of the SOAP exception that it receives.
The error your are seeing ("faultexception was unhandled by user code") is happening because this is a remote exception and it is standard behavior to only display exceptions on the local computer by default. In order to make it work how you intend, you need to change the customErrors section of the web.config and set it to Off
UPDATE: I found a related question: c# exception not captured correctly by jquery ajax
(Three years later..)
Here's the solution I came up with, along with some sample WCF code, and Angular code to catch, and display the exception message:
Catching exceptions from WPF web services
Basically, you just need to wrap your WCF service in a try..catch, and when something goes wrong, set a OutgoingWebResponseContext value.
For example, in this web service, I've slipped in an Exception, which will make my catch code set the OutgoingWebResponseContext value.
It looks odd... as I then return null, but this works fine.
public List<string> GetAllCustomerNames()
{
// Get a list of unique Customer names.
//
try
{
throw new Exception("Oh heck, something went wrong !");
NorthwindDataContext dc = new NorthwindDataContext();
var results = (from cust in dc.Customers select cust.CompanyName).Distinct().OrderBy(s => s).ToList();
return results;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
OutgoingWebResponseContext response = WebOperationContext.Current.OutgoingResponse;
response.StatusCode = System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Forbidden;
response.StatusDescription = ex.Message.Replace("\r\n", "");
return null;
}
}
What is brilliant about this try..catch is that, with minimal changes to your code, it'll add the error text to the HTTP Status, as you can see here in Google Chrome:
If you didn't have this try..catch code, you'd just get an HTTP Status Error of 400, which means "Bad Request".
So now, with our try..catch in place, I can call my web service from my Angular controller, and look out for such error messages coming back.
$http.get('http://localhost:15021/Service1.svc/getAllCustomerNames')
.then(function (data) {
// We successfully loaded the list of Customer names.
$scope.ListOfCustomerNames = data.GetAllCustomerNamesResult;
}, function (errorResponse) {
// The WCF Web Service returned an error
var HTTPErrorNumber = errorResponse.status;
var HTTPErrorStatusText = errorResponse.statusText;
alert("An error occurred whilst fetching Customer Names\r\nHTTP status code: " + HTTPErrorNumber + "\r\nError: " + HTTPErrorStatusText);
});
Cool, hey ?
Incredibly simple, generic, and easy to add to your services.
Shame some readers thought it was worth voting down. Sorry about that.
You have several options:
1) If you are using WCF, throw a FaultException on the server and catch it on the client. You could, for instance, implement a FaultContract on your service, and wrap the exception in a FaultException. Some guidance to this here.
2) You could use the Windows Server AppFabric which would give you more details to the exception within IIS. (requires some fiddling to get it working, though)
3) Why not implement some sort of server-side logging for the exceptions? Even if to a file, it would be invaluable to you to decipher what is really happening. It is not a good practice (especially for security reasons) to rely on the client to convey the inner workings of the server.

Closing WCF connection

We are using WCF service
on the client side we are planning to explicitly close the connection
It seems there are more then one way of closing
Sample1:
In the finally block of the WCF service consumption use
if (client.State == CommunicationState.Faulted)
{
client.Abort();
}
client.Close();
Since if the service is in fault state we will not be able to call close()
Sample2:
using(ClientProxy proxy = new ClientProxy())
{
//call your service methods
}
in sample2 i am not sure what will happen if the service is in fault state, will it throw error closing the connection?
You have all the necessary information at hand - the resulting Best Practice to use and properly close/abort all your WCF client proxies would be:
YourClientProxy clientProxy = new YourClientProxy();
try
{
.. use your service
clientProxy.Close();
}
catch(FaultException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
catch(CommunicationException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
catch (TimeoutException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
Catching the FaultException handles all cases when the service responsded with an error condition (and thus your channel is in a faulted state), and CommunicationException will handle all other communication-related exceptions that can occur, like network connectivity dropping etc.
The approach with the using() block won't work, since if an exception happens at the end of the block, when the Dispose() method calls the Close() method on the client proxy, you have no way to catching and handling that.
The 2nd sample using the "using" block is incorrect. The using block ensures that the Dispose method is called on the proxy object. The Dispose method in turn calls the Close method which will (try to) connect to the service which will throw an exception when the communication state is faulted. So your feelings/hunch are absolutely right. It would be nice if the proxy Dispose method used the code from your first sample but it doesn't so don't use the using block :)
In Juval Lowy's Excellent Programming WCF book he recommends:
try
{
ClientProxy clientProxy = new ClientProxy();
clientProxy.SomeMethod();
clientProxy.Close();
}
catch
{
proxy.Abort();
}
Use sample 1
Here is a good article on why you should not use using:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa355056.aspx

WCF Web Service Custom Exception Error to Client

I would like to throw custom exception like some error message as an exception from WCF web service and trying receiver this exception error message in client app on calling web service method.
how to throw custom exception from WCF web Service and receive same exception error at client side.
WCF Web Service Method:
public bool Read()
{
if (IsUserValid() == false)
{
throw new Exception("Authorized user");
}
}
At Client Side
try
{
_client.Read();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
MessageBox.Show(e.Message);
return;
}
Result: Always throw error message as an exception **i.e.
"System.ServiceModel.FaultException:
The server was unable to process the
request due to an internal error. For
more information about the error,
either turn on
IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults (either
from ServiceBehaviorAttribute or from
the configuration
behavior) on the server in order to
send the exception information back to
the client, or turn on tracing as per
the Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 SDK
documentation and inspect the server
trace logs."
This is code is throwing exception but not returning same error message as thrown from WCF web service as an exception error
Please suggest
In WCF, you should not throw standard .NET exceptions - this is contrary to the potentially interoperable nature of WCF - after all, your client could be a Java or PHP client which has no concept of .NET exceptions.
Instead, you need to throw FaultExceptions (which is the standard behavior for WCF).
If you want to convey back more information about what went wrong, look at the generic FaultException<T> types:
SERVER:
public bool Read()
{
if (IsUserValid() == false)
{
throw new FaultException<InvalidUserFault>("User invalid");
}
}
Or alternatively (as suggested by #MortenNorgaard):
public bool Read()
{
if (!IsUserValid())
{
InvalidUserFault fault = new InvalidUserFault();
FaultReason faultReason = new FaultReason("Invalid user");
throw new FaultException<InvalidUserFault>(fault, faultReason);
}
}
CLIENT:
try
{
_client.Read();
}
catch (FaultException<InvalidUserFault> e)
{
MessageBox.Show(e.Message);
return;
}
You should declare your InvalidUserFault as WCF data contracts and define what members might travel back with that type (i.e. error code, error message etc.).
[DataContract]
[Serializable()]
public class BusinessFault
{
... add your fault members here
}
And you should then decorate your service methods with the possible faults it can throw:
[FaultContract(typeof(InvalidUserFault)]
[OperationContract]
public bool Read()
.....
Of course, the "quick'n'dirty" hack is to simply define that the server returns exception details in its FaultExceptions:
<serviceBehaviors>
<behavior name="EmployeeManager_Behavior">
<serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true"/>
</behavior>
</serviceBehaviors>
and then you can inspect the FaultException's .Detail for the actual exception that happened on the server - but again: this is more of a development-time only hack rather than a real solution.
Marc
To get this to work you need to do two things:
Define the fault contract in the interface (WCF contract)
Throw the exception as a fault exception