General Exception Handling Strategy for .NET

c# .net exception-handling exception-logging
Bob Horn picture Bob Horn · Jun 26, 2009 · Viewed 7.3k times · Source

I’m used to having try/catch blocks in every method. The reason for this is so that I can catch every exception at the point of infraction and log it. I understand, from my reading and conversations with others, that this isn’t a popular view. One should only catch what one is prepared to handle. However, if I don’t catch at the point of infraction, then it would be possible to never log that infraction and know about it. Note: When I do catch and don’t handle, I still throw. This allows me to let the exception propagate to something that will handle it, yet still let me log it at the point of infraction.

So... How does one avoid try/catch in every method, yet still log the error at the point at which it occurred?

Answer

John Saunders picture John Saunders · Jun 26, 2009

No, don't catch everything. Exceptions propagate higher up on the stack. All you have to do is make sure that the exception is caught before it gets to the top of the stack.

This means, for instance, that you should surround the code of an event handler with a try/catch block. An event handler may be the "top of the stack". Same for a ThreadStart handler or a callback from an asynchronous method.

You also want to catch exceptions on layer boundaries, though in that case, you might just want to wrap the exception in a layer-specific exception.

In the case of ASP.NET, you may decide to allow ASP.NET Health Monitoring to log the exception for you.

But you certainly don't ever need to catch exceptions in every method. That's a major anti-pattern. I would loudly object to you checking in code with that kind of exception handling.

Related questions

Catch multiple exceptions at once?

It is discouraged to simply catch System.Exception. Instead, only the "known" exceptions should be caught. Now, this sometimes leads to unneccessary repetitive code, for example: try { WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]); } catch (FormatException) { WebId = Guid.Empty; } catch (OverflowException) { WebId = …

Read More
How using try catch for exception handling is best practice

while maintaining my colleague's code from even someone who claims to be a senior developer, I often see the following code: try { //do something } catch { //Do nothing } or sometimes they write logging information to log files like following try catch …

Read More
Is there a difference between "throw" and "throw ex"?

There are some posts that asks what the difference between those two are already. (why do I have to even mention this...) But my question is different in a way that I am calling "throw ex" in another error god-like …

Read More