Re: Catching generic exceptions
- From: steve bull <bullsj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:42:52 -0500
it sounds reasonable. Partly I just wanted the ability to log what the error was that occurred. But, it is a useful tool
even though I have found a few of the rules which are just wrong for what I am doing and they have helped to unearth a
few bugs which would have been difficult to find. So, I plan to get the number of errors to a workable number so I can
continue to use it.
Thanks for the input it is interesting to hear of other peoples experience with FxCop.
Sorry I have been rather late in replying. Once I started working on something else I didn't really get chance to reply
sooner.
Steve
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:35:16 +0100, "Michael H?hne" <michael.hoehne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>I do not understand what they expect you to do - ignore unexpected errors?
>
>Well, depending on the type of code where the exception is thrown, the
>answer may be yes. I think that the FxCop warning states somethng like "it
>is usually ok to catch System.Exception in UI applications", because you
>have to display the exception in a user friendly way. However, if you catch
>exceptions in a other pieces of code that are non-GUI applications or do not
>provide any error logging, any unexpected exception should be propagated to
>the caller. The first caller in the call stack then is responsible to
>display the exception message or log it to the event log.
>
>I think that it's nearly impossible to conform to all rules made by FxCop,
>though some of them are pretty good to find code that can be enhanced. In my
>opinion the best way to deal with such warnings is to split your code in
>smaller pieces, so that the UI applications (or whatever application it is
>making the first call to a method that may throw the exception) only contain
>UI-related stuff and all of the needed processing is done in separate class
>libraries. This allows you to ignore the specific warnings only in the
>projects where it makes sense, but you can go on to keep them in other
>projects. However this adds some extra cost to your development. I tried
>FxCop and decided to not use it anymore because it overcomplicates
>development, though I sometimes launch it to find some places I forgot (like
>string constants that should go into resource files, because I usually have
>to write localizable applications).
>
>Michael
>
>"steve bull" <bullsj@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:dep4Q=Cl5xj58QlXTORQBg2nHZm8@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> I realize I can catch a generic exception but FxCop - Microsoft's
>> standards as I understand - generates a "Do not catch general
>> exception types" error/warning. I do not understand what they expect you
>> to do - ignore unexpected errors?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14 Nov 2005 11:40:27 -0800, "BravesCharm" <mastrauckas@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>try
>>>{
>>>//code
>>>}
>>>catch(Exception e)
>>>{
>>>// will catch ALL exceptions.
>>>}
>>
>
.
- References:
- Catching generic exceptions
- From: steve bull
- Catching generic exceptions
- Prev by Date: Video Conferencing C#
- Next by Date: Re: static variables?
- Previous by thread: Catching generic exceptions
- Next by thread: Re: How to run Self extracting ZIP file from C# Application
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
