Delegate Error Handling
Contents |
deeper into exception handling with Multi-Cast Delegates. As a reminder about how multi-cast delegates work (and what happens if one of the delegate handler methods throws an exception), check out my previous article:Exceptions in Multi-Cast Delegates. delegate handler c# Standard Behavior As a quick review, all delegates in .NET are multi-cast delegates, meaning that multiple methods can be assigned delegate handler web api to a single delegate. When that delegate is invoked, all of the methods get run synchronously in the order that they were assigned. Here are the delegate assignments that we were looking jsonconvert.deserializeobject error handling at before: act += p => Console.WriteLine(p.Average(r => r.Rating).ToString()); act += p => { throw new Exception("Error Here"); }; act += p => Console.WriteLine(p.Min(s => s.StartDate)); When the delegate is invoked normally, the execution stops with the exception in the second method. The third method never gets run. (Check the previous article for details.) The Issue The main issue is that we are rarely on
Newtonsoft Json Deserialize Exception
"both sides" of the delegate. Usually we are either creating methods to assign to a delegate (to hook into an existing framework or API), or we are creating an API with a delegate for other people to use. Think of it from this point of view: Let's assume that we have a publish/subscribe scenario (after all, events are just special kinds of delegates). In that case, we have the publisher (the API providing the delegate to which we can assign methods) and the subscribers (the methods that are assigned). If we are creating subscriber methods, then the solution is easy. We just need to make sure that we don't let any unhandled exception escape our method. If our code is not working correctly, then we need to trap the error and make sure that it doesn't impact any other subscribers. But things are a little more complicated if we are the publisher. As we saw in the previous examples, if there is a misbehaving subscriber, then other subscribers may be impacted. We need to avoid this. If we are responsible for the API, then we need to ensure that we notify
Dates in JSONReducing Serialized JSON SizeDeserializing Partial JSON FragmentsConditional Property SerializationSerialization using ContractResolverDebugging with Serialization TracingSerialization Error Handling Json.NET supports error handling during serialization and deserialization. Error handling lets you catch an error and choose whether to handle it and continue
Json.net Deserialize Exception
with serialization or let the error bubble up and be newtonsoft json error handling thrown in your application.Error handling is defined through two methods: the Error event on JsonSerializer and jsonserializersettings error example the OnErrorAttribute.Error EventThe Error event is an event handler found on JsonSerializer. The error event is raised whenever an exception is thrown while serializing or deserializing JSON. https://jeremybytes.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-delegate-exception-handling.html Like all settings found on JsonSerializer, it can also be set on JsonSerializerSettings and passed to the serialization methods on JsonConvert.Serialization Error HandlingCopy 1List>(@"[ 4 '2009-09-09T00:00:00Z', 5 'I am not a date and will error!', 6 [ 7 1 8 ], 9 '1977-02-20T00:00:00Z', 10 null, http://www.newtonsoft.com/json/help/html/serializationerrorhandling.htm 11 '2000-12-01T00:00:00Z' 12 ]", 13 new JsonSerializerSettings 14 { 15 Error = delegate(object sender, ErrorEventArgs args) 16 { 17 errors.Add(args.ErrorContext.Error.Message); 18 args.ErrorContext.Handled = true; 19 }, 20 Converters = { new IsoDateTimeConverter() } 21 }); 22 23// 2009-09-09T00:00:00Z 24// 1977-02-20T00:00:00Z 25// 2000-12-01T00:00:00Z 26 27// The string was not recognized as a valid DateTime. There is a unknown word starting at index 0. 28// Unexpected token parsing date. Expected String, got StartArray. 29// Cannot convert null value to System.DateTime.In this example we are deserializing a JSON array to a collection of DateTimes. On the JsonSerializerSettings a handler has been assigned to the Error event which will log the error message and mark the error as handled.The result of deserializing the JSON is three successfully deserialized dates and three error messages: one for the badly formatted string ("I am not a date and will error!"), one for the nested JSON array, and one for the null value since the list doe
that the 2.0 update to the language focused on three https://www.bignerdranch.com/blog/error-handling-in-swift-2/ main areas: fundamentals, safety and beautiful code. Out of the https://davidnix.io/post/error-handling-in-go/ list of new features, improvements, polishes and beautifications, one that may impact your Swift 1.x code the most is error handling. That’s because you cannot opt out of it. You must embrace error handling if you want to write error handling Swift 2.0 code, and it will change the way you interact with methods that use NSError in the Cocoa and Cocoa Touch frameworks. A Bit of History: Humble Beginnings As we all know, Swift was created as a modern replacement for Objective-C, the lingua franca for writing OS X delegate error handling and iOS applications. In its earliest releases, Objective-C did not have native exception handling. Exception handling was added later through the NSException class and the NS_DURING, NS_HANDLER and NS_ENDHANDLER macros. This scheme is now known as “classic exception handling,” and the macros are based on the setjmp() and longjmp() C functions. Exception-catching constructs looked as shown below, where any exception thrown within the NS_DURING and NS_HANDLER macros would result in executing the code between the NS_HANDLER and NS_ENDHANDLER macros. NS_DURING // Call a dangerous method or function that raises an exception: [obj someRiskyMethod]; NS_HANDLER NSLog(@"Oh no!"); [anotherObj makeItRight]; NS_ENDHANDLER A quick way to raise an exception is (and this is still available): - (void)someRiskyMethod { [NSException raise:@"Kabl
programmers to Go often critique Go’s error handling. Notice I didn’t say exception handling. Go doesn’t have exceptions, although you can sort of emulate it with panic and recover. But I highly recommend against it. It’s an anti-pattern if used too often. Go has a simpler way of handling when something goes wrong in your program. The Go authors put a lot of thought into error handling. I feel they came up with one of the better solutions out there. It’s simple and elegant. As a refresher, Go allows multiple return values. By convention, if something can go wrong, a function returns an error as its last return value. func ETPhoneHome(msg string) (string, error) { // implementation } An error type is just: type error interface { Error() string } This means any type that implements a method called Error() returning a string satisfies the error interface. The string returned should describe what went wrong. Check out Go’s interfaces if you’re confused. In a lot of sample Go code, you see: response, err := ETPhoneHome("I can't fly this bike forever!") if err != nil { // handle the error, often: return err } // do something with response A lot of programmers have beef with this seemingly constant nil checking: if err != nil { // handle the error } Let’s take a break from Go and compare it to other languages. There’s ye olde classic Java: // Java try { String response = ET.phoneHome("I hate white lab coats.") System.out.println(response); } catch(Exception e) { System.out.println("Exception thrown :" + e); } Or shiny new Swift 2: // Swift // Option 1 do { let response = try ETPhoneHome("Those are guns not walkie talkies!") // process response } catch (let error as NSError) { print("oops", error) } // Option 2: assign to an optional variable let response = try? ETPhoneHome("Halp!") // Option 3: crash the app if an error is thrown let response = try! ETPhoneHome("BOOM") So which is simpler? Do, try, catch and friends? Choosing among several error catching options? Or just: // Go if err != nil { // handle the error } But you could argue, only one caller needs the try/catch dance. Anything downstream could throw exceptions all the live long day. In practice, that’s rarely the case. With Swift, I find myself deciding between do/catch or try? quite often, especially in unit tests. Interpreted languages, like Ruby, are more concise because you aren’t required to handle exceptions at all. Swift and Java won&rsqu