I've been through a very similar situation when I had to deal with a terrible legacy Windows Forms code written by developers that clearly didn't know what they were doing.
First of all, you're not overacting. This is bad code. Like you said, the catch block should be about aborting and preparing to stop. It's not time to create objects (specially Panels). I can't even start explaining why this is bad.
That being said...
My first advice is: if it's not broken, don't touch it!
If your job is to maintain the code you have to do your best not to break it. I know it's painful (I've been there) but you have to do your best not to break what is already working.
My second advice is: if you have to add more features, try keeping the existing code structure as much as possible so you don't break the code.
Example: if there's a hideous switch-case statement that you feel could be replaced by proper inheritance, you must be careful and think twice before you decide to start moving things around.
You will definitely find situations where a refactoring is the right approach but beware: refactoring code is more likely to introduce bugs. You have to make that decision from the application owners perspective, not from the developer perspective. So you have to think if the effort (money) necessary to fix the problem is worth a refactoring or not. I've seen many times a developer spending several days fixing something that is not really broken just because he thinks "the code is ugly".
My third advice is: you will get burned if you break the code, it doesn't matter if it's your fault or not.
If you've been hired to give maintenance it doesn't really matter if the application is falling apart because somebody else made bad decisions. From the user perspective it was working before and now you broke it. You broke it!
Joel puts very well in his article explaining several reasons why you should not rewrite legacy code.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
So you should feel really bad about that kind of code (and you should never write anything like that) but maintaining it is a whole different monster.
About my experience: I had to maintain the code for about 1 year and eventually I was able to rewrite it from scratch but not all at once.
What happened is that the code was so bad that new features were impossible to implement. The existing application had serious performance and usability issues. Eventually I was asked to make a change that would take me 3-4 months (mostly because working with that code took me way more time than usual). I thought I could rewrite that whole piece (including implementing the desired new feature) in about 5-6 months. I brought this proposition to the stakeholders and they agree to rewrite it (luckily for me).
After I rewrote this piece they understood I could deliver much better stuff than what they already had. So I was able to rewrite the entire application.
My approach was to rewrite it piece by piece. First I replaced the entire UI (Windows Forms), then I started to replace the communication layer (Web Service calls) and last I replaced the entire Server implementation (it was a thick client / server kind of application).
A couple years later and this application has turned into a beautiful key tool used by the entire company. I'm 100% sure that would've never been possible had I not rewritten the whole thing.
Even though I was able to do it the important part is that the stakeholders approved it and I was able to convince them it was worth the money. So while you have to maintain the existing application just do your best not to break anything and if you're able to convince the owners about the benefit of rewriting it then try to do it like Jack the Ripper: by pieces.
Best Answer
There is nothing in the code you quoted which prevents it from being covered by unit tests.
The presence of
try
/catch
is irrelevant:You can test the situation where there is no error and check whether the side effects of this method correspond to the expectations.
You can also test the situation where an exception is produced, and ensure that the expected message is indeed logged (hopefully, the logging framework can be replaced with a mock.)
This means that you can get a 100% branch coverage despite the global catch of the exception. Talking about the global catch, this is not something you really want in your code base (unless there is a
throw
inside acatch
), but this has nothing to do with unit tests.This would apply as well if the method was catching only a specific exception, say
FileNotFoundException
, but there could be other exceptions thrown, such asStackOverflowException
. You can then have three tests:The ordinary situation with expected side effects,
The situation where
FileNotFoundException
is thrown and the expected log message is added,The situation where
StackOverflowException
is thrown; any decent unit testing framework allows you to test that the exception is effectively thrown in a tested case (and the test will fail if the method doesn't throw the expected exception).By “do not throw exceptions”, I suppose you rather mean “catch all the exceptions”.
Catching exceptions has nothing wrong as soon as the method knows how to deal with the exceptional cases. For instance, a method which accesses the configuration file and encounters
FileNotFoundException
may fallback to default configuration instead, without reporting any exception to the caller. This is fine.Catching exceptions globally (that is
catch (Exception)
) is slightly more problematic. Cases where methods are able to deal with any exceptional situation are very rare. There are still two exceptions:A method can catch any exception, and then throw the same exception (preferably without breaking the stack). This, for instance, enables logging: a method logs an exception, and then lets the caller deal with it.
A method which is on top of the stack can catch any exception, because the choice is rather limited: either you catch the exception, or you let the program crash. The developers may prefer in this case to catch everything, even exceptions they can't deal with, and, for instance, present the user with a user-friendly dialog box which makes it possible to report the exception to developers' team.