C# – Globally catch exceptions in a WPF application

cexceptionexception handlingwpf

We are having a WPF application where parts of it may throw exceptions at runtime. I'd like to globally catch any unhandled exception and log them, but otherwise continue program execution as if nothing happened (kinda like VB's On Error Resume Next).

Is this possible in C#? And if so, where exactly would I need to put the exception handling code?

Currently I can't see any single point where I could wrap a try/catch around and which would catch all exceptions that could occur. And even then I would have left whatever has been executed because of the catch. Or am I thinking in horribly wrong directions here?

ETA: Because many people below pointed it out: The application is not for controlling nuclear power plants. If it crashes it's not that much a big deal but random exceptions that are mostly UI-related are a nuisance in the context where it would be used. There were (and probably still are) a few of those and since it uses a plugin architecture and may be extended by others (also students in that case; so no experienced developers that are able to write completely error-free code).

As for the exceptions that get caught: I do log them to a log file, including the complete stack trace. That was the whole point of that exercise. Just to counter those people that were taking my analogy to VB's OERN too literally.

I know that blindly ignoring certain classes of errors is dangerous and might corrupt my application instance. As said before, this program isn't mission-critical for anyone. No-one in their right mind would bet the survival of the human civilization on it. It's simply a little tool for testing certain design approaches wrt. software engineering.

For the immediate use of the application there are not many things that can happen on an exception:

No exception handling – error dialog and application exit. Experiment has to be repeated, though likely with another subject. No errors have been logged, which is unfortunate.
Generic exception handling – benign error trapped, no harm done. This should be the common case judged from all errors we were seeing during development. Ignoring this kind of errors should have no immediate consequences; the core data structures are tested well enough that they will easily survive this.
Generic exception handling – serious error trapped, possibly crash at a later point. This may happen rarely. We've never seen it so far. The error is logged anyway and a crash might be inevitable. So this is conceptually similar to the very first case. Except that we have a stack trace. And in the majority of cases the user won't even notice.

As for the experiment data generated by the program: A serious error would at worst just cause no data to be recorded. Subtle changes that change the result of the experiment ever so slightly are pretty unlikely. And even in that case, if the results seem dubious the error was logged; one can still throw away that data point if it's a total outlier.

To summarize: Yes, I consider myself still at least partially sane and I don't consider a global exception handling routine which leaves the program running to be necessarily totally evil. As said twice before, such a decision might be valid, depending on the application. In this case it was judged a valid decision and not total and utter bullshit. For any other application that decision might look different. But please don't accuse me or the other people who worked on that project to potentially blow up the world just because we're ignoring errors.

Side note: There is exactly one user for that application. It's not something like Windows or Office that gets used by millions where the cost of having exceptions bubble to the user at all would be very different in the first place already.

Best Answer

Use the Application.DispatcherUnhandledException Event. See this question for a summary (see Drew Noakes' answer).

Be aware that there'll be still exceptions which preclude a successful resuming of your application, like after a stack overflow, exhausted memory, or lost network connectivity while you're trying to save to the database.

Related Solutions

C# – Catch multiple exceptions at once

Catch System.Exception and switch on the types

catch (Exception ex)            
{                
    if (ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException)
    {
        WebId = Guid.Empty;
        return;
    }
    
    throw;
}

Java – What are the effects of exceptions on performance in Java

It depends how exceptions are implemented. The simplest way is using setjmp and longjmp. That means all registers of the CPU are written to the stack (which already takes some time) and possibly some other data needs to be created... all this already happens in the try statement. The throw statement needs to unwind the stack and restore the values of all registers (and possible other values in the VM). So try and throw are equally slow, and that is pretty slow, however if no exception is thrown, exiting the try block takes no time whatsoever in most cases (as everything is put on the stack which cleans up automatically if the method exists).

Sun and others recognized, that this is possibly suboptimal and of course VMs get faster and faster over the time. There is another way to implement exceptions, which makes try itself lightning fast (actually nothing happens for try at all in general - everything that needs to happen is already done when the class is loaded by the VM) and it makes throw not quite as slow. I don't know which JVM uses this new, better technique...

...but are you writing in Java so your code later on only runs on one JVM on one specific system? Since if it may ever run on any other platform or any other JVM version (possibly of any other vendor), who says they also use the fast implementation? The fast one is more complicated than the slow one and not easily possible on all systems. You want to stay portable? Then don't rely on exceptions being fast.

It also makes a big difference what you do within a try block. If you open a try block and never call any method from within this try block, the try block will be ultra fast, as the JIT can then actually treat a throw like a simple goto. It neither needs to save stack-state nor does it need to unwind the stack if an exception is thrown (it only needs to jump to the catch handlers). However, this is not what you usually do. Usually you open a try block and then call a method that might throw an exception, right? And even if you just use the try block within your method, what kind of method will this be, that does not call any other method? Will it just calculate a number? Then what for do you need exceptions? There are much more elegant ways to regulate program flow. For pretty much anything else but simple math, you will have to call an external method and this already destroys the advantage of a local try block.

See the following test code:

public class Test {
    int value;


    public int getValue() {
        return value;
    }

    public void reset() {
        value = 0;
    }

    // Calculates without exception
    public void method1(int i) {
        value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
        // Will never be true
        if ((i & 0xFFFFFFF) == 1000000000) {
            System.out.println("You'll never see this!");
        }
    }

    // Could in theory throw one, but never will
    public void method2(int i) throws Exception {
        value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
        // Will never be true
        if ((i & 0xFFFFFFF) == 1000000000) {
            throw new Exception();
        }
    }

    // This one will regularly throw one
    public void method3(int i) throws Exception {
        value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
        // i & 1 is equally fast to calculate as i & 0xFFFFFFF; it is both
        // an AND operation between two integers. The size of the number plays
        // no role. AND on 32 BIT always ANDs all 32 bits
        if ((i & 0x1) == 1) {
            throw new Exception();
        }
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int i;
        long l;
        Test t = new Test();

        l = System.currentTimeMillis();
        t.reset();
        for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
            t.method1(i);
        }
        l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
        System.out.println(
            "method1 took " + l + " ms, result was " + t.getValue()
        );

        l = System.currentTimeMillis();
        t.reset();
        for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
            try {
                t.method2(i);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                System.out.println("You'll never see this!");
            }
        }
        l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
        System.out.println(
            "method2 took " + l + " ms, result was " + t.getValue()
        );

        l = System.currentTimeMillis();
        t.reset();
        for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
            try {
                t.method3(i);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                // Do nothing here, as we will get here
            }
        }
        l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
        System.out.println(
            "method3 took " + l + " ms, result was " + t.getValue()
        );
    }
}

Result:

method1 took 972 ms, result was 2
method2 took 1003 ms, result was 2
method3 took 66716 ms, result was 2

The slowdown from the try block is too small to rule out confounding factors such as background processes. But the catch block killed everything and made it 66 times slower!

As I said, the result will not be that bad if you put try/catch and throw all within the same method (method3), but this is a special JIT optimization I would not rely upon. And even when using this optimization, the throw is still pretty slow. So I don't know what you are trying to do here, but there is definitely a better way of doing it than using try/catch/throw.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

C# – Catch multiple exceptions at once

Java – What are the effects of exceptions on performance in Java

Related Topic