// Do not remove this try catch block.

Yusuf

try
{
Filtering = !filters.IsEmpty;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Do not remove this try catch block. For some reason this always throws Null reference exception but then works.
}
finally
{
Filtering = !filters.IsEmpty;
}

Oh My eyes :wtf:

Yusuf May I help you?

Lost User

Oh go on, you know you want to.. :laugh:

try
{
Filtering = !filters.IsEmpty;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Filtering = !filters.IsEmpty;
}
finally
{
Filtering = !filters.IsEmpty;
}

Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.

raddevus

I want my filters to be NON-EMPTY!!!! I'll get my filters to be NON-EMPTY!!! :| :laugh: And why not just? :

Filtering = true;

If it throwing an exception on that, then maybe it is the Filtering var that is undefined?

Lost User

Hammer. Bigger Hammer. Biggest Hammer. :laugh:

Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.

PIEBALDconsult

At least make it catch only null reference exceptions? And let Bob sort out the rest?

Lost User

Hmmm, I can infer from this snippet that the filters variable is most likely a CString[^] member variable which is being modified/accessed by multiple threads. Am I right? :) Best Wishes, -David Delaune

Bernhard Hiller

I am trying to figure out how that can work. What about

private Something _filters;
private Something filters
{
get
{
if (_filters == null)
{
Task.Run(() => CreateFilters());
}
return _filters;
}
}
private void CreateFilters()
{
// somehow instantiates a Something and sets the _filters member
}

That could cause such a strange behavior, couldn't it? :-D

KBZX5000

Just remove the try-catch and stack-trace the exception. I don't see the problem. o7

Plamen Dragiyski

I think he might not know what Multi-Threaded Programming is.

maze3

OMG that is terrible

try {
Filtering = !filters.IsEmpty;
}
catch(Exception ex) {
// Do not remove this try catch block. For some reason this always throws Null reference exception but then works.
}
finally {
Filtering = !filters.IsEmpty;
}

kristopher baker

My guess is that either "filters" isn't instantiated or is getting instantiated at the same time that it is being called. What is happening when "IsEmpty" is called? It might be trying to kick something off when it is called.

Middle Manager

I second that request. Can we be shown the IsEmpty code please? Can't be too many company secrets hidden in there... god, please say there isn't! :omg:

agolddog

Outside of that... Who knows the context, but I'm going to guess that filters is a private member property, and Filtering is exposed. Why wouldn't someone just make Filtering a public, get-only convenience property then, rather than setting some piece of data, where we now have to maintain two things?

Bernhard Hiller

Exactly. But somewhere he read something about lazy initialization, and somewhere else he saw a Task.Run, understood neither of them, and ... Welcome to the wonderful world of code monkeys who've used every programming concept during their career. :^)

User 11277767

public bool IsEmpty
{
get {
try {
return _filters.IsEmpty();
}
catch (NullReferenceException e)
{
InstantiateFilters();
throw new NullReferenceException("Try it again now please.");
}
}
}