What should you do if assigning is going to crash your application?
-
And before that:
if (this == null)
{
throw new NullReferenceException();
}And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse.Don't forget this fella:
Microsoft.Win32.SystemEvents.SessionEnding += (a,b) =>
{
MessageBox.Show("An expected error occurred.");
}Don't forget to rate my post if it helped! ;) "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." "His mother should have thrown him away, and kept the stork." "There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure." "He loves nature, in spite of what it did to him."
-
Another coding horror. Have you ever thought that usual assigning operation, like
a=b, can crash your application? Not yet? You gotta be ready. One of my teammates has already prepared:public class InspectionMethod { private string name\_; \[XmlElementAttribute()\] public string Name { get { return name\_; } set { name\_ = value; } } //This method is the most interesting part public void Resuscitate() { try { name\_ = this.Name; } catch (Exception ex) { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Serialization error has happened.", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Exclamation); } } }And indeed, never forget about message boxes. User must be warned, right?
Won't
((InspectionMethod*)BadPointer)->Resuscitate()raise the exception ? -
Don't forget this fella:
Microsoft.Win32.SystemEvents.SessionEnding += (a,b) =>
{
MessageBox.Show("An expected error occurred.");
}Don't forget to rate my post if it helped! ;) "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." "His mother should have thrown him away, and kept the stork." "There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure." "He loves nature, in spite of what it did to him."
And this, at least if we have multithreaded code:
catch(ThreadAbortException x)
{
throw;
}For one thing,it would lessen the appearance of doing Pokemon exception handling (You must catch them all!) and it may have strange side effects to let this exception simply disappear.
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse. -
Another coding horror. Have you ever thought that usual assigning operation, like
a=b, can crash your application? Not yet? You gotta be ready. One of my teammates has already prepared:public class InspectionMethod { private string name\_; \[XmlElementAttribute()\] public string Name { get { return name\_; } set { name\_ = value; } } //This method is the most interesting part public void Resuscitate() { try { name\_ = this.Name; } catch (Exception ex) { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Serialization error has happened.", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Exclamation); } } }And indeed, never forget about message boxes. User must be warned, right?
While this is obviously dumb code, in C# and Delphi (and any other language with property support like VB.net), a 'simple assignment' is essentially calling a method so it is as possible to have crash-inducing code in there as it is anywhere else. Particularly if it's something like "myReallyComplicatedRemotingThingy.Connected = true".
-
And this, at least if we have multithreaded code:
catch(ThreadAbortException x)
{
throw;
}For one thing,it would lessen the appearance of doing Pokemon exception handling (You must catch them all!) and it may have strange side effects to let this exception simply disappear.
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse.It's not only Pokemon exception handling, Smurf naming convention is also widely used in the application I took the snippet from. I just removed it from class name, because it leads in some way to the source of the snippet.
-
While this is obviously dumb code, in C# and Delphi (and any other language with property support like VB.net), a 'simple assignment' is essentially calling a method so it is as possible to have crash-inducing code in there as it is anywhere else. Particularly if it's something like "myReallyComplicatedRemotingThingy.Connected = true".
The source code for the property is included. If that causes a crash, you have bigger problems.
Don't forget to rate my post if it helped! ;) "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." "His mother should have thrown him away, and kept the stork." "There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure." "He loves nature, in spite of what it did to him."
-
The source code for the property is included. If that causes a crash, you have bigger problems.
Don't forget to rate my post if it helped! ;) "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." "His mother should have thrown him away, and kept the stork." "There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure." "He loves nature, in spite of what it did to him."
Yes, obviously in the posted example the developer is just an idiot. Just saying, an assignment sign doesn't automatically make a line of code crash-proof. Even a property getter (which looks totally innocuous) can break stuff, though one can argue that that is bad style in itself (Microsoft do it though, for example trying to read Length out of an unbounded stream).
-
Another coding horror. Have you ever thought that usual assigning operation, like
a=b, can crash your application? Not yet? You gotta be ready. One of my teammates has already prepared:public class InspectionMethod { private string name\_; \[XmlElementAttribute()\] public string Name { get { return name\_; } set { name\_ = value; } } //This method is the most interesting part public void Resuscitate() { try { name\_ = this.Name; } catch (Exception ex) { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Serialization error has happened.", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Exclamation); } } }And indeed, never forget about message boxes. User must be warned, right?
too sad you can't override the assignment operator in c#
-
Another coding horror. Have you ever thought that usual assigning operation, like
a=b, can crash your application? Not yet? You gotta be ready. One of my teammates has already prepared:public class InspectionMethod { private string name\_; \[XmlElementAttribute()\] public string Name { get { return name\_; } set { name\_ = value; } } //This method is the most interesting part public void Resuscitate() { try { name\_ = this.Name; } catch (Exception ex) { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Serialization error has happened.", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Exclamation); } } }And indeed, never forget about message boxes. User must be warned, right?
I love the error message!
VUnreal wrote:
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Serialization error has happened.", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Exclamation);
That's assuming an error is thrown. (I've seen the computer do impossible things several times, so I wouldn't put it past it.) Serialization isn't happening here. No information about where it is happening. Oh shoot, it has ex.Message in it. at first I thought it wouldn't even tell you what was wrong. Oh, lets throw in an icon to show this is an important error message. The name of the routine is interesting. You're in a type safe environment that has an invalid type passed into the string and you are going to "fix" it by passing the invalid type back into the string. Really "advanced" thinking going on here.
-
And before that:
if (this == null)
{
throw new NullReferenceException();
}And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse.CDP1802 wrote:
if (this == null) { throw new NullReferenceException(); }
You don't know how hard we laughed when we found such one in code library.
Regards Vallarasu S | BreakingDotNet.blogspot.com