From the finally section here: http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.4/manual/control-flow/#finally-clauses, they are using this example:
f = open("file")
try
# operate on file f
finally
close(f)
end
When I run similar code in REPL, this happens:
julia> f = open("myfile.txt")
IOStream(<file myfile.txt>)
julia> try
sqrt(-10)
finally
close(f)
end
ERROR: DomainError:
[inlined code] from none:2
in anonymous at no file:0
Any idea what's the difference?
finally does not catch exceptions. It's for guaranteeing that cleanup steps happen regardless of whether an exception occurred or not. Note the difference between:
try
sqrt(-10)
catch
println("Exception swallowed!")
end
and
try
sqrt(-10)
finally
println("This cleanup happened regardless of whether an exception was thrown.")
end
Often one combines catch and finally:
try
sqrt(-10)
catch
println("Swallowed exception.")
finally
println("...but finally ran regardless.")
end
finally has still done it's job here in the sense that the close() operation has been carried out. You can check this in your code by adding isopen(f) which returns false. You get the error though because you tried to do something that produced it.
try block is always followed by the catch block. in your program you forget to put catch block before finally block.
Related
I have a piece of code that I run and I want to execute some code on the exit of a function, e.g. to close a connection.
fn(io) = begin
write(io)
# do lots of stuff which can fail
...
# want close connection
on_exit(()->close(io))
end
For this particular example you would probably use a do block:
open("myfile.txt", "w") do io
write(io, "Hello world!")
end
In the more general case you can use finally. From the docstring:
Run some code when a given block of code exits, regardless of how
it exits. For
example, here is how we can guarantee that an opened file is closed:
f = open("file")
try
operate_on_file(f)
finally
close(f)
end
I am trying to stack multiple exception conditionals into a single line. How can I do this in Julia?
You need to check the type of the error in the catch block, usually using an if-else tree. Anything else will naturally follow from the if-else syntax.
Here's what I would consider the "canonical" way of doing it:
try
# throw some error here
catch e
if e isa ErrorException
# do something
elseif e isa ArgumentError
print("So much for multiple dispatch")
else
rethrow(e)
end
end
You could shrink this into one line using the ternary operator, but it's probably not worth it.
On pp. 260-263 of Programming in Lua (4th ed.), the author discusses how to implement "sandboxing" (i.e. the running of untrusted code) in Lua.
When it comes to imposing limiting the functions that untrusted code can run, he recommends a "whitelist approach":
We should never think in terms of what functions to remove, but what functions to add.
This question is about tools and techniques for putting this suggestion into practice. (I expect there will be confusion on this point I want to emphasize it upfront.)
The author gives the following code as an illustration of a sandbox program based on a whitelist of allowed functions. (I have added or moved around some comments, and removed some blank lines, but I've copied the executable content verbatim from the book).
-- From p. 263 of *Programming in Lua* (4th ed.)
-- Listing 25.6. Using hooks to bar calls to unauthorized functions
local debug = require "debug"
local steplimit = 1000 -- maximum "steps" that can be performed
local count = 0 -- counter for steps
local validfunc = { -- set of authorized functions
[string.upper] = true,
[string.lower] = true,
... -- other authorized functions
}
local function hook (event)
if event == "call" then
local info = debug.getinfo(2, "fn")
if not validfunc[info.func] then
error("calling bad function: " .. (info.name or "?"))
end
end
count = count + 1
if count > steplimit then
error("script uses too much CPU")
end
end
local f = assert(loadfile(arg[1], "t", {})) -- load chunk
debug.sethook(hook, "", 100) -- set hook
f() -- run chunk
Right off the bat I am puzzled by this code, since the hook tests for event type (if event == "call" then...), and yet, when the hook is set, only count events are requested (debug.sethook(hook, "", 100)). Therefore, the whole song-and-dance with validfunc is for naught.
Maybe it is a typo. So I tried experimenting with this code, but I found it very difficult to put the whitelist technique in practice. The example below is a very simplified illustration of the type of problems I ran into.
First, here is a slightly modified version of the author's code.
#!/usr/bin/env lua5.3
-- Filename: sandbox
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
local debug = require "debug"
local steplimit = 1000 -- maximum "steps" that can be performed
local count = 0 -- counter for steps
local validfunc = { -- set of authorized functions
[string.upper] = true,
[string.lower] = true,
[io.stdout.write] = true,
-- ... -- other authorized functions
}
local function hook (event)
if event == "call" then
local info = debug.getinfo(2, "fnS")
if not validfunc[info.func] then
error(string.format("calling bad function (%s:%d): %s",
info.short_src, info.linedefined, (info.name or "?")))
end
end
count = count + 1
if count > steplimit then
error("script uses too much CPU")
end
end
local f = assert(loadfile(arg[1], "t", {})) -- load chunk
validfunc[f] = true
debug.sethook(hook, "c", 100) -- set hook
f() -- run chunk
The most significant differences in the second snippet relative to the first one are:
the call to debug.sethook has "c" as mask;
the f function for the loaded chunk gets added to the validfunc whitelist;
io.stdout.write is added to the validfunc whitelist;
When I use this sandbox program to run the one-line script shown below:
# Filename: helloworld.lua
io.stdout:write("Hello, World!\n")
...I get the following error:
% ./sandbox helloworld.lua
lua5.3: ./sandbox:20: calling bad function ([C]:-1): __index
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'error'
./sandbox:20: in function <./sandbox:16>
[C]: in metamethod '__index'
helloworld.lua:3: in local 'f'
./sandbox:34: in main chunk
[C]: in ?
I tried to fix this by adding the following to validfunc:
[getmetatable(io.stdout).__index] = true,
...but I still get pretty much the same error. I could go on guessing and trying more things to add, but this is what I would like to avoid.
I have two related questions:
What can I add to validfunc so that sandbox will run helloworld (as is) to completion?
More importantly, what is a systematic way to find determine what to add to a whitelist table?
Part (2) is the heart of this post. I am looking for tools/techniques that remove the guesswork from the problem of populating a whitelist table.
(I know that I can get helloworld to work if I replace io.stdout:write with print, register print in sandbox's validfunc, and pass {print = print} as the last argument to loadfile, but doing this does not answer the general question of how to systematically determine what needs to be added to the whitelist to allow some specific code to work in the sandbox.)
EDIT: Ask #DarkWiiPlayer pointed out, the calling bad function error is being triggered by the calling of an unregistered function (__index?), which happened as part of the response to an earlier attempt to index a nil value error. So, this post's questions are all about systematically determining what to add to validfunc to allow Lua to emit the attempt to index a nil value error normally.
I should add that the question of which function's call triggered the hook's execution responsible for the calling bad function error message is at the moment completely unclear. This error message blames the error on __index, but I suspect that this may be a red herring, possibly due to a bug in Lua.
Why suspect a bug in Lua? If I change the error call in sandbox slightly to
error(string.format("calling bad function (%s:%d): %s (%s)",
info.short_src, info.linedefined, (info.name or "?"),
info.func))
...then the error message looks like this:
lua5.3: ./sandbox:20: calling bad function ([C]:-1): __index (function: 0x55b391b79ef0)
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'error'
./sandbox:20: in function <./sandbox:16>
[C]: in metamethod '__index'
helloworld.lua:3: in local 'f'
./sandbox:34: in main chunk
[C]: in ?
Nothing surprising there, but if now I change helloworld.lua to
# Filename: helloworld.lua
nonexistent()
io.stdout:write("Hello, World!\n")
...and run it under sandbox, the error message becomes
lua5.3: ./sandbox:20: calling bad function ([C]:-1): nonexistent (function: 0x556a161cdef0)
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'error'
./sandbox:20: in function <./sandbox:16>
[C]: in global 'nonexistent'
helloworld.lua:3: in local 'f'
./sandbox:34: in main chunk
[C]: in ?
From this error message, one may conclude that nonexistent is a real function; after all, it's sitting right there at 0x556a161cdef0! But we know that nonexistent lives up to its name: it doesn't exist!
The whiff of a bug is definitely in the air. It could be that the function that is triggering the hook should really be excluded from those that trigger such "c"-masked hooks? Be that as it may, it appears that, in this particular situation, the call to debug.info is returning inconsistent information (since the name of the function [e.g. nonexistent] clearly does not correspond at all to the actual function object [e.g. function: 0x556a161cdef0] that is supposedly triggering the hook).
(Final answer at the bottom, feel free to skip until the <hr> line)
I'll explain my debugging step by step.
This is a really weird phenomenon. After some testing, I've managed to narrow it down a bit:
Since you pass {} to load, the function runs with an empty environment, so io is, in fact, nil (and io.stdout would error anyway)
The error happens directly when attempting to index io (which is a nil value)
The functio __index is a C function (see error message)
My first intuition was that __index was called somewhere internally. Thus, to find out what it does, I decided to look at its locals in hopes of guessing what it does.
A quick helper function I threw together:
local function locals(f)
return function(f, n)
local name, value = debug.getlocal(f+1, n)
if name then
return n+1, name, value
end
end, f, 1
end
Insert that right before the line where the error is raised:
for idx, name, value in locals(2) do
print(name, value)
end
error(string.format("calling bad function (%s:%d): %s", info.short_src, info.linedefined, (info.name or "?")))
This led to an interesting result:
(*temporary) stdin:43: attempt to index a nil value (global 'io')
(*temporary) table: 0x563cef2fd170
lua: stdin:29: calling bad function ([C]:-1): __index
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'error'
stdin:29: in function <stdin:21>
[C]: in metamethod '__index'
stdin:43: in function 'f'
stdin:49: in main chunk
[C]: in ?
shell returned 1
Why is there a temporary string value with a completely different error message?
By the way, this error makes total sense; io does not exist because of the empty environment, so indexing it should obviously raise just that error.
It's honestly a very interesting error, but I'll leave it at this, as you're learning the language and this hint might be enough for you to figure it out on your own. It's also a very nice chance to actually use (and get to know) the debug module in a more practical context.
Actual Solution
After some time has now passed, I came back to add a proper solution to this problem, but I really already did just that. The weird error reporting is just Lua being weird. The real error is the empty environment that's set when loading the chunk, as I mentioned a few paragraphs above.
From the manual:
load (chunk [, chunkname [, mode [, env]]])
Loads a chunk.
[...]
If the resulting function has upvalues, the first upvalue is set to the value of env, if that parameter is given, or to the value of the global environment. Other upvalues are initialized with nil. (When you load a main chunk, the resulting function will always have exactly one upvalue, the _ENV variable (see §2.2). However, when you load a binary chunk created from a function (see string.dump), the resulting function can have an arbitrary number of upvalues.) All upvalues are fresh, that is, they are not shared with any other function.
[...]
Now, in a "main chunk", i.e. one loaded from a text Lua file, the first (and only) upvalue is always the environment of the chunk, so where it will look for "globals" (this is slightly different in Lua 5.1). Since an empty table is passed in, the chunk has no access to any of the global variables like string or io.
Therefore, when the function f() tries to index io, Lua throws an error "attempt to index a nil value", because io is nil. For whatever reason Lua then makes some internal function calls that end up triggering the blacklist, causing a new error that shadows the previous one; this makes debugging this error extremely inconvenient and almost impossible without using the debug library to get additional information about the call stack.
I ultimately only realized this myself after I noticed the original error message while looking at the locals of the function that made the blocked call.
I hope this solves the problem :)
Is it possible to try using a package?
try
using A
catch e
showerror(STDOUT, e)
end
unsupported or misplaced expression using
I am expecting to see error message like
using A
LoadError: ArgumentError: A not found in path
using is only allowed at the top level scope. A workaround can be to use eval(:(using A)) instead of using A and then the try-catch works as expected.
The difference comes from using eval which evaluates its expression argument in the top level scope.
julia> try
eval(:(using A))
catch e
showerror(STDOUT, e)
end
ArgumentError: A not found in path
What is good practice for error handling in math-related functions? I'm building up a library (module) of specialized functions and my main purpose is to make debugging easier for the code calling these functions -- not to make a shiny user-friendly error handling facility.
Below is a simple example in VBA, but I'm interested in hearing from other languages as well. I'm not quite sure where I should be returning an error message/status/flag. As an extra argument?
Function AddArrays(arr1, arr2)
Dim i As Long
Dim result As Variant
' Some error trapping code here, e.g.
' - Are input arrays of same size?
' - Are input arrays numeric? (can't add strings, objects...)
' - Etc.
' If no errors found, do the actual work...
ReDim result(LBound(arr1) To UBound(arr1))
For i = LBound(arr1) To UBound(arr1)
result(i) = arr1(i) + arr2(i)
Next i
AddArrays = result
End Function
or something like the following. The function returns a boolean "success" flag (as in the example below, which would return False if the input arrays weren't numeric etc.), or an error number/message of some other type.
Function AddArrays(arr1, arr2, result) As Boolean
' same code as above
AddArrays = booSuccess
End Function
However I'm not too crazy about this, since it ruins the nice and readable calling syntax, i.e. can't say c = AddArrays(a,b) anymore.
I'm open to suggestions!
Obviously error handling in general is a big topic, and what the best practice is depends a lot on the capabilities of the language you're working with and how the routine you're coding fits in with other routines. So I'll constrain my answer to VBA (used within Excel) and library-type routines of the sort you're describing.
Exceptions vs. Error Codes in Library Routines
In this case, I would not use a return code. VBA supports a form of exception handling that, while not as powerful as the more standard form found in C++/Java/??.NET, is pretty similar. So the advice from those languages generally applies. You use exceptions to tell calling routines that the called routine can't do it's job for whatever reason. You handle exceptions at the lowest level where you can do something meaningful about that failue.
Bjarne Stroustrup gives a very good explanation of why exceptions are better than error codes for this kind of situation in this book. (The book is about C++, but the principles behind C++ exception handling and VBA error handling are the same.)
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/3rd.html
Here is a nice excerpt from Section 8.3:
When a program is composed of separate
modules, and especially when those
modules come from separately developed
libraries, error handling needs to be
separated into two distinct parts: [1]
The reporting of error conditions that
cannot be resolved locally [2] The
handling of errors detected elsewhere
The author of a library can detect
runtime errors but does not in general
have any idea what to do about them.
The user of a library may know how to
cope with such errors but cannot
detect them – or else they would be
handled in the user’s code and not
left for the library to find.
Sections 14.1 and 14.9 also address exceptions vs. error codes in a library context. (There is a copy of the book online at archive.org.)
There is probably lots more about this on stackoverflow. I just found this, for example:
Exception vs. error-code vs. assert
(There can be pitfalls involving proper management of resources that must be cleaned up when using exceptions, but they don't really apply here.)
Exceptions in VBA
Here is how raising an exception looks in VBA (although the VBA terminology is "raising an error"):
Function AddArrays(arr1, arr2)
Dim i As Long
Dim result As Variant
' Some error finding code here, e.g.
' - Are input arrays of same size?
' - Are input arrays numeric? (can't add strings, objects...)
' - Etc.
'Assume errorsFound is a variable you populated above...
If errorsFound Then
Call Err.Raise(SOME_BAD_INPUT_CONSTANT) 'See help about the VBA Err object. (SOME_BAD_INPUT_CONSTANT is something you would have defined.)
End If
' If no errors found, do the actual work...
ReDim result(LBound(arr1) To UBound(arr1))
For i = LBound(arr1) To UBound(arr1)
result(i) = arr1(i) + arr2(i)
Next i
AddArrays = result
End Function
If this routine doesn't catch the error, VBA will give other routines above it in the call stack a chance to (See this: VBA Error "Bubble Up"). Here is how a caller might do so:
Public Function addExcelArrays(a1, a2)
On Error Goto EH
addExcelArrays = AddArrays(a1, a2)
Exit Function
EH:
'ERR_VBA_TYPE_MISMATCH isn't defined by VBA, but it's value is 13...
If Err.Number = SOME_BAD_INPUT_CONSTANT Or Err.Number = ERR_VBA_TYPE_MISMATCH Then
'We expected this might happen every so often...
addExcelArrays = CVErr(xlErrValue)
Else
'We don't know what happened...
Call debugAlertUnexpectedError() 'This is something you would have defined
End If
End Function
What "do something meaningful" means depends on the context of your application. In the case of my caller example above, it decides that some errors should be handled by returning an error value that Excel can put in a worksheet cell, while others require a nasty alert. (Here's where the case of VBA within Excel is actually not a bad specific example, because lots of applications make a distinction between internal and external routines, and between exceptions you expect to be able to handle and error conditions that you just want to know about but for which you have no response.)
Don't Forget Assertions
Because you mentioned debugging, it's also worth noting the role of assertions. If you expect AddArrays to only ever be called by routines that have actually created their own arrays or otherwise verified they are using arrays, you might do this:
Function AddArrays(arr1, arr2)
Dim i As Long
Dim result As Variant
Debug.Assert IsArray(arr1)
Debug.Assert IsArray(arr2)
'rest of code...
End Function
A fantastic discussion of the difference between assertions and exceptions is here:
Debug.Assert vs Exception Throwing
I gave an example here:
Is assert evil?
Some VBA Advice About General Array Handling Routines
Finally, as a VBA-specific note, there are VBA variants and arrays come with a number of pitfalls that must be avoided when you're trying to write general library routines. Arrays might have more than one dimension, their elements might be objects or other arrays, their start and end indices might be anything, etc. Here is an example (untested and not trying to be exhaustive) that accounts for some of that:
'NOTE: This has not been tested and isn't necessarily exhaustive! It's just
'an example!
Function addArrays(arr1, arr2)
'Note use of some other library functions you might have...
'* isVect(v) returns True only if v is an array of one and only one
' dimension
'* lengthOfArr(v) returns the size of an array in the first dimension
'* check(condition, errNum) raises an error with Err.Number = errNum if
' condition is False
'Assert stuff that you assume your caller (which is part of your
'application) has already done - i.e. you assume the caller created
'the inputs, or has already dealt with grossly-malformed inputs
Debug.Assert isVect(arr1)
Debug.Assert isVect(arr2)
Debug.Assert lengthOfArr(arr1) = lengthOfArr(arr2)
Debug.Assert lengthOfArr(arr1) > 0
'Account for VBA array index flexibility hell...
ReDim result(1 To lengthOfArr(arr1)) As Double
Dim indResult As Long
Dim ind1 As Long
ind1 = LBound(arr1)
Dim ind2 As Long
ind2 = LBound(arr2)
Dim v1
Dim v2
For indResult = 1 To lengthOfArr(arr1)
'Note implicit coercion of ranges to values. Note that VBA will raise
'an error if an object with no default property is assigned to a
'variant.
v1 = arr1(ind1)
v2 = arr2(ind2)
'Raise errors if we have any non-numbers. (Don't count a string
'with numeric text as a number).
Call check(IsNumeric(v1) And VarType(v1) <> vbString, xlErrValue)
Call check(IsNumeric(v2) And VarType(v2) <> vbString, xlErrValue)
'Now we don't expect this to raise errors.
result(indResult) = v1 + v2
ind1 = ind1 + 1
ind2 = ind2 + 1
Next indResult
addArrays = result
End Function
There's lots of ways to trap errors, some better than others. Alot of it depends on on the nature of the error and how you want to handle it.
1st: In your examples, you aren't handling the basic compiling & runtime errors (see code below).
Function Foobar (Arg1, Arg2)
On Error goto EH
Do stuff
Exit Function
EH:
msgbox "Error" & Err.Description
End Function
2nd: Using the framework example above, you can add all the if-then logical error trapping statements you want & feed it to the EH step. You can even add multiple EH steps if your function is complex enough. Setting things up this way allows you to find the particular function where your logic error occurred.
3rd: In your last example, ending that function as a boolean is not the best method. If you were able to add the 2 arrays, then that function should return the resultant array. If not, it should throw up a msgbox-style error.
4th: I recently started doing a little trick that can be very helpful in some situations. In your VBA Editor, go to Tools->Options->General->Break on ALL errors. This is very helpful when you already have your error handling code in place, but you want to go the exact line where the error occurred and you don't feel like deleting perfectly good code.
Example: Let's say you want to catch an error that wouldn't be caught normally by VBA, i.e. an integer variable should always have a value >2. Somewhere in your code, say If intvar<=2 then goto EH. Then in your EH step, add If intvar<=2 then msgbox "Intvar=" & Intvar.
First, PowerUser gave you a good answer already--this is an expansion on that one.
A trick that I just learned is the "double resume", thus:
Function Foobar (Arg1, Arg2)
On Error goto EH
Do stuff
FuncExit:
Exit Function
EH:
msgbox "Error" & Err.Description
Resume FuncExit
Resume
End Function
What happens here is that in the execution of finished code, your code throws up a MsgBox when an error is encountered, then runs the Exit Function statement & goes on its way (just the same as dropping out the bottom with End Function). However, when you're debugging and you get that MsgBox you instead do a manual Ctrl-Break, then set next statement (Ctrl-F9) to the unadorned Resume and press F8 to step--it goes right back to the line that threw the error. You don't even have to take the extra Resume statements out, since they will never execute without manual intervention.
The other point on which I want to argue (gently) with PowerUser is in the final example. I think it's best to avoid unneeded GoTo statements. A better approach is If intvar<=2 then err.raise SomeCustomNumber. Make sure you use a number that isn't already in use--search 'VB custom error' for more information.