I am using ASP.net's AJAX framework and I am trying to do some exception logging on the javascript-called webservice.
Looking through the web, I find some people handling them client-side and sending them back to the server. I'd prefer not doing that since it relies on an other server call (if it failed the first time, sending an other request doesn't look like a good idea and that makes me change all my calls)
I see some other people decorating all their methods with try... catch blocks (which leads to duplicate error handling, and yet an other try catch block).
However, I'm trying to achieve something similar to global.asax's Application_Error() which handles every uncaught exception (nope, it doesn't seem to be called for AJAX called methods exceptions).
Is that even possible?
Use ELMAH - it can capture ajax errors.
Related
I have an MVC+SignalR application that has a lot of Reactive Extensions subscriptions flying around, all of which are projections of data coming from a Socket in realtime. Some of these subscriptions are not working as expected, and when they raise an exception it just goes into the void unless I'm debugging.
I had hoped that I could use Elmah to automatically log these unhandled exceptions, but it seems that unless the exception occurs on the same thread that's processing the request/response, eg it causes a yellow screen of death, Elmah isn't touching it. So my question is twofold:
Can I get Elmah to automatically log exceptions on background/worker processes?
If the answer to #1 is "no", what's my next best option, other than wrapping my subscriptions in try/catch blocks at a very high level?
Ad 1) If it doesn't happen already it probably doesn't.
I don't know how exactly you use background threads, but I will try to explain were ELMAH handling is working. ELMAH is integrated into ASP.NET pipeline, and when the error occurs it is handled by ASP.NET pipeline, which shows error page (like http error 500) and invoke ErrorLogModule. Moreover quoting Using HTTP Modules and Handlers to Create Pluggable ASP.NET Components -> Adding ELMAH to an ASP.NET Web Application
The section adds the ErrorLogModule HTTP module to the
ASP.NET HTTP pipeline. Make sure you include this
setting, otherwise ELMAH won't be listening for the Error event, and
therefore won't be logging any unhandled exceptions.
Ad 2) Because you are using Reactive Extensions you can handle onError in which you can automatically log into Elmah. If you don't want to writer everywhere error hangling in OnError, just create your own function or method extension which will wrap it automatically for you. Writing into ELMAH manually is simple just call:
Elmah.ErrorSignal.FromCurrentContext().Raise(ex);
I am writing ASP.Net Web-form in VB.
I have a system which have already handled exceptions by try-catch blocks everywhere.
How do I quickly and generically implement exception logging like overriding something instead of inserting logging functions in every single catch block?
Using an AOP framework like Postsharp you can hook on exceptions thrown and log a message, but that will only work if you haven't already handled them in your code.
Your best bet would be to refactor your exception handling code. Apart from the global catch-all exception handling, you should only have try-catch blocks in places where you can actually handle the exception. And in those cases you probably want to add a specific message in the log telling why and how this exception was handled.
If I am just logging exception details in my web app, do I really need to put in exception handling logic for each tier? Why not just let them all bubble up the stack trace to the global.asax and log them there?
I would suggest against using any exception handling logic in any layer of your application unless:
The exception is not a fatal one, meaning that there is some action you can take to recover, or
The application should continue functioning and the exception should be "ignored." An example: when checking out at an online retailer you are sent a receipt via email. If that fails - but the other order processing stuff succeeds - the user should not be shown an error page. Here, we want the workflow to continue even though there is an exception. Most exceptions do not fall into this category.
Of course, exceptions - whether they are fatal or not or should be "ignored" or not - need to be logged and developers notified. This is best handled through an event handler for the Application.Error event. Yes, this can be done in Global.asax, but I think it's cleaner to use an HTTP Module-based approach, either Health Monitoring or ELMAH.
I've written an article on this topic that I'd like to recommend to you - Exception Handling Advice for ASP.NET Web Applications. Here is the article in summary:
My advice for handling exceptions in an ASP.NET application can be boiled down to the following guidelines:
(a) Create and use a meaningful custom error page.
(b) In general, do not catch exceptions. Let them bubble up to the ASP.NET runtime. Some cases where catching an exception makes sense include:
When there is a plausible way to recover from the exception by performing some alternative logic,
When a peripheral part of the application's workflow throws and exception and that exception should not derail the entire application, and
When you need to include additional information with the exception by throwing a new exception that has the original exception as its inner exception.
(c) Log all exceptions to some persistent store and use email (or some other medium) to notify developers when an exception occurs in production. Consider using ELMAH or ASP.NET's built-in Health Monitoring system to facilitate this process.
Exceptions should bubble up to whatever layer can handle them in a meaningful way, being aware of the Single Responsibility principle. For instance, your data layer should not be invested in logging.
The Application.Error event is a good place for catch-all error handling: that is, unexpected and/or fatal errors that require no special treatment beyond logging/alerting and redirecting to an error page.
If your web app makes use of the Microsoft AJAX extensions and partial postbacks, you'll need to handle exceptions in at least two places:
Global.asax
Your ScriptManager's OnAsyncPostBackError handler
For further information on OnAsyncPostBackError, check out:
http://msforge.net/blogs/janko/archive/2008/02/13/handling-exceptions-in-asp-net-ajax.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.ui.scriptmanager.onasyncpostbackerror.aspx
I say that on global try to catch the error that you miss on the logic steps of your program and redirect them on an "error page", or a "not found page".
All other errors not necessary show the error on the user, and not need to send it to an error page.
For example, in page with 2 or more, different modules, if the one throw an error, just hide it, and show the rest. Similar try to catch errors when they happens and handle them the best non visual way to the user if this is possible, log them and correct them later.
Now this error that happens only on one module, you can see it on your log and correct it, but until you do that, user see something on your page and not a full error page.
Usually what I do is do a try...catch in the code, but instead of logging on the catch what I do is pass it on with a message stating where the error came from, etc. Then I use Elmah to catch all of the errors and log them.
That way you only have to deal with the logging in one area and satisfy the Single Responsiblity Principle, but you have more information available for debugging purposes. It can also be helpful when you get that data error that only seems to occur with 1 out of 500 users.
I'm using JQuery to load controls dynamically in an ASP.NET development environment using JSON and WebServices. Within this solution I have a business logic layer which has a built in validation mechanism (i.e. validating properties and business rules similar to that of CSLA)
When requesting a new control to be loaded dynamically using JQuery and an ASP.NET WebService, I would like to validate the input from the current control against the business logic validation mechanism (i.e. server side validation) and notify the user if there was any problems.
I managed to achieve this, however, when validation fails in the web service I would like to throw a customer exception containing the validation field id's and associated error messages.
In JQuery, I test for this specific ExceptionType and would like to apply the error messages dynamically to the controls listed in the exception type properties. This is where my problem comes in. Even though I created a custom exception with custom properties the exception that is passed to JQuery in JSON format from the WebService is still a standard exception with none of the additional properties listed. I could simply create a JSON formatted string of values in the exception's message property but would ultimately prefer something a little more elegant. Does anyone know how you can override the serialized exception created by ASP.NET for situations such as this...
Thank you in advance...
G
I ran into something very similar a couple days ago - basically there's no way to make ASP.NET generate custom exceptions. This is by design, since returning a specific type of exceptions would
[...] expose implementation
details/bugs to the clients. We could
do something with special exception
type that we let pass through, but its
too late for this release [...]
You could always return different HTTP status codes, and have the browser handle them as custom exceptions - for example, a 500 error would mean one thing, a 401 something else, etc. I think the best solution is to make your method return a string with the exception stack - not elegant, but at least this way the client has all the exception details.
Dave Ward also has info on ASP.NET AJAX service errors.
I admit it: I don't bother with too much exception handling. I know I should do more but I can never wrap my head around where to start and where to stop. I'm not being lazy. Far from it. It's that I'm overwrought with exception handling ambivalence. It just seems that there is a seemingly infinite number of places in even the smallest app where exception handling can be applied and it can begin to feel like overkill.
I've gotten by with careful testing, validating, and silent prayer but this is a bad programming accident waiting to happen.
So, what are your exception handling best practices? In particular, where are the most obvious/critical places where exception handling should be applied and where are places where it should be considered?
Sorry for the vague the question but I really want to close the book on this once and for all.
Microsoft's Patterns & Practices team did a good job incorporating best practices of exception management into Enterprise Library Exception Handling Application Block
Event if wouldn't use Enterprise Library, I highly recommend you to read their documentation. P&P team describes common scenarios and best practices for exceptions handling.
To get you started I recommend read following articles:
Exception Handling on MSDN
Exception Management in .NET on MSDN
Exception Handling Best Practices in .NET on CodeProject
ASP.NET specific articles:
User Friendly ASP.NET Exception Handling
Global Exception Handling with
ASP.NET
Exception handling in C# and ASP
.Net
The golden rule with exception handling is:
"Only catch what you know how to handle"
I've seen too many try-catch blocks where the catch does nothing but rethrow the exception. This adds no value. Just because you call a method that has the potential to throw an exception doesn't mean you have to deal with the possible exception in the calling code. It is often perfectly acceptable to let exceptions propagate up the call stack to some other code that does know what to do.
In some cases, it is valid to let exceptions propagate all the way up to the user interface layer then catch and display the message to the user. It might be that no code is best-placed to know how to handle the situation and the user must decide the course of action.
I recommend you start by adding a good error page that catches all exceptions and prints a slightly less unfriendly message to the user. Be sure to log all details available of the exception and revise that. Let the user know that you have done this, and give him a link back to a page that will (probably) work.
Now, use that log to detect where special exception handling should be put in place. Remember that there is no use in catching an exception unless you plan to do something with it. If you have the above page in place, there is no use in catching database exceptions individually on all db operations, unless you have some specific way to recover at that specific point.
Remember: The only thing worse than not catching exceptions, is catching them and not doing nothing. This will only hide the real problems.
Might be more about exception handling in general than ASP.NET speific but:
Try to catch exceptions as close to
the cause as possible so that you
can record (log) as much information
about the exception as possible.
Include some form of catch all, last
resort exception handler at the
entry points to your program. In
ASP.NET this could be the
Application level error handler.
If you don't know how to "correctly" handle an exception let it bubble up to the catch all handler where you can treat it as an "unexpected" exception.
Use the Try***** methods in .NET
for things like accessing a
Dictionary. This helps avoid major
performance problems (exception
handling is relatively slow) if you
throw multiple exceptions in say a
loop.
Don't use exception handling to
control normal logic of your
program, e.g. exiting from a loop via
a throw statement.
Start off with a global exception handler such as http://code.google.com/p/elmah/.
Then the question comes down to what kind of application are you writting and what kind of user experience do you need to provide. The more rich the user experience the better exception handling you'll want to provide.
As an example consider a photo hosting site which has disk quotas, filesize limits, image dimension limits, etc. For each error you could simply return "An error has occured. Please try again". Or you could get into detailed error handling:
"Your file is to large. Maximum
filesizes is 5mb."
"Your image is is
to large. Maximum dimensions are
1200x1200."
"Your album is full.
Maximum storage capacity is 1gb".
"There was an error with your
upload. Our hampsters are unhappy.
Please come back later."
etc. etc.
There is no one size fits all for exception handling.
Well at the very basic level you should be handling the HttpApplication.Error event in the Global.asax file. This should log any exception that occurs to a single place so you can review the stack trace of the exception.
Apart from this basic level you should ideally be handling exceptions where you know you can recover from them - for example if you expect a file might be locked then handling the IOException and reporting the error back to the user would be a good idea.