In the following code snippet, there are cases where the processes cannot handle NullPointerException and IllegalStateException. Namely in the case where I have the input values val=-4 or val=-2.
I read that adding throws after methods' signatures would help. But the code still aborts if I pass the mentioned values over.
public class Test extends Throwable{
public static void processA(int val ) throws NullPointerException, IllegalStateException{
try{
System.out.println("1");
processB(val);
}catch(ArithmeticException e){
System.out.println("2");
}
System.out.println("3");
}
public static void processB(int val) throws NullPointerException, IllegalStateException{
try{
System.out.println("4");
processC(val);
}catch(NullPointerException e){
System.out.println("5");
processC(val+4);
}finally{
System.out.println("6");
}
System.out.println("7");
}
public static void processC(int val)throws NullPointerException, IllegalStateException, ArithmeticException{
System.out.println("8");
if(val<1) throw new NullPointerException();
if(val==1) throw new ArithmeticException();
if(val>1) throw new IllegalStateException();
System.out.println("9");
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
processA(1); //processA(-2) or processA(-4)
}
}
It breaks because you are not handling the scenario when a NullPointerException or IllegalStateException is thrown to processA(...). You only handle an ArithmeticException.
Add the following to your code, thereby if any of the three exceptions are thrown, it is handled by method processA.
public static void processA(int val) throws NullPointerException, IllegalStateException {
try {
System.out.println("1");
processB(val);
} catch (ArithmeticException e) {
System.out.println("11");
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
System.out.println("12");
} catch (IllegalStateException e) {
System.out.println("13");
}
System.out.println("3");
}
If you want the caller to handle them then you need to do the same from the caller method. For eg :
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
processA(12);
} catch (ArithmeticException | NullPointerException | IllegalStateException e) {
// do something here
}
}
To answer your question in the comments: "But why should I use it?"
This will indicate that the caller will need to handle the exception thrown by that method. Now the caller can handle it via a try-catch block or it can re-throw the exception to its caller. The compiler would also give you an error saying that the exception should be handled but this would happen only for checked exceptions. The ones you are throwing are unchecked exceptions. Which means in your case you can pretty much ignore them from the method declaration.
I would suggest you also consider using Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler in order to make sure you properly handle exceptions which were not properly caught.
Missing out on exception handling is a very common occurrence and can be easily avoided using this API.
References:
How to catch an exception from a thread
Oracle official API
UncaughtExceptionHandler as a best practice
Related
If I add the throws keyword in the method signature and handle it in my main() inside my TestClass{}, is it a good approach or should I handle the exception in the method in which it occurs fooBar(), which approach is recommended or what are the trade-offs between the two. Sorry this question might seem a little weird, just a newbie in Java.
public class Foo {
//private fields
public Foo() {
//ctor
}
//accessors and mutators
//method that throws exception
public void fooBar() throws FooBarException {
throw new FooBarException();
}
}
Generally, the scope of try block should be as small as possible.
public void fooBar(){
try{
//Lines that can through error
}
catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
//Handle exception Here
//e.printStackTrace();
/*
other code that will not throw any error
*/
}
or if the whole block may throw the error then
public void fooBar() throws FooBarException {
}
//Handle in the exception where you calling the method
I don't think I understand the try-catch block and throws really.
public class TestException {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new TestException().tt();
}
public void tt() {
try {
throw new RuntimeException();
}catch (Exception e) {
throw e;
}
}
}
When in Eclipse, there is an error hint about 'Unhandled exception type xxx', and if you run this, you will get an
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.Error: Unresolved compilation problem:
Unhandled exception type Exception
But in Idea, there's no errors. It runs and throws the exception correctly.
In my opnion, the 'e' was not declared as a RuntimeException(althrough it is an RuntimeException), so the tt() method must be declared with throws. But actually it's not. Why?
This should answer your question:
public class TestException {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new TestException().tt();
}
public void tt() {
try {
throw new RuntimeException();
}catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
If you use throws, you tell those who use your function, "My function may throw exceptions. You have to handle that."
You should get difference of throws and throw in this sentence.
If you use try-catch, you handle that exception.
1) You should add throws keyword like below
public class TestException {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new TestException().tt();
}
public void tt() **throws Exception** {
try {
throw new RuntimeException();
}catch (Exception e) {
throw e;
}
}
}
2) Handle exception where you use function
public class TestException {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try{
new TestException().tt();
}catch(Exception e){
System.out.println("Error handled");
}
}
public void tt() throws Exception {
try {
throw new RuntimeException();
}catch (Exception e) {
throw e;
}
}
}
In general if you catch an exception you handle it. Like this
public class TestException {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new TestException().tt();
}
public void tt() {
try {
throw new RuntimeException();
}catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Error caught! ")
}
}
}
or
public class TestException {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
new TestException().tt();
}catch(Exception e){
System.out.println("Error caught! ")
}
}
public void tt() throws RuntimeException {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
You can also throw other's exception
public class TestException {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try{
new TestException().a();
}catch(Exception e){
System.out.println("Error handled");
}
}
public void a() throws Exception {
b();
}
public void b() throws Exception {
c();
}
public void c() throws Exception {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
I think that you want to look into 'Checked Exceptions' and 'Unchecked Exceptions'.
Only Checked Exceptions need to be declared in a methods signature, and RuntimeException is an unchecked exception (though you can declare it if you like - it just isn't necessary to compile).
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Exception.html
The API for java Exception says:
"The class Exception and any subclasses that are not also subclasses of RuntimeException are checked exceptions. Checked exceptions need to be declared in a method or constructor's throws clause if they can be thrown by the execution of the method or constructor and propagate outside the method or constructor boundary"
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/RuntimeException.html
The API for java RuntimeException says:
"RuntimeException and its subclasses are unchecked exceptions. Unchecked exceptions do not need to be declared in a method or constructor's throws clause if they can be thrown by the execution of the method or constructor and propagate outside the method or constructor boundary."
In my opnion, the 'e' was not declared as a RuntimeException(althrough it is an RuntimeException), so the tt() method must be declared with throws. But actually it's not. Why?
Let's consider what we know:
When using rethrow syntax, the existing exception object (e) is rethrown.
e is an object of class Exception, or one of its subtypes.
RuntimeException is a subtype of exception, and is not compiled time checked, so it's possible the re-thrown object is a non compile time checked object.
The compiler cannot see a place where the code definitely, or even possibly throws a compile checked exception, and so it makes sense that it does not force those semantics.
For example, if you change your catch to an IOException, the compiler will not allow you to do that without a line in the try which could possibly lead to an IOException.
If you added such a line, then the compiler would recognize that the throw would rethrow a compile time checked exception, and make you catch it again, or mark the function with the appropriate throws clause.
As for eclipse, your code compiles OK in mine with my JDK.
I am reading a More precise rethrows in java 7 http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/language/catch-multiple.html which says
In detail, in Java SE 7 and later, when you declare one or more
exception types in a catch clause, and rethrow the exception handled
by this catch block, the compiler verifies that the type of the
rethrown exception meets the following conditions:
The try block is able to throw it.
There are no other preceding catch blocks that can handle it.
It is a subtype or supertype of one of the catch clause's exception parameters.
so i wrote a program to test it .
public class MorePreciseRethrow {
public static void main(String args[]){
try {
foo("First");
} catch (FirstException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (SecondException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private static void foo(String exceptionName) throws FirstException, SecondException{
try{
if(StringUtils.equals("First",exceptionName)){
throw new FirstException();
}
}catch(Exception e){
throw e;
}
}
}
class FirstException extends Exception{
}
class SecondException extends Exception{
}
but this doesn't generate even a compiler warning with jdk7.
Now my try block is never able to throw SecondException, but my compiler didn't check it . Is the mentioned line in doc is wrong or am i doing some mistake ?
The compiler only checks if the method header
private static void foo(String exceptionName) throws FirstException, SecondException
declairs thr exception.
You can have multiple implementations of methods so one implementation can throw the exeption and one not. but both must bedeclaired.
In java, there is no requirement that the code in a method that declares that it throws an exception actually be able to throw it.
This makes sense, because the method may be implementing an interface, but the implementation happens to not throw it, or it could allow for future expansion to an implementation/subclass that does throw it.
In order to get the compilation error that documentation is talking about, you need to use a multiple catch. Something like,
private static void foo(String exceptionName) throws FirstException,
SecondException {
try {
throw new FirstException();
} catch (FirstException | SecondException e) {
throw e;
}
}
Creates an UnreachableCodeBlock for SecondException in Java 7+.
I have below class with one method which throws Checked Exception.
public class Sample{
public String getName() throws CustomException{
//Some code
//this method contacts some third party library and that can throw RunTimeExceptions
}
}
CustomException.java
public class CustomException Extends Exception{
//Some code
}
Now in another class i need to call above the method and handle exceptions.
public String getResult() throws Exception{
try{
String result = sample.getName();
//some code
}catch(){
//here i need to handle exceptions
}
return result;
}
My requirement is:
sample.getName() can throw CustomException and it can also throw RunTimeExceptions.
In the catch block, I need to catch the exception. If the exception that is caught is RunTimeException then I need to check if the RunTimeException is an instance of SomeOtherRunTimeException. If so, I should throw null instead.
If RunTimeException is not an instance of SomeOtherRunTimeException then I simply need to rethrow the same run time exception.
If the caught exception is a CustomException or any other Checked Exception, then I need to rethrow the same. How can I do that?
You can do like this :
catch(RuntimeException r)
{
if(r instanceof SomeRunTimeException)
throw null;
else throw r;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
throw e;
}
Note: Exception catches all the exceptions. That's why it is placed at the bottom.
You can simply do:
public String getResult() throws Exception {
String result = sample.getName(); // move this out of the try catch
try {
// some code
} catch (SomeOtherRunTimeException e) {
return null;
}
return result;
}
All other checked and unchecked exceptions will be propagated. There is no need to catch and rethrow.
Yesterday I red this article about the new Exception Handling in Java 7.
In the article they show an example (No 4) which is not working in Java 6. I just copied it.
public class ExampleExceptionRethrowInvalid {
public static void demoRethrow()throws IOException {
try {
// forcing an IOException here as an example,
// normally some code could trigger this.
throw new IOException("Error");
}
catch(Exception exception) {
/*
* Do some handling and then rethrow.
*/
throw exception;
}
}
public static void main( String[] args )
{
try {
demoRethrow();
}
catch(IOException exception) {
System.err.println(exception.getMessage());
}
}
}
Like in the article descriped it won't compile, because of the type missmatch -throws IOException- and -throw exception-. In Java 7 it will. So my question is.
How do I proper implement this kind of rethrowing of an exception in Java 6? I don't like the suggested implementation example no five. I know it is a matter of taste and problem you try to handle if unchecked exceptions or not. So what can I do to get the -throws IOException- and keep the stack trace? Should I only change the catch to IOException and risk not catching all?
I'm curious about your answers.
Simply catch IOException, like so:
public static void demoRethrow()throws IOException {
try {
// forcing an IOException here as an example,
// normally some code could trigger this.
throw new IOException("Error");
}
catch(IOException exception) {
/*
* Do some handling and then rethrow.
*/
throw exception;
}
}
If the code inside the try block can throw a checked exception other than IOException, the compiler will flag this up as an error, so you're not "risk[ing] not catching all".
If you're also interested in unchecked exceptions, you could also catch and re-throw RuntimeException (you won't need to declare it in the throws clause).
Catch IOException and everything else separately:
public static void demoRethrow() throws IOException {
try {
throw new IOException("Error");
}
catch(IOException exception) {
throw exception;
}
catch(Exception exception) {
throw new IOException(exception);
}
catch(Exception ex) catches both checked and unchecked (RuntimeException) exceptions.
So to make it functionaly equivalent,
public static void demoRethrow() throws IOException {
try {
throw new IOException("Error");
}
catch(IOException exception) {
throw exception;
}
catch(RuntimeException exception) {
throw new IOException(exception);
}
suffice, and compiler will detect other checked exceptions (good for thinking again about whether they should realy get this far, or should have bean delt with before)
A hacky way to throw to catch a generic exception and rethrow without the compiler checking the exception is to use stop.
public static void demoRethrow() throws IOException {
try {
throw new IOException("Error");
} catch(Throwable t) {
// handle exception
// rethrow the exception without compiler checks.
Thread.currentThread().stop(t);
}
}