We Keep Coding

Handling Multiple Generic Exceptions

I am running a multithreaded testing program and would like to add some extra details to exceptions throw for it to be clear which thread is the one that threw the exception. In order to do this I created the following generic function to take any Callable function as a parameter and return it's value; however, in the case it throws an exception, it is caught and extra details are added to the Exception message and then thrown again for the calling function to catch.
public <U> U enhanceThrownException(#NonNull Callable<U> callable) throws Exception {
try {
return callable.call();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new Exception(controller.getFullScenarioMessage(e.getLocalizedMessage()), e);
}
}
Now this works great for what I needed it for, however, I do not want calling functions to need to catch a generic Exception. I wanted to clearly specify exceptions that I know the function will throw, so I added to the code and have this:
public <U, V extends Exception> U enhanceThrownException(#NonNull Callable<U> callable,
Class<V> exceptionType) throws V {
try {
return callable.call();
} catch (Exception e) {
try {
throw (V) e.getClass().getDeclaredConstructor(String.class, Throwable.class)
.newInstance(controller.getFullScenarioMessage(e.getLocalizedMessage()), e);
} catch (ReflectiveOperationException rException) {
e.printStackTrace();
throw new RuntimeException(controller.getFullScenarioMessage(rException.getLocalizedMessage()), rException);
}
}
}
This works perfectly for a function that has only one throwable exception, but if I want to handle multiple thrown exceptions, how would I go about doing so? Is it necessary to do this, or would using the generic Exception case be enough? Also, if I can specify, is it possible to get the possible thrown exceptions form the function itself without the user needing to input them as parameters? The following does not work because all entered Exceptions would have to be of the same type, which is kind of useless since different Exception derivatives are of different types.
public <U, V extends Exception> U enhanceThrownException(#NonNull Callable<U> callable,
Class<V> exceptionType,
Class<V>... exceptionTypes) throws V {
try {
return callable.call();
} catch (Exception e) {
try {
throw (V) e.getClass().getDeclaredConstructor(String.class, Throwable.class)
.newInstance(controller.getFullScenarioMessage(e.getLocalizedMessage()), e);
} catch (ReflectiveOperationException rException) {
e.printStackTrace();
throw new RuntimeException(controller.getFullScenarioMessage(rException.getLocalizedMessage()), rException);
}
}
}
(Update)
After looking further into this, I realized I may have been overthinking it all. I simply created an custom Exception class:
public class EnhancedException extends Exception {
public EnhancedException(String message, Throwable cause) {
super(message, cause);
}
}
And then I edited the previous code to:
public <U> U enhanceThrownException(#NonNull Callable<U> callable) throws EnhancedException {
try {
return callable.call();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new EnhancedException(controller.getFullScenarioMessage(e.getLocalizedMessage()), e);
}
}
If needed, the calling functions can check for this custom Exception and then further check if the cause is an Exception it is specifically looking for. This would actually just work with a generic Exception, but maybe there are some uses for having a custom Exception class.
I might have solved my own issue, but if anyone believes there is a better approach or just has some good programming practice advice, I'm all ears.

The relation between "precise rethrow" and final Exception

there are many question about java-7 feature "precise rethrow" and final Exception ex, i couldn't find clear answer for my question.
what is the relation between "precise rethrow" and final Exception ?
public static void main(String args[]) throws OpenException, CloseException {
boolean flag = true;
try {
if (flag){
throw new OpenException();
}
else {
throw new CloseException();
}
}
catch (final Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
throw e;
}
}
is that obligatory to use final keyword if i want to use "precise rethrow" ?
catch (final Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
throw e;
}
if it is not obligatory can i reassign the ex reference to a new exception?
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
e=new AnotherException();
throw e;
}

It is not required to declare the exception parameter (e in your examples) as final to get precise rethrow semantics. You will also get precise rethrow if the parameter is effectively final.
In your second example, the parameter is NOT effectively final so you don't get precise rethrow semantics.
(This even applies if the exception you assign to e is assignment compatible with the original exception thrown in the try block.)
Reference: JLS 11.2.2.

Compiler does not complain that I catch an exception that can never be thrown

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+.

How does the correct rethrow code look like for this example

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);
}
}

In Java how can I validate a thrown exception with JUnit?

When writing unit tests for a Java API there may be circumstances where you want to perform more detailed validation of an exception. I.e. more than is offered by the #test annotation offered by JUnit.
For example, consider an class that should catch an exception from some other Interface, wrap that exception and throw the wrapped exception. You may want to verify:
The exact method call that throws the wrapped exception.
That the wrapper exception has the original exception as its cause.
The message of the wrapper exception.
The main point here is that you want to be perf additional validation of an exception in a unit test (not a debate about whether you should verify things like the exception message).
What's a good approach for this?

In JUnit 4 it can be easily done using ExpectedException rule.
Here is example from javadocs:
// These tests all pass.
public static class HasExpectedException {
#Rule
public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void throwsNothing() {
// no exception expected, none thrown: passes.
}
#Test
public void throwsNullPointerException() {
thrown.expect(NullPointerException.class);
throw new NullPointerException();
}
#Test
public void throwsNullPointerExceptionWithMessage() {
thrown.expect(NullPointerException.class);
thrown.expectMessage("happened?");
thrown.expectMessage(startsWith("What"));
throw new NullPointerException("What happened?");
}
}

As provided in your answer, it's a good approach. In addition to this:
You could wrap the function expectException into a new Annotation, called ExpectedException.
An annotated method would look like this:
#Test
#ExpectedException(class=WrapperException.class, message="Exception Message", causeException)
public void testAnExceptionWrappingFunction() {
//whatever you test
}
This way would be more readable, but it's exactly the same approach.
Another reason is: I like Annotations :)

Looking at the proposed answers, you can really feel the pain of not having closures in Java. IMHO, the most readable solution is ye good old try catch.
#Test
public void test() {
...
...
try {
...
fail("No exception caught :(");
}
catch (RuntimeException ex) {
assertEquals(Whatever.class, ex.getCause().getClass());
assertEquals("Message", ex.getMessage());
}
}

For JUNIT 3.x
public void test(){
boolean thrown = false;
try{
mightThrowEx();
} catch ( Surprise expected ){
thrown = true;
assertEquals( "message", expected.getMessage());
}
assertTrue(thrown );
}

Until this post I've done my exception validation by doing this:
try {
myObject.doThings();
fail("Should've thrown SomeException!");
} catch (SomeException e) {
assertEquals("something", e.getSomething());
}
I spent a few moments thinking about the issue though and came up with the following (Java5, JUnit 3.x):
// Functor interface for exception assertion.
public interface AssertionContainer<T extends Throwable> {
void invoke() throws T;
void validate(T throwable);
Class<T> getType();
}
// Actual assertion method.
public <T extends Throwable> void assertThrowsException(AssertionContainer<T> functor) {
try {
functor.invoke();
fail("Should've thrown "+functor.getType()+"!");
} catch (Throwable exc) {
assertSame("Thrown exception was of the wrong type! Expected "+functor.getClass()+", actual "+exc.getType(),
exc.getClass(), functor.getType());
functor.validate((T) exc);
}
}
// Example implementation for servlet I used to actually test this. It was an inner class, actually.
AssertionContainer<ServletException> functor = new AssertionContainer<ServletException>() {
public void invoke() throws ServletException {
servlet.getRequiredParameter(request, "some_param");
}
public void validate(ServletException e) {
assertEquals("Parameter \"some_param\" wasn't found!", e.getMessage());
}
public Class<ServletException> getType() {
return ServletException.class;
}
}
// And this is how it's used.
assertThrowsException(functor);
Looking at these two I can't decide which one I like more. I guess this is one of those issues where achieving a goal (in my case, the assertion method with functor parameter) isn't worth it in the long run since it's just a lot easier to do those 6+ of code to assert the try..catch block.
Then again, maybe my 10 minute result of problem solving at friday evening just isn't the most intelligent way to do this.

#akuhn:
Even without closures we can get a more readable solution (using catch-exception):
import static com.googlecode.catchexception.CatchException.*;
public void test() {
...
...
catchException(nastyBoy).doNastyStuff();
assertTrue(caughtException() instanceof WhateverException);
assertEquals("Message", caughtException().getMessage());
}

The following helper method (adapted from this blog post) does the trick:
/**
* Run a test body expecting an exception of the
* given class and with the given message.
*
* #param test To be executed and is expected to throw the exception.
* #param expectedException The type of the expected exception.
* #param expectedMessage If not null, should be the message of the expected exception.
* #param expectedCause If not null, should be the same as the cause of the received exception.
*/
public static void expectException(
Runnable test,
Class<? extends Throwable> expectedException,
String expectedMessage,
Throwable expectedCause) {
try {
test.run();
}
catch (Exception ex) {
assertSame(expectedException, ex.getClass());
if (expectedMessage != null) {
assertEquals(expectedMessage, ex.getMessage());
}
if (expectedCause != null) {
assertSame(expectedCause, ex.getCause());
}
return;
}
fail("Didn't find expected exception of type " + expectedException.getName());
}
The test code can then invoke this as follows:
TestHelper.expectException(
new Runnable() {
public void run() {
classInstanceBeingTested.methodThatThrows();
}
},
WrapperException.class,
"Exception Message",
causeException
);

i did something very simple
testBla(){
try {
someFailingMethod()
fail(); //method provided by junit
} catch(Exception e) {
//do nothing
}
}

For JUnit 5 it is much easier:
#Test
void testAppleIsSweetAndRed() throws Exception {
IllegalArgumentException ex = assertThrows(
IllegalArgumentException.class,
() -> testClass.appleIsSweetAndRed("orange", "red", "sweet"));
assertEquals("this is the exception message", ex.getMessage());
assertEquals(NullPointerException.class, ex.getCause().getClass());
}
By returning the exception object itself, assertThrows() allows you to test every aspect regarding your thrown exceptions.

I made a helper similar to the other posted ones:
public class ExpectExceptionsExecutor {
private ExpectExceptionsExecutor() {
}
public static void execute(ExpectExceptionsTemplate e) {
Class<? extends Throwable> aClass = e.getExpectedException();
try {
Method method = ExpectExceptionsTemplate.class.getMethod("doInttemplate");
method.invoke(e);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e1) {
throw new RuntimeException();
} catch (InvocationTargetException e1) {
Throwable throwable = e1.getTargetException();
if (!aClass.isAssignableFrom(throwable.getClass())) {
// assert false
fail("Exception isn't the one expected");
} else {
assertTrue("Exception captured ", true);
return;
}
;
} catch (IllegalAccessException e1) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
fail("No exception has been thrown");
}
}
And the template the client should implement
public interface ExpectExceptionsTemplate<T extends Throwable> {
/**
* Specify the type of exception that doInttemplate is expected to throw
* #return
*/
Class<T> getExpectedException();
/**
* Execute risky code inside this method
* TODO specify expected exception using an annotation
*/
public void doInttemplate();
}
And the client code would be something like this:
#Test
public void myTest() throws Exception {
ExpectExceptionsExecutor.execute(new ExpectExceptionsTemplate() {
#Override
public Class getExpectedException() {
return IllegalArgumentException.class;
}
#Override
public void doInttemplate() {
riskyMethod.doSomething(null);
}
});
}
It looks really verbose but if you use an IDE with good autocompletion you will only need to write the type of exception and the actual code under test. (the rest will be done by the IDE :D)