We Keep Coding

Is it okay to call the the method a try catch statement is in with the finally block

I made a switch case statement menu with one of the options being System.exit(0);. This is all surrounded by a try, finally that calls the method all of this is in. Would you guys not recommend this style of loop or am I all good?
public void Run() {
Scanner myObj = new Scanner(System.in);
int menuInput;
try {
System.out.println(" 1) call something\n"
+"2) quit");
menuInput = myObj.nextInt();
myObj.nextLine();
switch(menuInput) {
case 1:
something();
break;
case 2:
System.exit(0);
break;
}
}catch (Exeption e ){
System.out.println("Something went wrong.");
}finally{
Run();
}
}

No.
What you have here is an infinite recursion. Eventually you'd overflow the stack.
Use an actual loop instead:
while (true) {
try {
// ...
} catch (Exception e) {
// ...
}
}
And you almost never want to call System.exit. Just break the loop instead.

Is this legal code? Yes.
Is what you have there recommended? No.
If the method throws an exception it's likely recalling it will throw again. See the quote below.
Calling it again in a tight loop without attempting remedy, at least waiting a recovery and counting failures (3 strikes out?) will just end up in a tight loop of failure and stack overflow here.
So:
Can you identify errors that retrying may work and only retry on those?
You should almost certainly include some kind of 'back-off' wait before retry.
Always (always!) include a maximum retry number after which you accept failure.
In my experience the only kind of failure that may work on retry is 'service unavailable' meaning an intermittent outage.
It may not be relevant, but things like (say) invalid credentials aren't going to fix themselves and ideally you don't resubmit those. That's particularly because you end up locking the account and being in an even worse state and possibly causing issues for others using the valid credential...
The other scenario is (say) file not found and you're using the non-existence of a file as a way of polling for something.
That's a poor design pattern and is a misuse of exception handling.
You should strongly prefer to use some kind for existence check in those cases and not let routine activity get confused with exception handling of issues.
Also if you do retry log each attempt (it may be useful later to see whether things are running smoothly or getting delayed in retry scenarios even if the go through eventually). But always differentiate a 'Warning' when retrying and 'Error' when 'throwing in the towel' and failing.
public class Runner {
private static int MAX_RETRIES=3;
private static int BACK_OFF_MILLIS=30000;
public void Run() throws Exception,InterruptedException {
final int TRIES=3;//In reality may be configured.
int trycount=1;
for(;;){
try{
tryRun();
return;
}catch(Exception e){
String message=e.getMessage();
if(trycount>=MAX_RETRIES){
System.out.println("*FAILED*: "+e.getMessage());
throw e;
}
boolean retriable=true;
//Any tests for non-retriable exceptions here...
if(!retriable){
System.out.println("*FAILED*: non-retriable exception - "+e.getMessage());
throw e;
}
++trycount;
System.out.println("Warning: "+e.getMessage()+" retrying "+ trycount+" of "+TRIES);
try {
Thread.sleep(trycount*BACK_OFF_MILLIS);//Some kind of back-off...
}catch(InterruptedException ie){
System.out.println("*FAILED*: Interrupted. Aborting.");
throw ie;
}
continue;
}
}
}
public void tryRun() throws Exception{
//Real workload goes here!
}
}
NB: The back-off strategy here is very simplistic. When it comes to outages then it's usually recommended to implement a random element and an increasing back-off like 1 minute, 10 minutes, 25 minutes. But that's a topic in itself.
I'm not sure who really said but this popular quote seems relevant.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results

why is the Catch exception e printing instead of doing what is in Try

I am confused why it is going to catch and print the error occurred message when I run my code since it runs and just prints the message I can't tell what the error could be
Note: this is my very first time using try and catch my professor told us to use it but haven't really learned how it works fully yet so I'm not sure if the problem is with that or if it's just with my code
public static void main (String [] args) {
try {
File file = new File("in.txt");
Scanner scanFile = new Scanner(file);
...
} catch(Exception e) {
System.out.println("Error");
}
}

Do not catch an exception unless you know what to do. It is common that you don't - most exceptions aren't 'recoverable'.
So, what do you do instead?
Simplest plan: Just tack throws Exception on your main method. public static void main(String[] args) methods should by default be declared to throws Exception, you need a pretty good reason if you want to deviate from this.
Outside of the main method, think about your method. Is the fact that it throws an exception an implementation detail (a detail that someone just reading about what the method is for would be a bit surprised by, or which could change tomorrow if you decide to rewrite the code to do the same thing but in a different way)? In that case, do not add that exception to the throws clause of your method. But if it is, just add it. Example: Any method whose very name suggests that file I/O is involved (e.g. a method called readFile), should definitely be declared to throws IOException. It'd be weird for that method not to throws that.
Occasionally you can't do that, for example because you're overriding or implementing a method from an interface or superclass that doesn't let you do this. Or, it's an implementation detail (as per 2). The usual solution then is to just catch it and rethrow it, wrapped into something else. Simplest:
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("uncaught", e);
}
Note that the above is just the best default, but it's still pretty ugly. RuntimeException says very little and is not really catchable (it's too broad), but if you don't really understand what the exception means and don't want to worry about it, the above is the correct fire-and-forget. If you're using an IDE, it probably defaults to e.printStackTrace() which is really bad, fix that template immediately (print half the details, toss the rest in the garbage, then just keep on going? That's.. nuts).
Of course, if you know exactly why that exception is thrown and you know what to do about it, then.. just do that. Example of this last thing:
public int askForInt(String prompt) {
while (true) {
System.out.println(prompt + ": ");
try {
return scanner.nextInt();
} catch (InputMismatchException e) {
System.out.println("-- Please enter an integral number");
}
}
}
The above code will catch the problem of the user not entering an integer and knows what to do: Re-start the loop and ask them again, until they do it right.
Just add throws Exception to your main method declaration, and toss the try/catch stuff out.

There are a couple of problems with your current code:
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Error occured...");
}
Firstly, you are not printing any information about the exception that you caught. The following would be better:
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage()); // prints just the message
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e); // prints the exception class and message
}
catch (Exception e) {
e.getStackTrace(System.out); // prints the exception stacktrace
}
Secondly, for a production quality you probably should be logging the exceptions rather than just writing diagnostics to standard output.
Finally, it is usually a bad idea to catch Exception. It is usually better to catch the exceptions that you are expecting, and allow all others to propagate.
You could also declare the main method as throws Exception and don't bother to catch it. By default, JVM will automatically produce a stacktrace for any uncaught exceptions in main. However, that is a lazy solution. And it has the disadvantage that the compiler won't tell you about checked exceptions that you haven't handled. (That is a bad thing, depending on your POV.)
now null printed out.
This is why the 2nd and 3rd alternatives are better. There are some exceptions that are created with null messages. (My guess is that it is a NullPointerException. You will need a stacktrace to work out what caused that.)

Catching Exception e is often overly broad. Java has many built-in exceptions, and a generic Exception will catch all of them. Alternatively, consider using multiple catch blocks to dictate how your program should handle the individual exceptions you expect to encounter.
catch (ArithmeticException e) {
// How your program should handle an ArithmeticException
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
// How your program should handle a NullPointerException
}

Try Catch block works but test assertThrows fail (Junit 5)

I am trying to follow this tutorial JUnit 5: How to assert an exception is thrown?
I use Java 10, IntelliJ 2018 and Junit 5.
I make a calculator app that adds 2 fractions. It checks whether the input has 0 in the denominator.
When I run the test The exception Message get printed out "Undefined Math Expression" but my IDE says "Expected java.lang.Throwable to be thrown, but nothing was thrown." I think there is some problem with the scope of my code? I'm a newbie, please be kind. I provided the code and the test below:
public class Calculator {
public static int[] calculate (int firstNumerator, int firstDenominator, int secondNumerator, int secondDenominator) {
String exceptionMessage = "Undefined Math Expression";
int resultNumerator;
int resultDenominator;
int[] result = new int[2];
resultNumerator = (firstNumerator * secondDenominator) +
(secondNumerator * firstDenominator);
resultDenominator = firstDenominator * secondDenominator;
try {
if (resultDenominator == 0) {
throw (new Throwable(exceptionMessage));
} else {
result[0] = resultNumerator;
result[1] = resultDenominator;
}
} catch (Throwable e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
}
return result;
}
}
The test:
class CalculatorTest {
#Test
void denominatorContainsZero() {
assertThrows(Throwable.class, () -> {
Calculator.calculate(0,0,0,0);
});
}
}

The misunderstanding here appears to be in what JUnit can actually see.
JUnit isn't magical: it's just plain old Java. It can't see inside your methods to see what they are doing. All it can see is what any other code can see when it executes a method: the return value and uncaught exceptions (as well as any side effects of the method, if they are visible to the calling code).
Your method here doesn't throw an exception from the perspective of a caller: internally, it throws the exception, but it catches and handles it.
If you want JUnit to test that an exception is thrown, you need to not catch that exception.
It is never (*) the right thing to do to throw an exception and then catch and handle it yourself. What's the point? You can simply do the thing you do to handle it, without throwing the exception. Exceptions are expensive to throw, because of the need to capture the entire stack trace.
Throwable is never (*) the right exception to throw. It's the exception "equivalent" of returning Object: it conveys no type information about the exception to the caller, who then either has to do a lot of work to try to handle it; or, more realistically, should just propagate it themselves. IllegalArgumentException is the right exception to throw here, if you actually needed to throw (and not catch) an exception.
Throwable is rarely the right thing to catch. Throwable is a supertype of both Exception and Error, so you might unintentionally catch an Error, like OutOfMemoryError, which shouldn't be caught because there is nothing reasonable to do except crash your program. Catch the most specific type you can; which also means that you should throw the most specific type you can (or, at least, a type appropriate to the abstraction).
(*) This is "never" as in "ok, there are a limited number of circumstances where it may be appropriate". But unless you understand what these are, don't.

The Throwable is catched by try catch block, so Junit can not access it. Try remove the try catch block.

You are not actually throwing exception, you are catching it. For this to work, you should remove try catch block.

Difference between Exceptions and if then in Java

I have 2 examples:
void terminate(String x) {
System.exit(0);
}
void x (long y) {
if(y == null) {
terminate();
}
//code
}
.....
x(null); //Don't want that
This example seems to work. I want to make sure that long y is not null. I might do this instead:
void x (long y) throws NullPointerException {
//code
}
...
try {
x(null);
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
e.printstacktrace();
}
What would the difference in performance be? In such example, it might not be visible, but in a complex program, would it matter? Should I get into practice of exceptions instead of if then?

Use exceptions for exceptional circumstances, when things happen that youdid not expect and where nothing sensible can be done to recover.
Otherwise, use if-then and maybe return a status code.
In terms of performance, exceptions create a huge overhead compared to returns. Calling a method and catching an exception if it didn't work is verbose and annoying.
void myOperation() {
step1();
step2();
step3();
}
In this example, exceptions are preferable for when any of the steps fails, the entire operation fails anyways, so I prefer not having to deal with any of this.
void myOperation(String number) {
int n;
try {
n = Integer.parse(number);
} catch (NumberFormatException e) {
n = DEFAULT;
}
doThings(n);
}
In this case, having to catch the exception is annoying because I kind of expect the string to be invalid and have a reasonable alternative. The exception makes the code slow and verbose.

What would the difference in performance be?
Version with exception definitely will works slower and will have overhead of processing exceptions, creating objects, filling stack traces and so on.
In such example, it might not be visible, but in a complex program,
would it matter? Should I get into practice of exceptions instead of if then?
In complex programs none use this kind of processing possible null pointer exceptions, and it's actually anti-pattern in java, so if you whant be save with null you should you kind of not null check like if(x!=null) or assert.
Also I advice you read more about exceptions in java and differences between checked/unchecked exceptions and so on.
PS here is good topic about null checks.

Exception handling try catch inside catch

I recently came across code written by a fellow programmer in which he had a try-catch statement inside a catch!
Please forgive my inability to paste the actual code, but what he did was something similar to this:
try
{
//ABC Operation
}
catch (ArgumentException ae)
{
try
{
//XYZ Operation
}
catch (IndexOutOfRangeException ioe)
{
//Something
}
}
I personally feel that it is some of the poorest code I have ever seen!
On a scale of 1 to 10, how soon do you think I should go and give him a piece of my mind, or am I over-reacting?
EDIT:
What he is actually doing in the catch, he is performing some operations which can/should be done when the initial try fails. My problem is with having a clean code and maintainability. Delegating the exception from the first catch to a different function or the calling function would be OK, but adding more code which may or may not throw an exception into the first catch, is what I felt was not good. I try to avoid multiple stacked "if-loop" statements, I found this equally bad.

Why is that bad? It's no different conceptually than:
void TrySomething() {
try {
} catch (ArgumentException) {
HandleTrySomethingFailure();
}
}
void HandleTrySomethingFailure() {
try {
} catch (IndexOutOfRangeException) {
}
}
Before you go over there and give him a piece of your brain (try the parietal lobe, it's particularly offensive) , what exactly are you going to say to him? How will you answer the proverbial "why?"
What's even more ironic is that when the jitter inlines this code, it will look exactly like your example.
-Oisin

Here is a case :
try{
//Dangerous Operation
} catch (AnyException ae) {
try {
//Do rollback which can fail
} catch (RollbackFailedException rfe) {
//Log that
}
} finally {
try {
//close connection but it may fail too
} catch (IOException ioe) {
//Log that
}
}
It's about the same thing as #x0n said. You might need to handle exception while try to close resources or while you're trying to resolve a situation brought by another exception.

Without knowing what the code does it's impossible to say. But it's not unusual to do this.
e.g. if you have to clear up resources whilst handling exceptions, that clear-up code itself may have the capability to throw exceptions.