I'm new to ruby. Trying to write a test that passes when an exception is raised, for example:
def network_data_unavailable
assert_raise StandardError, NetworkSim.sim(totalUse, 3, "five")
end
Those inputs will cause a StandardError to be raised but my test still fails. Any help on what I'm missing here?
First of all, I think the method you're looking for is assert_raises, not assert_raise. Then you need to call it correctly by giving it a block:
#assert_raises(*exp) ⇒ Object
Fails unless the block raises one of exp. Returns the exception matched so you can check the message, attributes, etc.
[...]
assert_raises(CustomError) { method_with_custom_error }
You want to say:
assert_raises StandardError do
NetworkSim.sim(totalUse, 3, "five")
end
so that assert_raises can call the block after it has set up the exception handling. They way you're calling it, NetworkSim.sim will be called while building the argument list to assert_raises and the exception will be raised before assert_raises can do anything to catch it.
Related
I have a function in ruby
def mark_completed
var_a = self.a
self.check_something
end
The other function is
def check_something(query = nil)
raise 'Some_exception' if condition_a_satisfy?
return true
end
See , the function check_something is raising exception , What I want is : - "To catch the exception and return false somehow"
How can i do it?
Note : - I cannot change my check_something function.
Rescue RuntimeError in #mark_completed
When you call Kernel#raise with a string, you're actually raising the default exception, which is RuntimeError. You should catch that explicitly to avoid catching other exceptions that descend from StandardError unintentionally, or courting disaster by rescuing Exception which is almost never a good idea. For example:
def mark_completed
self.check_something
rescue RuntimeError
false
end
This will solve the question you asked in a controlled way, but deliberately side-steps the question of whether raising exceptions is the right thing for the code to do in the first place, or whether other refactorings are possible.
This does involve changing the method, but this could still be useful to know.
Hi, I think you’re o looking for a try and catch statement in ruby. This will run Code if there is no error or exception, and if there is it will run specified Code.
For an example:
def check_something(query = nil)
begin
# to execute with no exceptions
rescue Exception
# to execute when you hit an exception
ensure
# to execute always
end
In ruby you can resque, multiple excetions like this:
begin
...
rescue Exception1, Exception2
...
rescue Exception1
...
rescue Exception2
...
end
But I do not know how to raise multiple exceptions:
1] pry(main)> ? raise
From: eval.c (C Method):
Owner: Kernel
Visibility: private
Signature: raise(*arg1)
Number of lines: 13
With no arguments, raises the exception in $! or raises
a RuntimeError if $! is nil.
With a single String argument, raises a
RuntimeError with the string as a message. Otherwise,
the first parameter should be the name of an Exception
class (or an object that returns an Exception object when sent
an exception message). The optional second parameter sets the
message associated with the exception, and the third parameter is an
array of callback information. Exceptions are caught by the
rescue clause of begin...end blocks.
raise "Failed to create socket"
raise ArgumentError, "No parameters", caller
Or I cannot figure this in the raise doc
The purpouse of this is that I have an API call, this call tries to create an object in the API.
Then the APi could return all the problems in the object, from Activerecord Validators, So I can get thinks like that such as:
422 "The Item is not even","The Item needs too be bigger than 100"
422 "The Item is not even"
200 OK "Item created"
500 "I'm a tee pot
The idea is to capture this and raise exceptions like this
Begin
API CALL
rescue ItemnotEven,ItemnotBigger
do something
retry if
rescue ItemnotEven
retry if
rescue Connection error
Log cannot connect
end
Exceptions shouldn't be used for validations. Basically you shouldn't traverse the stack for validations in general.
What you fundamentally are doing is:
X is top level and can handle everything. X calls Y. Y calls Z. Z performs validations and does something after that, raising an exception if validation failed.
What you should be doing is:
X calls Y. Y calls V and X. V performs validations and returns result based on if the thing was valid. Y doesn't get to call X if V said the thing was invalid. Y propagates the invalidness or the successful result to X. X does what it would have done with if/else on the validity, rather than rescue.
But lets say you really want to do it. You should use throw/catch instead:
def validate_date(date)
errors = []
errors << 'Improper format' unless date.match?(/^\d{2}-\d{2}-\d{4}$/)
errors << 'Invalid day' unless date.match?(/^[0-3]\d/)
errors << 'Invalid month' unless date.match?(/-[12]\d-/)
errors << 'Invalid year' unless date.match?(/[12][90]\d{2}$/)
throw(:validation, errors) unless errors.empty?
end
def invoke_validation_and_do_stuff(date)
validate_date(date)
puts "I won't be called unless validation is successful for #{date}"
end
def meaningless_nesting(date)
invoke_validation_and_do_stuff(date)
end
def more_meaningless_nesting(date)
meaningless_nesting(date)
end
def top_level(date)
validation_errors = catch(:validation) do
more_meaningless_nesting(date)
nil
end
if validation_errors
puts validation_errors
else
puts 'Execution successful without errors'
end
end
top_level '20-10-2012'
# I won't be called unless validation is successful for 20-10-2012
# Execution successful without errors
top_level '55-50-2012'
# Invalid day
# Invalid month
I don't think you can raise multiple exceptions, it'll raise the first exception it finds and will be caught by the innermost rescue statement if multiple exist or depends on the type of exception you raise and type of rescue
No such concept exists, in any language that I am aware of.
You can raise a single exception consecutively, but not raising multiple exceptions at one time, and even if working on multiple threads to raise "simultaneously", it is still a single exception being raised on different control flows.
When an exception is raised, control flow goes to that exception. You have two options: do something about it, or crash. There is no third option, and no separate control flow popped up and is continuing on until this exception is dealt with accordingly.
If you want to see multiple failures as you stated in a comment, then you will still be doing it one at a time, as is how they would be raised. Exception gets raised, you inspect, log, do whatever, suppress it, and see the next if one gets raised for something else.
If you are asking how multiple unhandled exceptions can be raised, then it really doesn't make sense. It is akin to asking how to be in two places at once.
I am trying to improve my Ruby skills by catching exceptions. I want to know if it is common to reraise the same kind of exception when you have several method calls. So, would the following code make sense? Is it ok to reraise the same kind of exception, or should I not catch it on the process method?
class Logo
def process
begin
#processed_logo = LogoProcessor::create_image(self.src)
rescue CustomException
raise CustomException
end
end
end
module LogoProcessor
def self.create_image
raise CustomException if some_condition
end
end
Sometimes we just want to know an error happened, without having to actually handle the error.
It is often the case that the one responsible for handling errors is user of the object: the caller. What if we are interested in the error, but don't want to assume that responsibility? We rescue the error, do whatever we need to do and then propagate the signal up the stack as if nothing had happened.
For example, what if we wanted to log the error message and then let the caller deal with it?
begin
this_will_fail!
rescue Failure => error
log.error error.message
raise
end
Calling raise without any arguments will raise the last error. In our case, we are re-raising error.
In the example you presented in your question, re-raising the error is simply not necessary. You could simply let it propagate up the stack naturally. The only difference in your example is you're creating a new error object and raising it instead of re-raising the last one.
This will raise the same type of error as the original, but you can customize the message.
rescue StandardError => e
raise e.class, "Message: #{e.message}"
I had the same question as in the comment thread here, i.e. What if the line before (re)raise fails?
My understanding was limited by the missing knowledge that the global variable of $! is "kinda garbage collected" // "scoped to its functional context", which the below example demonstrates:
def func
begin
raise StandardError, 'func!'
rescue StandardError => err
puts "$! = #{$!.inspect}"
end
end
begin
raise StandardError, 'oh no!'
rescue StandardError => err
func
puts "$! = #{$!.inspect}"
raise
end
The output of the above is:
$! = #<StandardError: func!>
$! = #<StandardError: oh no!>
StandardError: oh no!
from (pry):47:in `__pry__'
This behavior is different than how Python's (re)raise works.
The documentation for Exception states:
When an exception has been raised but not yet handled (in rescue,
ensure, at_exit and END blocks), two global variables are set:
$! contains the current exception.
$# contains its backtrace.
So these variables aren't true global variables, they are only defined inside the block that's handling the error.
begin
raise
rescue
p $! # StandardError
end
p $! # nil
A slightly better way to do the same thing as FreePender is to use the exception method from the Exception class, which is the ancestor class to any error classes, like StandardError, so that the method is available to any error classes.
Here the method's documentation that you can find on ApiDock:
With no argument, or if the argument is the same as the receiver, return the receiver. Otherwise, create a new exception object of the same class as the receiver, but with a message equal to string.to_str.
Now let's see how it works:
begin
this_will_fail!
rescue Failure => error
raise error.exception("Message: #{error.message}")
end
Adding to above answers here:
In some applications you may need to log the error twice.
For example exception need to be notified to monitoring tools like
Nagios/Newrelic/Cloudwatch.
At the same time you may have your own kibana backed summary logging
tool, internally for your reference.
In those cases you might want to log & handle the errors multiple times.
Example:
begin
begin
nil.to_sym
rescue => e
puts "inner block error message: #{e.message}"
puts "inner block backtrace: #{e.backtrace.join("\n")}"
raise e
end
rescue => e
puts "outer block error message: #{e.message}"
puts "outer block backtrace: #{e.backtrace.join("\n")}"
end
I am using puts here, for your the ease of verifying this code in
rails console, in actual production you may need to use rails logger
I have a class called RemoteError with a self.fatal method on it. This methods job is basically to catch an exception, send the details of the exception to a server and then propagate the exception in order to kill the program.
class RemoteError
def initialize(label, error)
#label = label
#error = error
end
def self.fatal(label, error)
object = new(label, error)
object.send
raise error
end
def send
# send the error to the server
end
end
I'm trying to write tests for the RemoteError.fatal method. This is difficult because of the call to raise within the method. Every time I run my tests, raise obviously raises an exception and I can't test that send was called.
describe "fatal" do
it "should send a remote error" do
error = stub
RemoteError.stub(:new) { error }
error.should_receive(:send)
RemoteError.fatal(stub, stub)
end
end
Is there a way that I can stub or somehow circumvent raise for this specific test?
You could wrap the method that raises the error in a lambda...
it "should send a remote error" do
...
lambda { RemoteError.fatal(stub, stub) }.should raise_error(error)
end
This essentially allows the method to be called, and you get the return value or raised error from it, which you then assert against with .should raise_error(error). This also makes is so that if no error is raised from that call, the test will fail normally.
To say it another way, you don't need, nor want, to stub raise. Simply wrap it in a lambda and your code will continue to execute, you should be able to make sure that your message is sent, and your test won't exit/crash.
In your tests you are testing the method that raises an error and this is an expected result of method execution. You should write expectation for exception with this syntax:
lambda{ RemoteError.fatal(stub, stub) }.should raise_error
In this case your spec will fail if exception won't be raised and also will fail if all other expectations (like should_receive(:sen)) won't be met.
How do I add information to an exception message without changing its class in ruby?
The approach I'm currently using is
strings.each_with_index do |string, i|
begin
do_risky_operation(string)
rescue
raise $!.class, "Problem with string number #{i}: #{$!}"
end
end
Ideally, I would also like to preserve the backtrace.
Is there a better way?
To reraise the exception and modify the message, while preserving the exception class and its backtrace, simply do:
strings.each_with_index do |string, i|
begin
do_risky_operation(string)
rescue Exception => e
raise $!, "Problem with string number #{i}: #{$!}", $!.backtrace
end
end
Which will yield:
# RuntimeError: Problem with string number 0: Original error message here
# backtrace...
It's not much better, but you can just reraise the exception with a new message:
raise $!, "Problem with string number #{i}: #{$!}"
You can also get a modified exception object yourself with the exception method:
new_exception = $!.exception "Problem with string number #{i}: #{$!}"
raise new_exception
I realize I'm 6 years late to this party, but...I thought I understood Ruby error handling until this week and ran across this question. While the answers are useful, there is non-obvious (and undocumented) behavior that may be useful to future readers of this thread. All code was run under ruby v2.3.1.
#Andrew Grimm asks
How do I add information to an exception message without changing its class in ruby?
and then provides sample code:
raise $!.class, "Problem with string number #{i}: #{$!}"
I think it is critical to point out that this does NOT add information to the original error instance object, but instead raises a NEW error object with the same class.
#BoosterStage says
To reraise the exception and modify the message...
but again, the provided code
raise $!, "Problem with string number #{i}: #{$!}", $!.backtrace
will raise a new instance of whatever error class is referenced by $!, but it will not be the exact same instance as $!.
The difference between #Andrew Grimm's code and #BoosterStage's example is the fact that the first argument to #raise in the first case is a Class, whereas in the second case it is an instance of some (presumably) StandardError. The difference matters because the documentation for Kernel#raise says:
With a single String argument, raises a RuntimeError with the string as a message. Otherwise, the first parameter should be the name of an Exception class (or an object that returns an Exception object when sent an exception message).
If only one argument is given and it is an error object instance, that object will be raised IF that object's #exception method inherits or implements the default behavior defined in Exception#exception(string):
With no argument, or if the argument is the same as the receiver, return the receiver. Otherwise, create a new exception object of the same class as the receiver, but with a message equal to string.to_str.
As many would guess:
catch StandardError => e
raise $!
raises the same error referenced by $!, the same as simply calling:
catch StandardError => e
raise
but probably not for the reasons one might think. In this case, the call to raise is NOT just raising the object in $!...it raises the result of $!.exception(nil), which in this case happens to be $!.
To clarify this behavior, consider this toy code:
class TestError < StandardError
def initialize(message=nil)
puts 'initialize'
super
end
def exception(message=nil)
puts 'exception'
return self if message.nil? || message == self
super
end
end
Running it (this is the same as #Andrew Grimm's sample which I quoted above):
2.3.1 :071 > begin ; raise TestError, 'message' ; rescue => e ; puts e ; end
results in:
initialize
message
So a TestError was initialized, rescued, and had its message printed. So far so good. A second test (analogous to #BoosterStage's sample quoted above):
2.3.1 :073 > begin ; raise TestError.new('foo'), 'bar' ; rescue => e ; puts e ; end
The somewhat surprising results:
initialize
exception
bar
So a TestError was initialized with 'foo', but then #raise has called #exception on the first argument (an instance of TestError) and passed in the message of 'bar' to create a second instance of TestError, which is what ultimately gets raised.
TIL.
Also, like #Sim, I am very concerned about preserving any original backtrace context, but instead of implementing a custom error handler like his raise_with_new_message, Ruby's Exception#cause has my back: whenever I want to catch an error, wrap it in a domain-specific error and then raise that error, I still have the original backtrace available via #cause on the domain-specific error being raised.
The point of all this is that--like #Andrew Grimm--I want to raise errors with more context; specifically, I want to only raise domain-specific errors from certain points in my app that can have many network-related failure modes. Then my error reporting can be made to handle the domain errors at the top level of my app and I have all the context I need for logging/reporting by calling #cause recursively until I get to the "root cause".
I use something like this:
class BaseDomainError < StandardError
attr_reader :extra
def initialize(message = nil, extra = nil)
super(message)
#extra = extra
end
end
class ServerDomainError < BaseDomainError; end
Then if I am using something like Faraday to make calls to a remote REST service, I can wrap all possible errors into a domain-specific error and pass in extra info (which I believe is the original question of this thread):
class ServiceX
def initialize(foo)
#foo = foo
end
def get_data(args)
begin
# This method is not defined and calling it will raise an error
make_network_call_to_service_x(args)
rescue StandardError => e
raise ServerDomainError.new('error calling service x', binding)
end
end
end
Yeah, that's right: I literally just realized I can set the extra info to the current binding to grab all local vars defined at the time the ServerDomainError is instantiated/raised. This test code:
begin
ServiceX.new(:bar).get_data(a: 1, b: 2)
rescue
puts $!.extra.receiver
puts $!.extra.local_variables.join(', ')
puts $!.extra.local_variable_get(:args)
puts $!.extra.local_variable_get(:e)
puts eval('self.instance_variables', $!.extra)
puts eval('self.instance_variable_get(:#foo)', $!.extra)
end
will output:
#<ServiceX:0x00007f9b10c9ef48>
args, e
{:a=>1, :b=>2}
undefined method `make_network_call_to_service_x' for #<ServiceX:0x00007f9b10c9ef48 #foo=:bar>
#foo
bar
Now a Rails controller calling ServiceX doesn't particularly need to know that ServiceX is using Faraday (or gRPC, or anything else), it just makes the call and handles BaseDomainError. Again: for logging purposes, a single handler at the top level can recursively log all the #causes of any caught errors, and for any BaseDomainError instances in the error chain it can also log the extra values, potentially including the local variables pulled from the encapsulated binding(s).
I hope this tour has been as useful for others as it was for me. I learned a lot.
UPDATE: Skiptrace looks like it adds the bindings to Ruby errors.
Also, see this other post for info about how the implementation of Exception#exception will clone the object (copying instance variables).
Here's another way:
class Exception
def with_extra_message extra
exception "#{message} - #{extra}"
end
end
begin
1/0
rescue => e
raise e.with_extra_message "you fool"
end
# raises an exception "ZeroDivisionError: divided by 0 - you fool" with original backtrace
(revised to use the exception method internally, thanks #Chuck)
My approach would be to extend the rescued error with an anonymous module that extends the error's message method:
def make_extended_message(msg)
Module.new do
##msg = msg
def message
super + ##msg
end
end
end
begin
begin
raise "this is a test"
rescue
raise($!.extend(make_extended_message(" that has been extended")))
end
rescue
puts $! # just says "this is a test"
puts $!.message # says extended message
end
That way, you don't clobber any other information in the exception (i.e. its backtrace).
I put my vote that Ryan Heneise's answer should be the accepted one.
This is a common problem in complex applications and preserving the original backtrace is often critical so much so that we have a utility method in our ErrorHandling helper module for this.
One of the problems we discovered was that sometimes trying to generate more meaningful messages when a system is in a messed up state would result in exceptions being generated inside the exception handler itself which led us to harden our utility function as follows:
def raise_with_new_message(*args)
ex = args.first.kind_of?(Exception) ? args.shift : $!
msg = begin
sprintf args.shift, *args
rescue Exception => e
"internal error modifying exception message for #{ex}: #{e}"
end
raise ex, msg, ex.backtrace
end
When things go well
begin
1/0
rescue => e
raise_with_new_message "error dividing %d by %d: %s", 1, 0, e
end
you get a nicely modified message
ZeroDivisionError: error dividing 1 by 0: divided by 0
from (irb):19:in `/'
from (irb):19
from /Users/sim/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/bin/irb:16:in `<main>'
When things go badly
begin
1/0
rescue => e
# Oops, not passing enough arguments here...
raise_with_new_message "error dividing %d by %d: %s", e
end
you still don't lose track of the big picture
ZeroDivisionError: internal error modifying exception message for divided by 0: can't convert ZeroDivisionError into Integer
from (irb):25:in `/'
from (irb):25
from /Users/sim/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/bin/irb:16:in `<main>'
Here's what I ended up doing:
Exception.class_eval do
def prepend_message(message)
mod = Module.new do
define_method :to_s do
message + super()
end
end
self.extend mod
end
def append_message(message)
mod = Module.new do
define_method :to_s do
super() + message
end
end
self.extend mod
end
end
Examples:
strings = %w[a b c]
strings.each_with_index do |string, i|
begin
do_risky_operation(string)
rescue
raise $!.prepend_message "Problem with string number #{i}:"
end
end
=> NoMethodError: Problem with string number 0:undefined method `do_risky_operation' for main:Object
and:
pry(main)> exception = 0/0 rescue $!
=> #<ZeroDivisionError: divided by 0>
pry(main)> exception = exception.append_message('. With additional info!')
=> #<ZeroDivisionError: divided by 0. With additional info!>
pry(main)> exception.message
=> "divided by 0. With additional info!"
pry(main)> exception.to_s
=> "divided by 0. With additional info!"
pry(main)> exception.inspect
=> "#<ZeroDivisionError: divided by 0. With additional info!>"
This is similar to Mark Rushakoff's answer but:
Overrides to_s instead of message since by default message is defined as simply to_s (at least in Ruby 2.0 and 2.2 where I tested it)
Calls extend for you instead of making the caller do that extra step.
Uses define_method and a closure so that the local variable message can be referenced. When I tried using a class variable ##message, it warned, "warning: class variable access from toplevel" (See this question: "Since you're not creating a class with the class keyword, your class variable is being set on Object, not [your anonymous module]")
Features:
Easy to use
Reuses the same object (instead of creating a new instance of the class), so things like object identity, class, and backtrace are preserved
to_s, message, and inspect all respond appropriately
Can be used with an exception that is already stored in a variable; doesn't require you to re-raise anything (like the solution that involved passing the backtrace to raise: raise $!, …, $!.backtrace). This was important to me since the exception was passed in to my logging method, not something I had rescued myself.
Most of these answers are incredibly convoluted. Maybe they were necessary in Ruby 1.8 or whatever, but in modern versions* this is totally straightforward and intuitive. Just rescue => e, append to e.message, and raise.
begin
raise 'oops'
rescue => e
e.message << 'y daisy'
raise
end
Traceback (most recent call last):
4: from /Users/david/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.7.2/bin/irb:23:in `<main>'
3: from /Users/david/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.7.2/bin/irb:23:in `load'
2: from /Users/david/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.7.2/lib/ruby/gems/2.7.0/gems/irb-1.2.6/exe/irb:11:in `<top (required)>'
1: from (irb):2
RuntimeError (oopsy daisy)
* I've only tested with 2.7.2 and 3.1.2, but I assume everything in between is covered, and probably some earlier versions of 2.x as well.
Another approach would be to add context (extra information) about the exception as a hash instead of as a string.
Check out this pull request where I proposed adding a few new methods to make it really easy to add extra context information to exceptions, like this:
begin
…
User.find_each do |user|
reraise_with_context(user: user) do
send_reminder_email(user)
end
end
…
rescue
# $!.context[:user], etc. is available here
report_error $!, $!.context
end
or even:
User.find_each.reraise_with_context do |user|
send_reminder_email(user)
end
The nice thing about this approach is that it lets you add extra information in a very concise way. And it doesn't even require you to define new exception classes inside which to wrap the original exceptions.
As much as I like #Lemon Cat's answer for many reasons, and it's certainly appropriate for some cases, I feel like if what you are actually trying to do is attach additional information about the original exception, it seems preferable to just attach it directly to that exception it pertains to rather than inventing a new wrapper exception (and adding another layer of indirection).
Another example:
class ServiceX
def get_data(args)
reraise_with_context(StandardError, binding: binding, service: self.class, callee: __callee__) do
# This method is not defined and calling it will raise an error
make_network_call_to_service_x(args)
end
end
end
The downside of this approach is that you have to update your error handling to actually use the information that may be available in exception.context. But you would have to do that anyway in order to recursively call cause to get to the root excetion.
It's possible to use :cause key to prevent message duplication
The cause of the generated exception (accessible via Exception#cause) is automatically set to the "current" exception ($!), if any. An alternative value, either an Exception object or nil, can be specified via the :cause argument.
begin
do_risky_operation
rescue => e
raise e.class, "#{e.message} (some extra message)", e.backtrace, cause: nil
end