when internal Guidewire code throws an exception you get a nicely formatted error message box. However, when custom code throws an exception you are directed to the error page (with the red stack trace text & back to application button). Is there anything in the Guidewire framework to make proper UI handling of errors nicer?
such as: < TextBox value="user.someMethod()"/>
//someMethod code...
try{
return user.someOtherCode()
}catch(e : Exception){
//TODO: gracefully display erorr mesage on page
//e.g. showErrorMessage()
return null
}
You have a simpler way to do this,
The below piece of code can be written in helper class or any Enhancement or even in PCF code tab, this will return a nice formatted error message.
gw.api.util.LocationUtil.addRequestScopedErrorMessage("Your error message")
After some searching through Guidewire OOTB code UserDisplayableExceptions are what you need - answering myself in case someone else has this thought.
function goToPolicy(bulkDocumentDownload : BulkDocDownload_Avi) {
try {
throw new IndexOutOfBoundsException("Ops! some index out of bounds exception was thrown")
} catch (e : Exception) {
throw new com.guidewire.pl.web.controller.UserDisplayableException(e.Message)
}
}
Related
I have an IdHTTP component and when I get a HTTP error (for example 404) Indy shows a message box. I want to handle this "silent" and prevent Indy from showing this.
I have not found any parameter to turn this off. Any ideas?
Indy does not display message boxes. It throws exceptions. There are default exception handlers inside the VCL/FMX framework that will display a message box to the user if an exception is not caught in your code. So simply catch the exception in your code, eg:
try
{
IdHTTP1->Get(...);
}
catch (const Exception &)
{
// do something...
}
If you need finer control over the exception filtering, all Indy-specific exceptions are derived from EIdException, and there are many descendants (like EIdHTTPProtocolException), eg:
try
{
IdHTTP1->Get(...);
}
catch (const EIdHTTPProtocolException &)
{
// an HTTP error occured, do something...
// details about the HTTP error are in the exception object
}
catch (const EIdException &)
{
// a non-HTTP Indy error occured, do something else...
}
catch (const Exception &)
{
// some other error occured, do something else...
}
I have a BlackBerry App that has a Listener for the Send Button implemented in the CheckIn Screen. Data is sent through a web service. If the data is sent successfully, a confirmation message of "OK" is received. I am trying to switch screens in my BlackBerry App depending on the response received.
FieldChangeListener sendBtnListener = new FieldChangeListener() {
public void fieldChanged(Field field, int context)
{
try {
String alertMsg=sendTextCheckIn();
if(alertMsg.equals("OK"))
{
UiApplication.getUiApplication().invokeLater( new Runnable()
{
public void run ()
{
UiApplication.getUiApplication().pushScreen(new MyScreen());
}
} );
}
} catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
However, the above is throwing an App Error 104: IllegalStateException. Can anyone please guide on how to switch screens between a BlackBerry App.
EDIT: I can switch to any other screen but I CAN NOT switch to MyScreen. NOTE: MyScreen is the main (first) screen of the App. The above method sendTextCheckIn() calls another method that is placed inside MyScreen. Has this got anything to do with the error? Please advice.
The 'fieldChanged' event is already running on the UI event thread, so you shouldn't need to do the invokeLater call within it, just call pushScreen directly.
You mention that your problem with IllegalStateException only happens for MyScreen. That makes it sound like something specific with the implementation of MyScreen. Start narrowing down the problem - look at what happens in the constructor of MyScreen, and any events that might get called before the screen is visible. Some of that code is what is causing the problem.
Wrap everything that could possibly raise in exception in try/catch.
Don't do e.printStackTrace() - that won't give you much.
Instead do something like System.err.println ("KABOOM in method abc() - " + e); - seems like more effort, but trust me, that becomes INVALUABLE when debugging issues like this.
Catch Exception, unless you have a VERY good reason to catch a specific a subtype - otherwise you WILL end up with unexpected, and uncaught exceptions, which you will hunt for DAYS.
I'm working on a team-project and I am in the following situation:
I created my own Exception class, and I want all the thrown exceptions of type myException to be handled and automatically redirected to the Error view where I would nicely display the error, which is ok to do. This is what I added in my Web.config:
<customErrors mode="On" defaultRedirect="Error" />
The issue is I want all the rest of the exceptions to be thrown normally, seeing all the information about it, including the stack trace, the source file and the line error, which would be really good for the team-project.
I've tried the [HandleError(ExceptionType=typeof(myException)], but it is no use.
I also tried to override the OnException function of the controller and if the exception is not myException then i would throw it again, but i still get in the Error view.
protected override void OnException(System.Web.Mvc.ExceptionContext filterContext)
{
if (filterContext.Exception.GetType() != typeof(myException)) {
throw filterContext.Exception;
}
base.OnException(filterContext);
}
Any idea which could work?
Thanks.
You may get the result you want by leaving custom errors Off (so that for all the errors you get the stack trace displayed), and redirecting the exceptions you want to the controller/view you need (so that a friendly-looking page will be displayed).
You could define a base controller for all your controllers, and override its OnException method with something like below:
if (filterContext.Exception.GetType() == typeof(YourCustomException))
{
filterContext.ExceptionHandled = true;
filterContext.Result = RedirectToAction("ActionName", "ControllerName", new { customMessage = "You may want to pass a custom error message, or any other parameters here"});
}
else
{
base.OnException(filterContext);
}
I would like to know whether or not it is possible to clear an exception out of the request when trying to hit the Render Phase after the Action Phase has thrown the exception.
If you look at this code snippet from the doRenderService method of DispatchPortlet.class (a Spring provided class):
PortletSession session = request.getPortletSession(false);
if (session != null) {
if (request.getParameter(ACTION_EXCEPTION_RENDER_PARAMETER) != null) {
Exception ex = (Exception)
session.getAttribute(ACTION_EXCEPTION_SESSION_ATTRIBUTE);
if (ex != null) {
logger.debug("Render phase found exception caught during action phase - rethrowing it");
throw ex;
}
}
else {
session.removeAttribute(ACTION_EXCEPTION_SESSION_ATTRIBUTE);
}
}
You can see here that an exception gets put into the parameter map and there doesn't seem to be any way to clear it out.
What I would like to do is originally catch the Exception (what I am successfully doing), display an "Error Page" (what I am successfully doing), then display a button on that Error Page that allows the user to bring up the "Render Phase" page again so that he/she may be able to try their Action, again.
I've tried to create a filter, interceptor, new controller to clear the parameter, but it seems that the ParameterMap is an UnmodifiableCollection.
Any thoughts?
I actually was able to figure this out by doing the following in a render-phase filter:
session.setAttribute(ACTION_EXCEPTION_SESSION_ATTRIBUTE, null)
You can configure your org.springframework.web.portlet.DispatcherPortlet with setForwardActionException(false). This prevents spring from adding the Exception details in render parameters, or session.
I have an issue with VS2010 where the debugger stops with an Unhandled Exception. However, the exception is definitely handled. In fact, if I put code in the catch block, I'll hit it when I press F5. In Debug -> Exceptions, I definitely do not have the "Thrown" checkbox checked, so IMO there is absolutely no reason for the unhandled exception dialog to pop up...
I can't post the exact code, but will work on a sample soon. The basic idea behind the offending code section is that I have a thread that talks to hardware, and if I have an error talking to it, then I throw a HardwareException. The thread is launched with BeginInvoke, and the exception is caught in the callback handler when I call EndInvoke.
When the exception is thrown in the debugger, I get a messagebox that says 'HardwareException not handled by user code". But it is!!!
EDIT -- Well, this is driving me crazy. I've got sample code that is representative of the code I have in my application, and it looks like this:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class HardwareException : ApplicationException
{
public HardwareException( string message) : base(message) {}
}
class Program
{
delegate void HardwareTestDelegate();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
HardwareTestDelegate d = new HardwareTestDelegate( HardwareTestThread);
d.BeginInvoke( HardwareTestComplete, null);
while( true);
}
static void HardwareTestThread()
{
throw new HardwareException( "this is a test");
}
static void HardwareTestComplete( IAsyncResult iar)
{
try {
AsyncResult ar = (AsyncResult)iar;
HardwareTestDelegate caller = (HardwareTestDelegate)ar.AsyncDelegate;
caller.EndInvoke( iar);
} catch( Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine( "Should see this line without getting an unhandled exception message in the IDE");
}
}
}
}
I throw my HardwareException from the thread, and then handle the exception when EndInvoke is called. I guess Murphy was right, because when I run this sample code, it does what I expect -- i.e. no unhandled exception error message pops up in the IDE!
Here is the response from Microsoft, case 111053102422121. Allen Weng writes the following:
Analysis:
For your information, CLR will re-throw the exception inside the callback when you call EndInvoke(). Below is a simplified version of EndInvoke():
public object EndInvoke(IAsyncResult asyncResult)
{
using (new MultithreadSafeCallScope())
{
ThreadMethodEntry entry = asyncResult as ThreadMethodEntry;
............
if (entry.exception != null)
{
throw entry.exception;
}
}
}
The exception will be handled in the call back function or in the asynchronous method if an exception handler is provided. This is how it works without a debugger attached.
When you run it in VS.NET, the debugger seems checking only the presence of the exception handler in the asynchronous method. If there is no such handler, the debugger would think the exception is not handled and pop up an error message notifying you of this.
Suggestion:
The application should work as expected when you run it stand alone. If the error message is annoying in debugging for you, you can disable it by unchecking “User unhandled” for “Common Language Runtime Exceptions”in the Exception dialog box (Debug|Exceptions or press CTRL+ATL+E). Or you can add try/catch in the asynchronous method. In the latter case, the exception is set to null and won’t be re-thrown in EndInvoke().
I'm having this same problem, so I'll post this possible workaround for posterity's sake:
In your code that throws an exception into the .NET code (HardwareTestThread() in the example above,) catch the exception that's being thrown and wrap it in some esoteric .NET exception type for which you can disable the "user-unhandled" option in the Debug>Exceptions dialog. For my case, I needed to allow an IOException to propagate through some .NET code back to my code, so I just caught the IOException and wrapped in an AppDomainUnloadedException before letting it propagate through the .NET code back to my catch block. I chose AppDomainUnloadedException because user-unhandled is unchecked for it by default and it's in the System.dll assembly, so it was already being imported in my project, though any exception should work, so long as you disable the "user-unhandled" option for it and you don't care that the debugger won't break on that type of exception in the future.
Here's my code that wraps the IOException I was needing to propagate:
public override int Read(byte[] buffer, int offset, int count)
{
try { return innerStream.Read(buffer, offset, count); }
catch (IOException ex) { throw new AppDomainUnloadedException("Exception from innerStream: " + ex.Message, ex); }
}
And here's my code where I'm catching it on the other side of the .NET code it needed to propagate through:
try { bytesRead = sslStream.Read(buffer, offset, count); }
catch (Exception ex) { /* ex handled here. */ }