So we want to check a certain method, say findOne() in certain java classes if it throws a specific exception or not. If it doesn't throw the exception, then an issue to be reported at method level.
We could use
public void visitThrowStatement(ThrowStatementTree tree)
but this only gets called when there is a statement that throws the exception, how can we check if it's not thrown?
You need to keep a context in your visitor to know in which method you are currently visiting throw statements.
Basically, if you are within a findOne method, then you will visit the code of the method, if it has a correct throw statement,then don't raise an issue but if it has not then raise an issue.
Something along the lines of (this is pseudo code and should of course be adapted but that will explain the concept):
LinkedList<MethodTree> stack;
int throwCount = 0;
void visitMethod(MethodTree methodTree) {
stack.push(methodTree);
throwCount = 0;
super.visitMethod(methodTree);
if(throwCount == 0) {
//raise Issue
}
}
void visit throwStatement(ThrowStatementTree tree) {
if(isCorrectExceptionThrown(tree)) {
throwCount++;
}
}
Related
I get this error when opening one specific form. The rest is working fine and I have no clue why this one isn't.
Error: An attempt has been made to Attach or Add an entity that is not new, perhaps having been loaded from another DataContext. This is not supported.
I get the error at _oDBConnection when I try to save. When I watch _oDBConnection while running through the code, it does not exist. Even when I open the main-window it does not exist. So this form is where the DataContext is built for the very first time.
Every class inherits from clsBase where the DataContext is built.
My collegue is the professional one who built it all. I am just expanding and using it (learned it by doing it). But now I'm stuck and he is on holiday. So keep it simple :-)
What can it be?
clsPermanency
namespace Reservation
{
class clsPermanency : clsBase
{
private tblPermanency _oPermanency;
public tblPermanency PermanencyData
{
get { return _oPermanency; }
set { _oPermanency = value; }
}
public clsPermanency()
: base()
{
_oPermanency = new tblPermanency();
}
public clsPermanency(int iID)
: this()
{
_oPermanency = (from oPermanencyData in _oDBConnection.tblPermanencies
where oPermanencyData.ID == iID
select oPermanencyData).First();
if (_oPermanency == null)
throw new Exception("Permanentie niet gevonden");
}
public void save()
{
if (_oPermanency.ID == 0)
{
_oDBConnection.tblPermanencies.InsertOnSubmit(_oPermanency);
}
_oDBConnection.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
clsBase
public class clsBase
{
protected DBReservationDataContext _oDBConnection;
protected int _iID;
public int ID
{
get { return _iID; }
}
public DBReservationDataContext DBConnection
{
get { return _oDBConnection; }
}
public clsBase()
{
_oDBConnection = new DBReservationDataContext();
}
}
Not a direct answer, but this is really bad design, sorry.
Issues:
One context instance per class instance. Pretty incredible. How are you going to manage units of work and transactions? And what about memory consumption and performance?
Indirection: every entity instance (prefixed o) is wrapped in a cls class. What a hassle to make classes cooperate, if necessary, or to access their properties.
DRY: far from it. Does each clsBase derivative have the same methods as clsPermanency?
Constructors: you always have to call the base constructor. The constructor with int iID always causes a redundant new object to be created, which will certainly be a noticeable performance hit when dealing with larger numbers. A minor change in constructor logic may cause the sequence of constructor invocations to change. (Nested and inherited constructors are always tricky).
Exception handling: you need a try-catch everywhere where classes are created. (BTW: First() will throw its own exception if the record is not there).
Finally, not a real issue, but class and variable name prefixes are sooo 19xx.
What to do?
I don't think you can change your colleague's design in his absence. But I'd really talk to him about it in due time. Just study some linq-to-sql examples out there to pick up some regular patterns.
The exception indicates that somewhere between fetching the _oPermanency instance (in the Id-d constructor) and saving it a new _oDBConnection is created. The code as shown does not reveal how this could happen, but I assume there is more code than this. When you debug and check GetHashCode() of _oDBConnection instances you should be able to find where it happens.
I have a simple method for sending emails:
public void notifyEmail(string messageSubject, string messageBody)
{
MailMessage message = new MailMessage(from, to);
message.Subject = messageSubject;
message.Body = messageBody;
SmtpClient client = new SmtpClient(smtp_client);
client.Send(message);
message.Dispose();//release everything related
}
And a unit test (I'm learning):
[TestMethod()]
public void notifyEmailTest()
{
eMail target = new eMail("TEST Subject","TEST Body"); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value
bool testSent = true;
try
{
target.notifyEmail();
}
catch (Exception)
{
testSent = false;
}
Assert.IsTrue(testSent);
}
I deliberately set the smtp_client variable value to something invalid.
Running the code in my project results in an error.
Running the test method results in a Pass. Should my test or method be structured differently so that errors will fail the test?
I always do everything I can to avoid putting try-catch clauses on my unit tests. Instead try using the ExpectedException attribute (the attribute is the same for NUnit and MSTest) and set the type to the exception you are expecting i.e.
[TestMethod]
[ExpectedException(typeof(NetworkException))]
public void ShouldThrowNetworkExceptionIfSmtpServerIsInvalid)
{
//... test code here.
}
Another approach that I have used is to create a static class with an AssertExpectedException method since sometimes a method can throw the same type of exception for different reasons and the only way to know for sure if the accurate message is being returned is with custom code since the attribute does not assert the message the thrown exception is returning.
Hope this helps.
Regards.
If you expect that target.notifyEmail() should be throwing an exception, then that's what you should be testing for. If you were using NUnit you could use Assert.Throws<T>, e.g.
[Test]
public void notifyEmailTestFails()
{
// TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value
eMail target = new eMail("TEST Subject","TEST Body");
Assert.Throws<InvalidOperationException>(target.notifyEmail());
}
However, now I see you're using VSUnit you should be using [ExpectedException(typeof(...))]
as mentioned in other answers.
In general you should have separate tests for success, failure, and for exception conditions.
The way I normally do this is to decorate the test with ExpectedException (
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.visualstudio.testtools.unittesting.expectedexceptionattribute(v=vs.80).aspx)
. But you want to catch something MUCH less generic than "Exception."
If you don't want to use expected exception, then instead of:
bool testSent = true;
try
{
target.notifyEmail();
}
catch (Exception)
{
testSent = false;
}
Assert.IsTrue(testSent);
You can be a little less verbose:
try{
target.notifyEmail();
Assert.Fail("Expected an exception here");
}
catch (SmtpException){
}
I would highly recommend you to try the FluenAssertions:
http://fluentassertions.codeplex.com/
They are simple awesome and Elegant
And they let you check the exception message (You can not do that with the ExpectedException attribute)
Example:
using FluentAssertions;
[TestMethod]
public void notifyEmailTest()
{
eMail target = new eMail("TEST Subject","TEST Body"); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value
target.Invoking(x => x.notifyEmail())
.ShouldThrow<YourExcpectedException>()
.WithMessage("Your expected message", FluentAssertions.Assertions.ComparisonMode.Substring);
}
Currently i am using spring declarative transaction manager in my application. During DB operations if any constraint violated i want to check the error code against the database. i mean i want to run one select query after the exception happened. So i am catching the DataIntegrityViolationException inside my Catch block and then i am trying to execute one more error code query. But that query is not get executed . I am assuming since i am using the transaction manager if any exception happened the next query is not getting executed. Is that right?. i want to execute that error code query before i am returning the results to the client. Any way to do this?
#Override
#Transactional
public LineOfBusinessResponse create(
CreateLineOfBusiness createLineOfBusiness)
throws GenericUpcException {
logger.info("Start of createLineOfBusinessEntity()");
LineOfBusinessEntity lineOfBusinessEntity =
setLineOfBusinessEntityProperties(createLineOfBusiness);
try {
lineOfBusinessDao.create(lineOfBusinessEntity);
return setUpcLineOfBusinessResponseProperties(lineOfBusinessEntity);
}
// Some db constraints is failed
catch (DataIntegrityViolationException dav) {
String errorMessage =
errorCodesBd.findErrorCodeByErrorMessage(dav.getMessage());
throw new GenericUpcException(errorMessage);
}
// General Exceptions handling
catch (Exception exc) {
logger.debug("<<<<Coming inside General >>>>");
System.out.print("<<<<Coming inside General >>>>");
throw new GenericUpcException(exc.getMessage());
}
}
public String findErrorCodeByErrorMessage(String errorMessage)throws GenericUpcException {
try{
int first=errorMessage.indexOf("[",errorMessage.indexOf("constraint"));
int last=errorMessage.indexOf("]",first);
String errorCode=errorMessage.substring(first+1, last);
//return errorCodesDao.find(errorCode);
return errorCode;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
throw new GenericUpcException(e.getMessage());
}
}
Please help me.
I don't think problem you're describing has anything to do with Transaction management. If DataIntegrityViolationException happens within your try() block you code within catch() should execute. Perhaps exception different from DataIntegrityViolationException happens or your findErrorCodeByErrorMessage() throwing another exception. In general, Transaction logic would be applied only once you return from your method call, until then you could do whatever you like using normal Java language constructs. I suggest you put breakpoint in your error error handler or some debug statements to see what's actually happening.
I am using MSTest and in a [TestMethod] I have an object whose code throws an exception and I catch it; in certain circumstances, I re-throw it, other times I don't, but the test always fails indicating that the exception was thrown, even though I do not re-throw it some times. How do I conditionally ignore an exception? Because it is conditional, whether or not I re-throw the exception, I can't use [ExpectedException].
You should be testing your method in deterministic circumstances, i.e. with a set of arguments that always returns the same response. If your method sometimes throws an exception and sometimes doesn't, you should have one test for the cases where it throws, and another for when it doesn't.
If you do not have control over the conditions for which you throw an exception, it is a sign that you need to refactor your code so that you extract the condition, and are able to test the method in a deterministic way.
For example:
[TestMethod]
public void SomeMethodDoesntFail()
{
var obj = new objectUnderTest();
var shouldThrow = false;
var result = obj.SomeMethod(shouldThrow);
Assert.IsEqual(*expected result*, result);
}
[TestMethod, ExpectedException]
public void SomeMethodFails()
{
var obj = new objectUnderTest();
var shouldThrow = true;
var result = obj.SomeMethod(shouldThrow);
}
Basically at work I commonly run into code like:
double pricediff = 0.0;
if(!string.IsNullOrEmpty(someVariable.ToString()))
pricediff = Convert.ToDouble(someVariable);
Instead of something like:
double pricediff = 0.0;
Double.TryParse(someVariable, out pricediff);
Is there a setting within Visual Studio that can produce a warning whenever a method such as Convert.Double is used that can throw an exception and the method is not contained within a try{} block?
No there is not. Part of the reason why is that practically any method out there can throw an exception. It would have to issue a warning for almost every method as virtually any method can raise the following
StackOverflowException
OutOfMemoryException
Add on top of that the much more likely NullReferenceException and essentially every method would be marked as "can throw".
It would be reasonable though to create a feature that marks for explicitly thrown exceptions. VS does not have this feature but R# does (IIRC). However even that is not foolproof because you can't see through interfaces.
interface IExample {
void Method();
}
class Class1 : IExample() {
void Method() { throw new Exception(); }
}
class Class2 : IExample() {
void Method() {}
}
...
IExample v1 = ...;
v1.Method();
In this same Method may or may not throw. Whether it does or not cannot be definitively determined by static analysis in all cases.