I am writing a custom matcher for my logging output, mostly so that I can customize the error output to be more readable and helpful.
The thing being examined for the test is the array returned by LoggingSpecHelper.log_events, a module class method (i.e. not a module instance method). Therefore, it is available without the need for it to be passed as a parameter.
LoggingSpecHelper.log_events is kind of long to specify in each expectation, and anyway I'd prefer to hide that implementation detail from the caller, in case that implementation changes. That leads to my using expect(:logging), where :logging is a dummy value which has no meaning and is not examined. This, however, is awkward and confusing, leaving the reader scratching their head thinking "he's examining a symbol?"
Here is an example of how it is currently called; in this case I'm looking to see if a fatal error occurs in the log that contains 'something is misconfigured' (not a real production message):
expect(:logging).to have_log_output_match(:fatal, 'something is misconfigured')
The long form of this, and what is happening in the matcher, is below, but if I do this instead of calling the matcher, I don't get to see what is in the log if an error occurs (the matcher includes log content in the failure message):
expect(LoggingSpecHelper.log_events.count do |event|
event.level == :fatal && /something is misconfigured/.match?(event.message)
end).to be == 1
How would you suggest I handle this? I don't think shared examples are what I want here because this log expectation might not be the only expectation in the example.
As an aside, I should probably rename the matcher so that it is clear that I am testing for 1 and not >=1 occurrences.
For handling entities in Drupal I'm using Entity Metadata Wrappers (the "Drupal way").
It's really easy to start coding and see all the advantages it has... except when you get a fatal error and you are not clear where it comes from.
This is what the database log shows:
EntityMetadataWrapperException: Unknown data property
field_whatever. at EntityStructureWrapper->getPropertyInfo()
(line 335 of
/var/www/html/sites/all/modules/entity/includes/entity.wrapper.inc).
Sadly, many times that "field_whatever" is "nid", "uid" or some very common property, so it's name is spread all over my code, which makes me difficult to get to the origin of the error.
I'm currently doing this:
Write a tiny piece of code and then run to see if something fails.
Using getPropertyInfo when handling entities with "not so common" fields.
Loosing hair.
What is worst is that sometimes the error does not appear when you are coding, but a week later. So it could be anywhere...
Is there any way of handling entity metadata wrapper errors better? Can I get better information in the database log and not just a line? A backtrace maybe?
Thanks.
Well, having the devel module active (just to see the nice krumo message) we can do something like this inside our module:
<?php
set_exception_handler('exception_with_trace');
function exception_with_trace($e)
{
dpm($e->getTrace());
}
That will return the backtrace error of the exception thrown by the entity metadata handler on the next page load (some page in your site where everything is running fine).
Also you can set the exception handler exclusively and more elegant just for some pages or some users with some role... or when some parameter in the url is met, or when in some state of your Drupal site is met (ex. when a bool persistent variable 'exception_with_trace' is true). Even, under certain conditions and control, you can use it in production too.
If the site does not work "at all" you can include it in your settings.php file, but instead of printing the trace, you must write the trace to a file and watch the trace in a different context (not Drupal but some php file).
If exceptions are too long and are causing memory problems then getting the trace as string is also possible. See http://php.net/manual/es/exception.gettraceasstring.php
Hope that helps.
Let us say I have a login method that's working swimmingly. It's used in quite a number of places and saves plenty of lines of retyped code. For all intents and purposes, it does not make sense to make this method any shorter.
Is it proper to write a negative test by using exception handling? For example, if I wanted to ensure that a disabled user is not able to log into the system, is it too awkward to write something like:
begin
login(username, password)
fail
rescue Exception
page.should have_text('Sorry, your account is disabled!')
end
If login actually succeeds, the test should fail. And if we reach the exception, we find our error message and the test passes.
I'm wondering if this is too "clever" and may cause confusion. What's the best way of handling a negative test case here?
You would be testing the expected behavior so there would be no rescuing within your specs. In this case, you would want to disable the account in a before caluse and then ensure the exception is raised when you attempt to perform an operation (login, etc.).
Testing anything for the generic Exception is also a bad idea - you want to be very specific about the expected exception as a different issue could cause your specs to pass.
The code would look something like
expect { login(username, password) }.to raise_error LoginException
Assuming I have a WebCrawler class. There are several errors it can encounter. How should I propagate the errors upward?
Using exceptions:
class WebCrawler
class UrlBadFormatError < StandardError; end
class PageNotFoundError < StandardError; end
class UnauthorizedError < StandardError; end
def crawl(url)
if(! url =~ /some_format/)
raise UrlBadFormatError
response = get(url)
if(response.code == 404)
raise PageNotFoundError
if(response.code == 403)
raise UnauthorizedError
...
end
end
or constants:
class WebCrawler
URL_BAD_FORMAT = 1
PAGE_NOT_FOUND = 2
UNAUTHORZIED = 3
def crawl(url)
if(! url =~ /some_format/)
return URL_BAD_FORMAT
response = get(url)
if(response.code == 404)
return PAGE_NOT_FOUND
if(response.code == 403)
return UNAUTHORZIED
...
end
end
or symbols:
class WebCrawler
def crawl(url)
if(! url =~ /some_format/)
return :url_bad_format
response = get(url)
if(response.code == 404)
return :page_not_found
if(response.code == 403)
return :unauthorized
...
end
end
which is best? or it depends(on what?)
For something which indicates programmer error, such as the wrong type of argument passed to a method, definitely throw an exception. The exception will crash the program, drawing the programmer's attention to the fact that they are using your class incorrectly, so they can fix the problem. In this case, returning an error code wouldn't make sense, because the program will have to include code to check the return value, but after the program is debugged, such errors shouldn't ever happen.
In your WebCrawler class, is it expected that crawl will receive a bad URL as an argument sometimes? I think the answer is probably no. So raising an exception would be appropriate when a bad URL is passed.
When an exception is raised, the flow of execution suddenly "jumps" to the innermost handler. This can be a useful way to structure code when the exception is not expected to happen most of the time, because you can write the "main flow" of your method as simple, straight-line code without including a lot of details about what will happen when some rare error condition occurs. Those details can be separated from the "main flow" code, and put in an exception handler. When an error condition is expected to happen under normal conditions, though, it can be better to put the error handling code inline with the "main flow", to make it clearer what is going on. If the control flow of your program "jumps around" (as is the case when exceptions are used for normal flow control), that means the reader also has to "jump around" in the program text as they are figuring out how it works.
For the other two, I think it is expected that at least sometimes, the HTTP request will return an error code. To determine whether an exception or special return value is the best way to indicate such a condition, I would think about how often those conditions are going to happen under normal usage. Think also about how the client code will read either way. If you use exceptions, they will have to write something like:
urls.map do |url|
begin
crawl(url)
rescue PageNotFoundError
""
rescue UnauthorizedError
""
end
end
(By the way, I think this code example shows something: it might be a good idea if both of your custom exceptions inherit from a common superclass, so you can catch both of them with a single rescue clause if desired.) Or if you use error codes, it would look something like:
urls.map do |url|
response = crawl(url)
if [:page_not_found, :unauthorized].include? response
""
else
response
end
end
Which do you think reads better? It's really up to you. The one thing which you do not want to do is use integer constants for errors. Why use integers? When you print them in a debug trace, you'll have to go look at the list of constants to see what each one means. And using symbols is just as efficient computationally.
Why wouldn't you throw exceptions? They can encapsulate additional information besides just the type, are trivially rescued, and if you're using an IDE, are first-class citizens.
If it's an exception then by all means raises an exception! All three of those cases are, in my opinion, exceptions. While some may argue that 4xx status codes aren't exception-worthy since you may expect them to happen, they are still client errors.
You may also read about Ruby's throw/catch, which offer exception-like behavior for cases where "don't use exceptions for control flow" applies (though I don't think that's the case here).
You should raise errors. If you encounter a malformed URL, or if the page isn't found, or if you weren't authorized to access the page, it means you cannot continue crawling. Raising an error or exception returns from the method and lets the caller deal with the unusual situation.
It should also include information about the error, such as error codes, the URL which resulted in an error and any other relevant information. It can help in deciding how best to handle the error and can later be formatted into a helpful message for the user.
What you should not do, ever, is return numeric error codes. Ruby is not C. Just use symbols instead.
I am against the use of exceptions upon encountering 403s, 404s, malformed urls and similar common occurences on the web. Exceptions are meant for "internal" errors. In the World Wild Web, bad URLs are entirely unexceptional. There should be a method(s) for handling each different URL disease. I would personally return special values as symbols, or some "SpecialCase" objects recording what happened. There is also underused catch...throw statement.
When validating data, I've gotten into a habit of doing the following:
Note: I don't really have individual booleans for each check. This is just for the example.
Another Note: any error handling during the tests are done properly. The ONLY exceptions thrown in the try-catch are my own.
try {
if (validCheckOne = false) {
throw new Exception("Check one is bad");
}
if (validCheckTwo = false) {
throw new Exception("Failed because of check2");
}
if(validCheckTen = false) {
throw new Exception("Yet another failure on your part: check10.");
}
} catch(Exception e) {
MessageBox.Show("Your stupid data is wrong! See for yourself: " + e.Message);
}
Is this bad practice? Does throwing Exceptions slow the program's execution or is inadvisable?
Personally I like throwing Exceptions for business rule validation (not so much for user input validation) because it forces the problem to be handled upstream. If my business objects returned some kind of validation result, it could be ignored by the caller. Call me a cowboy if you wish :)
Everyone here is repeating the phrase "exceptions are for exceptional circumstances", but that really doesn't give any understanding of why its bad to use them for unexceptional circumstances. I need more than that. Is the performance hit of throwing exceptions really that bad? Are there any benchmarks available?
I'm going to repeat the mantra here: throwing exceptions should be done in exceptional circumstances. Invalid entered data is really not that exceptional.
I support MusiGenesis's answer.
Additionally...
The performance of throwing an exception is a thousand instructions. It's nothing compared to end-user time, but in inner code it is slow.
An additional problem is that, using Exceptions, your validation is limited to reporting the first failure (and you will have to do it all again next time to find the next failure).
In addition to the oft-repeated statement that "exceptions are for exceptional circumstances", here's an additionally clarifying rule I've come to like:
If the user caused it, it's not exceptional.
Exceptions are for system-side things (servers going down, resources being unavailable), not for the user doing odd things, because all users do odd things.
It depends - if you are expecting the data to be there and NOT having the data is unexpected, then throwing an exception is OK. Throwing an exception is very expensive (slow) but is the best way to handle unexpected circumstances.
In the title you call it "validating" data. That can happen on several levels. In (near) the GUI where you are checking user entered data, you should be expecting errors and have ways to report the errors back. Exceptions are inappropriate in this case.
But Data Validation can also happen at other boundaries, say between business-rule classes. There, errors in the data are uncommon and unexpected. You should throw when you detect one.
So maybe in some languages exception throwing and catching is "costly" but in other languages, throwing and catching exceptions is exactly what's called for.
In Smalltalk, for example, one could quickly build a multi-tiered exception catching solution. The validation pass could collect up any number of exceptions representing EVERYTHING that's wrong with a particular input data set. Then it would throw them ALL up to a higher-level catcher, responsible for formatting up a human-readable explanation of, again, EVERYTHING that was wrong with the input. In turn it would throw a single exception further up the chain, along with that formatted explanation.
So... I guess what I'm saying is, exceptions are only bad to throw if you've got no exception handling architecture supporting catching them and doing reasonable things with them, and all your catcher is going to do is EXIT or do something else equally inappropriate.
This is bad behavior. Exceptions are for Exceptional conditions. They take resources to generate the stack etc. Exceptions should not be used to dictate process flow.
In general it is inadvisable to use Exceptions to implement conditional flow. It would be better to do something like this
error = false;
while(true) {
if(validCheckOne == false) {
msg = "Check one is bad";
error = true;
break;
}
if(validCheckTwo == false) {
msg = "Check two is bad";
error = true;
break;
}
...
break;
}
if (error) {
..
}
You should throw an exception when there is a situation you can't do nothing about it. Higher layers of software would have a chance to catch the exception and do something about it - even if that is simply crashing the application.
I would suggest that using exceptions as described in the question (for flow control within a function) is wrong not usually the best idea. I'd go further and saying validation throwing exceptions isn't the best approach; instead return a Boolean and store a list of validation error messages that can be accessed. An accompanying save method could/should throw an exception if it is called on an invalid object.
Thus if validate fails validation error messages can be displayed to the user (logged, returned. whatever). If validation passes then you can call save.
If you call save on an invalid object then get get an appropriate exception.
Another potential problem with your example code (depending on requirements of course) is it only throws the first validation error that occurs. Imagine this from a users POV:
Click save
Get an error message
Correct error
Click save again
Get a different error message. Annoying.
As a user I'd prefer to get all validation errors returned at once so I can correct them all before trying again.
I generally agree with the "exceptions should be exceptional" rule, but I might make an exception (ha!) for Python, where it can be both efficient and considered good practice to use try ... except to control flow.
See Using Exceptions For Other Purposes, for example.
This question is still interesting, mainly because of the answers.
When it comes to exception, there is a lot of arguments involved. We can defend a point to any direction we want to, from performance to exception philosophy. And they all sounds right to me.
But sometimes we have to stick to a direction. In this case, I think it's the validation itself.
When we want to validate something we also want to know (to log, or to show the user) whats wrong when the parameter is invalid. Even thought there are layers of validation such as Business Validation mixed with User Input validations.
For instance, when dealing with user input, a lot of weird cases can happen. A pasted data from a website full of hidden char (\t \n etc), typos, and a really huge kinds of cases that a specific exception could allow further analysis or message to the uses much more precisely than a simple "false" return.
When you go to the grocery and ask the seller if he's got cheese, and the seller replies with no, would that be an unexpected or exceptional response?
What about if you do the same but the seller just looks at you and does not respond!
Another example, you are talking to your friend and ask if there is something wrong, you may get 2 responses:
They tell you that they are sad because of something.
Or they just look at you and say nothing, turn their back and walk away and you are sure that this means you're in deep trouble :)
Same way with exceptions, unexpected behavior is an exception, but an invalid but expected response should not - IMHO - throw exceptions.
I often write similar code for validation, especially in express.js, and similar request/response loop style applications. When something is invalid, I throw a ValidationError, it's caught by the top level error handler, which knows to send a 422 response with the additional information that's attached to the ValidationError.
It's a very convenient way to handle validation. You don't have to pass around an error object (potentially up through a dozen stack frames, in some cases). And it's a simple and consistent way to trigger an invalid input response. I haven't experienced any serious problems with this approach.
I've thought about the "don't use exceptions for flow control" maxim in relation to this practice, and decided the benefits outweigh any disadvantages. I would say if you understand the reasoning behind "don't use exceptions for flow control", but you determine that it's a good idea anyway in a certain case, then go ahead and do it. We don't need to be too dogmatic about these things.
Throwing exceptions is relatively slow, but that will only matter if you're doing it repeatedly in a loop.
It really only matters if your data validation is in a tight loop. For most cases, it doesn't matter what you choose as long as you are consistent in your code.
If you have a lot of code that looks like your sample above then you might want to clean it up by introducing a helper method to throw...
private void throwIf( bool condition, String message )
{
if( condition )
throw new ApplicationException( message );
}
(also, doing this will help zero in on errors such as "validCheckOne = false" versus "validCheckOne == false" :)
Well, i know it's an old question. But i'll let my opinion here for the googler's who falled here like me:
If you are using a language with a bad try/catch support AVOID
THROWING exceptions for data validation;
DO NOT THROW a exception that will not be handled by the caller or
alserwhere;
DO NOT THROW a exception if you need to validate the rest of the received data;
You can THROW a exception in cases where the code block cannot continue
without the invalid data; And if you do not interrupt the process you
can get a unhandled exception;
An example:
/*
* Here it's a common problem i have: Someone pass a list of products i need to
* retrieve from the database and update some information;
*/
//This is a class to represent the product
function Product(id, name, price) {
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
this.price = price;
}
//This is an example function to retrieve the product from the database
function findProductInDatabase(productId) {
//If the product exists on the database, the function will return it
if (productId == 12) {
var product = new Product(12, "Book", 20.5);
return product;
}
//If the product do not exists, it will return null
return null;
}
//This is a function that will receive the productID and will update the received parameters
function updateProduct(productId, newProductName, newProductPrice) {
var productFromDatabase = null;
var errorMessage = "";
//Retrieve the product
productFromDatabase = findProductInDatabase(productId);
//If the product do not exist, i need to interrupt de method imediatily and alert the caller
if (!productFromDatabase) {
throw "Product not found";
}
//Validate the other parameters, but in this case i can validate all the parameters
if (newProductPrice < 10) {
errorMessage += "the price is too low";
}
if (newProductName.includes("<")) {
//If already has a error message in the variable i append " and " to the message make sense
if (errorMessage) {
errorMessage += " and ";
}
errorMessage += "the new name has invalid characters";
}
if (errorMessage) {
//if theres any error, i will throw a exception with the messages
throw errorMessage;
}
}
//This parte is where the method id called;
try {
updateProduct(9, "Book", 10.5);
} catch (exception) {
console.log("Case 1: " + exception);
}
try {
updateProduct(12, "<Book", 9);
} catch (exception) {
console.log("Case 2: " + exception);
}
In test, sure, but in a live environment, you'd hope they're never raised.
You'd hope to refactor your code to the extent that all data into your system are validated at source, and either the user, or the system that generated the input to your system, is notified of the issue.
Exceptions should occur if you've missed something and should be a fallback that is handled gracefully.
You could store anything that's causing these exceptions separately, so that they don't make it into your system without being checked over first.
You don't want, e.g. an invalid value that falls outside a range of values to skew your results.