As every Ruby programmer eventually discovers, calling blocks or procs that contain return statements can be dangerous as this might exit your current context:
def some_method(&_block)
puts 1
yield
# The following line will never be executed in this example
# as the yield is actually a `yield-and-return`.
puts 3
end
def test
some_method do
puts 2
return
end
end
test
# This prints "1\n2\n" instead of "1\n2\n3\n"
In cases you want to be absolutely sure some of your code runs after you called a block or proc, you can use a begin ... ensure construct. But since ensure is also called if there is an exception during yield, it requires a little more work.
I've created a tiny module that deals with this problem in two different ways:
Using safe_yield, it is detected whether the yielded block or proc actually returns using the return keyword. If so, it raises an exception.
unknown_block = proc do
return
end
ReturnSafeYield.safe_yield(unknown_block)
# => Raises a UnexpectedReturnException exception
Using call_then_yield, you can call a block and then make sure that a second block is executed, even if the first block contains a return statement.
unknown_block = proc do
return
end
ReturnSafeYield.call_then_yield(unknown_block) do
# => This line is called even though the above block contains a `return`.
end
I'm considering to create a quick Gem out of this, or is there any built-in solution to prevent quick return from the nested block which I missed?
There is a built-in solution to detect whether a block contains a return statement.
You can use RubyVM::InstructionSequence.disasm to disassemble the block passed in by the user, then search it for throw 1, which represents a return statement.
Here's a sample implementation:
def safe_yield(&block)
if RubyVM::InstructionSequence.disasm(block) =~ /^\d+ throw +1$/
raise LocalJumpError
end
block.call
end
Here's how you might incorporate it into your library:
def library_method(&block)
safe_yield(&block)
puts "library_method succeeded"
rescue LocalJumpError
puts "library_method encountered illegal return but resumed execution"
end
And here's the user experience for a well-behaved and a misbehaving user:
def nice_user_method
library_method { 1 + 1 }
end
nice_user_method
# library_method succeeded
def naughty_user_method
library_method { return false if rand > 0.5 }
end
naughty_user_method
# library_method encountered illegal return but resumed execution
Commentary:
Using raise LocalJumpError/rescue LocalJumpError gets around the issues you encountered when using a blanket ensure.
I chose LocalJumpError because it seems relevant, and because (I think!) there is no possible Ruby code that would result in LocalJumpError being raised "naturally" in this context. If that turns out to be false, you can easily substitute your own new exception class.
I'd like to use the yield_control matcher in RSpec like so
expect {|b| some_method(&b) }.to yield_control.exactly(5).times
However, I'd like the block to raise an error. Is there an RSpec construct that allows you to do this?
Basically, I'm looking for something like an RSpec mock object that allows you to raise an error whenever the block is yielded to and count the number of times it was yielded to.
I understand there are other ways of doing it by defining my own block that keeps track of how many times it has been called, but I was hoping there is a built-in that does something like this.
Example:
def some_method(&block)
attempt = 0
begin
attempt += 1
yield
rescue => e
retry if attempt < 3
end
end
I'd like to test that control is yielded a certain number of times when the block raises an error. I understand that this is one way to do it:
number_of_times = 0
some_method do
number_of_times += 1
raise StandardError
end
expect(number_of_times).to eq(3)
But I was hoping I could use the expect {..}.to yield_control syntax.
Are you expecting the block to raise an error? There is an Rspec matcher for that: https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/docs/built-in-matchers/raise-error-matcher
Is there a way to rescue all exceptions under a certain namespace?
For example, I want to rescue all of the Errno::* exceptions (Errno::ECONNRESET, Errno::ETIMEDOUT). I can go ahead and list them all out on my exception line, but I was wondering if I can do something like.
begin
# my code
rescue Errno
# handle exception
end
The above idea doesn't seem to work, thus is there something similar that can work?
All the Errno exceptions subclass SystemCallError:
Module Errno is created dynamically to map these operating system errors to Ruby classes, with each error number generating its own subclass of SystemCallError. As the subclass is created in module Errno, its name will start Errno::.
So you could trap SystemCallError and then do a simple name check:
rescue SystemCallError => e
raise e if(e.class.name.start_with?('Errno::'))
# do your thing...
end
Here is another interesting alternative. Can be adapted to what you want.
Pasting most interesting part:
def match_message(regexp)
lambda{ |error| regexp === error.message }
end
begin
raise StandardError, "Error message about a socket."
rescue match_message(/socket/) => error
puts "Error #{error} matches /socket/; ignored."
end
See the original site for ruby 1.8.7 solution.
It turns out lambda not accepted my more recent ruby versions. It seems the option is to use what worked in 1.8.7 but that's IM slower (to create a new class in all comparisons. So I don't recommend using it and have not even tried it:
def exceptions_matching(&block)
Class.new do
def self.===(other)
#block.call(other)
end
end.tap do |c|
c.instance_variable_set(:#block, block)
end
end
begin
raise "FOOBAR: We're all doomed!"
rescue exceptions_matching { |e| e.message =~ /^FOOBAR/ }
puts "rescued!"
end
If somebody knows when ruby removed lambda support in rescue please comment.
All classes under Errno are subclasses of SystemCallError. And all subclasses of SystemCallError are classes under Errno. The 2 sets are identical, so just rescue SystemCallError. This assumes that you're not using an external lib that adds to one and not the other.
Verify the identity of the 2 sets (using active_support):
Errno.constants.map {|name|
Errno.const_get(name)
}.select{|const|
Class === const
}.uniq.map(&:to_s).sort ==
SystemCallError.subclasses.map(&:to_s).sort
This returns true for me.
So, applied to your example:
begin
# my code
rescue SystemCallError
# handle exception
end
Here is a more generic solution, in the case you wanted to rescue some Errno types and not others.
Create a custom module to be included by all the error classes we want to rescue
module MyErrnoModule; end
Customize this array to your liking, up to the "each" call.
Errno.constants.map {|name|
Errno.const_get(name)
}.select{|const|
Class === const
}.uniq.each {|klass|
klass.class_eval {
include MyErrnoModule
}
}
Test:
begin
raise Errno::EPERM
rescue MyErrnoModule
p "rescued #{$!.inspect}"
end
Test result:
"rescued #<Errno::EPERM: Operation not permitted>"
I would guess this performs slightly better than a solution that needs to check the name of the exception.
I'm trying to understand exceptions in Ruby but I'm a little confused. The tutorial I'm using says that if an exception occurs that does not match any of the exceptions identified by the rescue statements, you can use an "else" to catch it:
begin
# -
rescue OneTypeOfException
# -
rescue AnotherTypeOfException
# -
else
# Other exceptions
ensure
# Always will be executed
end
However, I also saw later in the tutorial "rescue" being used without an exception specified:
begin
file = open("/unexistant_file")
if file
puts "File opened successfully"
end
rescue
file = STDIN
end
print file, "==", STDIN, "\n"
If you can do this, then do I ever need to use else? Or can I just use a generic rescue at the end like this?
begin
# -
rescue OneTypeOfException
# -
rescue AnotherTypeOfException
# -
rescue
# Other exceptions
ensure
# Always will be executed
end
The else is for when the block completes without an exception thrown. The ensure is run whether the block completes successfully or not. Example:
begin
puts "Hello, world!"
rescue
puts "rescue"
else
puts "else"
ensure
puts "ensure"
end
This will print Hello, world!, then else, then ensure.
Here's a concrete use-case for else in a begin expression. Suppose you're writing automated tests, and you want to write a method that returns the error raised by a block. But you also want the test to fail if the block doesn't raise an error. You can do this:
def get_error_from(&block)
begin
block.call
rescue => err
err # we want to return this
else
raise "No error was raised"
end
end
Note that you can't move the raise inside the begin block, because it'll get rescued. Of course, there are other ways without using else, like checking whether err is nil after the end, but that's not as succinct.
Personally, I rarely use else in this way because I think it's rarely needed, but it does come in handy in those rare cases.
EDIT
Another use case occurred to me. Here's a typical begin/rescue:
begin
do_something_that_may_raise_argument_error
do_something_else_when_the_previous_line_doesnt_raise
rescue ArgumentError => e
handle_the_error
end
Why is this less than ideal? Because the intent is to rescue when do_something_that_may_raise_argument_error raises ArgumentError, not when do_something_else_when_the_previous_line_doesnt_raise raises.
It's usually better to use begin/rescue to wrap the minimum code you want to protect from a raise, because otherwise:
you may mask bugs in the code that wasn't supposed to raise
the intention of rescue is harder to decipher. Someone (including your future self) may read the code and wonder "Which expression did I want to protect? It looks like expression ABC... but maybe expression DEF too???? What was the author intending?!" Refactoring becomes much more difficult.
You avoid those problems with this simple change:
begin
do_something_that_may_raise_argument_error
rescue ArgumentError => e
handle_the_error
else
do_something_else_when_the_previous_line_doesnt_raise
end
The else block in a begin rescue end block is used when you are perhaps expecting an exception of some sort to occur. If you run through all of your expected exceptions but still have nothing raised, then in your else block you can do whatever's needed now that you know that your original code ran error free.
The only reason I can see for the else block is if you want to execute something before the ensure block when the code in the begin block didn't raise any errors.
begin
puts "Hello"
rescue
puts "Error"
else
puts "Success"
ensure
puts "my old friend"
puts "I've come to talk with you again."
end
Thanks to else you sometimes can merge two nested begin end blocks.
So (simplified example from my current code) instead of:
begin
html = begin
NetHTTPUtils.request_data url
rescue NetHTTPUtils::Error => e
raise unless 503 == e.code
sleep 60
retry
end
redo unless html["market"]
end
you write:
begin
html = NetHTTPUtils.request_data url
rescue NetHTTPUtils::Error => e
raise unless 503 == e.code
sleep 60
retry
else
redo unless html["market"]
end
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