我为我的应用程序不期望的每个条件创建了异常。UserNameNotValidException, PasswordNotCorrectException等。
然而,我被告知我不应该为这些条件创造例外。在我的UML中,那些是主要流程的异常,那么为什么它不应该是异常呢?
是否有创建异常的指导或最佳实践?
我为我的应用程序不期望的每个条件创建了异常。UserNameNotValidException, PasswordNotCorrectException等。
然而,我被告知我不应该为这些条件创造例外。在我的UML中,那些是主要流程的异常,那么为什么它不应该是异常呢?
是否有创建异常的指导或最佳实践?
当前回答
一般来说,你想要为应用程序中可能发生的任何异常抛出一个"异常"
在您的示例中,这两个异常看起来都是通过密码/用户名验证调用的。在这种情况下,有人会输入错误的用户名/密码并不是什么例外。
它们是UML主要流程的“例外”,但在处理过程中是更多的“分支”。
如果您试图访问您的passwd文件或数据库,但无法访问,这将是一个异常情况,并需要抛出异常。
其他回答
To my mind, the fundamental question should be whether one would expect that the caller would want to continue normal program flow if a condition occurs. If you don't know, either have separate doSomething and trySomething methods, where the former returns an error and the latter does not, or have a routine that accepts a parameter to indicate whether an exception should be thrown if it fails). Consider a class to send commands to a remote system and report responses. Certain commands (e.g. restart) will cause the remote system to send a response but then be non-responsive for a certain length of time. It is thus useful to be able to send a "ping" command and find out whether the remote system responds in a reasonable length of time without having to throw an exception if it doesn't (the caller would probably expect that the first few "ping" attempts would fail, but one would eventually work). On the other hand, if one has a sequence of commands like:
exchange_command("open tempfile"); exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}"); exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}"); exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}"); exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}"); exchange_command("close tempfile"); exchange_command("copy tempfile to realfile");
人们会希望任何操作的失败都能中止整个序列。虽然可以检查每个操作以确保操作成功,但如果命令失败,让exchange_command()例程抛出异常会更有帮助。
实际上,在上面的场景中,有一个参数来选择一些失败处理模式可能会有所帮助:从不抛出异常,仅为通信错误抛出异常,或者在命令没有返回“成功”指示的任何情况下抛出异常。
在决定异常是否合适时,需要考虑一些有用的事情:
what level of code you want to have run after the exception candidate occurs - that is, how many layers of the call stack should unwind. You generally want to handle an exception as close as possible to where it occurs. For username/password validation, you would normally handle failures in the same block of code, rather than letting an exception bubble up. So an exception is probably not appropriate. (OTOH, after three failed login attempts, control flow may shift elsewhere, and an exception may be appropriate here.) Is this event something you would want to see in an error log? Not every exception is written to an error log, but it's useful to ask whether this entry in an error log would be useful - i.e., you would try to do something about it, or would be the garbage you ignore.
抛出异常的经验法则非常简单。当你的代码进入UNRECOVERABLE INVALID状态时,你可以这样做。如果数据被泄露,或者您无法回溯到目前为止发生的处理,那么您必须终止它。你还能做什么呢?您的处理逻辑最终将在其他地方失败。如果你能以某种方式恢复,那么就这样做,不要抛出异常。
在你的特定情况下,如果你被迫做一些愚蠢的事情,比如接受提款,然后才检查用户/密码,你应该通过抛出一个异常来终止这个过程,通知发生了一些不好的事情,并防止进一步的损害。
主要有两类异常:
1)系统异常(如数据库连接丢失)或 2)用户异常。(例如用户输入验证,“密码不正确”)
我发现创建自己的用户异常类很有帮助,当我想抛出一个用户错误时,我想要以不同的方式处理(即资源错误显示给用户),然后我在我的主错误处理程序中所需要做的就是检查对象类型:
If TypeName(ex) = "UserException" Then
Display(ex.message)
Else
DisplayError("An unexpected error has occured, contact your help desk")
LogError(ex)
End If
The simple answer is, whenever an operation is impossible (because of either application OR because it would violate business logic). If a method is invoked and it impossible to do what the method was written to do, throw an Exception. A good example is that constructors always throw ArgumentExceptions if an instance cannot be created using the supplied parameters. Another example is InvalidOperationException, which is thrown when an operation cannot be performed because of the state of another member or members of the class.
在您的情况下,如果调用Login(用户名,密码)这样的方法,如果用户名无效,抛出UserNameNotValidException或PasswordNotCorrectException(密码不正确)确实是正确的。用户不能使用提供的参数登录(即,这是不可能的,因为它将违反身份验证),因此抛出异常。尽管我可能从ArgumentException继承了两个异常。
话虽如此,如果因为登录失败可能很常见而不希望抛出异常,一种策略是创建一个方法,该方法返回表示不同失败的类型。这里有一个例子:
{ // class
...
public LoginResult Login(string user, string password)
{
if (IsInvalidUser(user))
{
return new UserInvalidLoginResult(user);
}
else if (IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
{
return new PasswordInvalidLoginResult(user, password);
}
else
{
return new SuccessfulLoginResult();
}
}
...
}
public abstract class LoginResult
{
public readonly string Message;
protected LoginResult(string message)
{
this.Message = message;
}
}
public class SuccessfulLoginResult : LoginResult
{
public SucccessfulLogin(string user)
: base(string.Format("Login for user '{0}' was successful.", user))
{ }
}
public class UserInvalidLoginResult : LoginResult
{
public UserInvalidLoginResult(string user)
: base(string.Format("The username '{0}' is invalid.", user))
{ }
}
public class PasswordInvalidLoginResult : LoginResult
{
public PasswordInvalidLoginResult(string password, string user)
: base(string.Format("The password '{0}' for username '{0}' is invalid.", password, user))
{ }
}
Most developers are taught to avoid Exceptions because of the overhead caused by throwing them. It's great to be resource-conscious, but usually not at the expense of your application design. That is probably the reason you were told not to throw your two Exceptions. Whether to use Exceptions or not usually boils down to how frequently the Exception will occur. If it's a fairly common or an fairly expectable result, this is when most developers will avoid Exceptions and instead create another method to indicate failure, because of the supposed consumption of resources.
下面是一个使用Try()模式避免在类似刚刚描述的场景中使用exception的例子:
public class ValidatedLogin
{
public readonly string User;
public readonly string Password;
public ValidatedLogin(string user, string password)
{
if (IsInvalidUser(user))
{
throw new UserInvalidException(user);
}
else if (IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
{
throw new PasswordInvalidException(password);
}
this.User = user;
this.Password = password;
}
public static bool TryCreate(string user, string password, out ValidatedLogin validatedLogin)
{
if (IsInvalidUser(user) ||
IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
{
return false;
}
validatedLogin = new ValidatedLogin(user, password);
return true;
}
}