views:

1223

answers:

2

I have a small WinForms app that utilizes a BackgroundWorker object to perform a long-running operation.

The background operation throws occasional exceptions, typically when somebody has a file open that is being recreated.

Regardless of whether the code is run from the IDE or not .NET pops up an error dialog informing the user that an Unhandled exception has occurred. Compiling the code using the Release configuration doesn't change this either.

According to MSDN:

If the operation raises an exception that your code does not handle, the BackgroundWorker catches the exception and passes it into the RunWorkerCompleted event handler, where it is exposed as the Error property of System.ComponentModel..::.RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs. If you are running under the Visual Studio debugger, the debugger will break at the point in the DoWork event handler where the unhandled exception was raised.

I expect these exceptions to be thrown on occasion and would like to handle them in the RunWorkerCompleted event rather than in DoWork. My code works properly and the error is handled correctly within the RunWorkerCompleted event but I can't for the life of me figure out how to stop the .NET error dialog complaining about the "Unhandled exception" from occurring.

Isn't the BackgroundWorker supposed to catch that error automagically? Isn't that what the MSDN documentation states? What do I need to do to inform .NET that this error is being handled while still allowing the exception to propage into the Error property of RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs?

+1  A: 

[Edit]

Judah has a great point. My example pointed out the specifics of handling the error but my code would actually cause another exception if an exception was never hit in the DoWork method. This example is OK due to the fact that we are specifically showing the error handling capabilities of the BackgroundWorker. However if you are not checking the error parameter against null then this could be your issue.

[/Edit]

I don't see the same results. Can you post a little code? Here is my code.

private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
 BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
 worker.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(worker_DoWork);
 worker.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(worker_RunWorkerCompleted);
 worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}

void worker_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
 // Will cause another exception if an exception didn't occur.
 // We should be checking to see if e.Error is not "null".
 textBox1.Text = "Error? " + e.Error;
}

void worker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
 for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
 {
  if (i < 5)
  {
   Thread.Sleep(100);
  }
  else
  {
   throw new Exception("BOOM");
  } 
 }
}

Program Output:

Error? System.Exception: BOOM at BackgroundException.Form1.worker_DoWork(Object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) in D:\Workspaces\Sandbox\BackgroundException\BackgroundException\Form1.cs:line 43 at System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker.OnDoWork(DoWorkEventArgs e) at System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker.WorkerThreadStart(Object argument)

An interesting article that looks similar to your question. It has a section on handling exceptions.

http://www.developerdotstar.com/community/node/671

Bobby Cannon
+13  A: 

What you're describing is not the defined behavior of BackgroundWorker. You're doing something wrong, I suspect.

Here's a little sample that proves BackgroundWorker eats exceptions in DoWork, and makes them available to you in RunWorkerCompleted:

var worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.DoWork += (sender, e) => 
    { 
        throw new InvalidOperationException("oh shiznit!"); 
    };
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, e) =>
    {
        if(e.Error != null)
        {
            MessageBox.Show("There was an error! " + e.Error.ToString());
        }
    };
worker.RunWorkerAsync();

My psychic debugging skills are revealing your problem to me: You are accessing e.Result in your RunWorkerCompleted handler -- if there's an e.Error, you must handle it without accessing e.Result. For example, the following code is bad, bad, bad, and will throw an exception at runtime:

var worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.DoWork += (sender, e) => 
    { 
        throw new InvalidOperationException("oh shiznit!"); 
    };
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, e) =>
    {
        // OH NOOOOOOOES! Runtime exception, you can't access e.Result if there's an
        // error. You can check for errors using e.Error.
        var result = e.Result; 
    };
worker.RunWorkerAsync();

Here's a proper implementation of the RunWorkerCompleted event handler:

private void RunWorkerCompletedHandler(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
    if (e.Error == null)
    {
       DoSomethingWith(e.Result); // Access e.Result only if no error occurred.
    }
}

VOILA, you won't receive runtime exceptions.

Judah Himango
+1 Good point. My example pointed out the specifics of handling the error but my code would actually cause another exception if an exception was never hit in the DoWork method.
Bobby Cannon
Argh. I am humbled and embarrased.... :/ I sheepishly blame my mistake on my new-dad brain and lack of sleep. Thank you, Judah.
Andy
Glad I could help. Congrats on the addition to your family!
Judah Himango
I beg to differ .... I am also struggling to see how the BGW class eats up exps ... as sometimes my app grants me access to my user area on Win7 and sometimes it doesn't. When I investigate further, i found that access being denied is because the folder doesn't exist. I find that sometimes the error is thrown in my app and sometimes it doesn't.
IbrarMumtaz
@Ibrar, are you always checking for e.Error inside your RunWorkerCompleted event handler? Make sure you check that before you do anything. All catchable exceptions will be reported there.
Judah Himango
ty for replying.I followed your example and amended it ... so far so good. Hasn't fallen over i added in else statement that raises a custom event and logs the error to my logger class. Allow the exception go handled and not unhandled. Hopefuly this is the last i see of this.
IbrarMumtaz
@Judah: thanks for this. You saved me much time. This smells of magic, and I really wish .NET would throw a more on-the-nose exception ("Result property may not be accessed when an exception was thrown by `BackgroundWorker DoWork`"), rather than trying to do the right thing and just confusing matters.
Michael Petrotta