Catch multiple exceptions at once?

Question

It is discouraged to simply catch System.Exception. Instead, only the "known" exceptions should be caught.

Now, this sometimes leads to unnecessary repetitive code, for example:

try
{
    WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
}
catch (FormatException)
{
    WebId = Guid.Empty;
}
catch (OverflowException)
{
    WebId = Guid.Empty;
}

I wonder: Is there a way to catch both exceptions and only call the WebId = Guid.Empty call once?

The given example is rather simple, as it's only a GUID. But imagine code where you modify an object multiple times, and if one of the manipulations fails expectedly, you want to "reset" the object. However, if there is an unexpected exception, I still want to throw that higher.

Unswear

If you are using .net 4 and above i prefer to use aggregateexception msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.aggregateexception.aspx – Parol

Bepenfriends- Since System.Guid does not throw AggregateException, it would be great if you (or someone) could post an answer showing how you would wrap it into an AggregateException etc.. – Rau

On using AggregateException: Throwing an AggregateException in my own code – Woden

"It is discouraged to simply catch System.Exception." -and if method can throw 32 types of exceptions, what one does? write catch for each of them separately? – Solifluction

Keep it the way you have it. Move the code to an error handler if you wish so theres only one line per catch statement. – Mannikin

If a method's throwing 32 different types of exceptions, it's badly written. It's either not catching exceptions it's own calls are making, it's doing FAR too much in one method, or the majority/all of those 32 should be a single exception with a reason code. – Frustum

The accepted answer is out of date; see this one instead, as it's been updated with an Edit clause at the top: https://mcmap.net/q/40487/-catch-multiple-exceptions-at-once – Zo

Since none of the answers I scrolled past mentioned this, I'm just here to say your beginning statement is false. "It is discouraged to simply catch System.Exception", is not correct, there are very valid reasons to do this, it is discouraged to only catch System.Exception – Industrials

@giorgi, I am not sure that's a good guideline. Code should not solve 32 separately when the solution is the same. If you will do the same for xxxException and yyyException and Exception, just catch Exception (parent of other two). – Mantua

@Flynn1179, not necessarily. If you have a try..catch block at the very top level of your app, you will capture the errors for several layers. So, you will potentially catch IO, DB, http, comm, argument and domain exceptions – Mantua

@zameb, I was referring to Giorgi's example of a single method throwing too many exceptions, how those are caught isn't relevant to the point I was making. – Frustum

Take a look at the end of this article. – Blear

Answer 1

Catch System.Exception and switch on the types

catch (Exception ex)            
{                
    if (ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException)
    {
        WebId = Guid.Empty;
    }
    else
        throw;
}

Rhachis

Obligatory reminder to the editors who aren't OP: editing in new answers for updates is something we have a rejection reason for, and >2k users aren't exempt from this. Don't update other people's answers to reflect updates to standard versions, or other versions of whatever tech applies to any arbitrary answers - post a new answer instead (pro tip; there's more rep in that for you). If there additionally are extreme objections against the answer, you leave a comment explaining the problem and link to whatever answer is more applicable now. (And vote on the answer however you'd like) – Bainbrudge

In my opinion, a slightly cleaner syntax (since .net 5/C# 9): if (ex is FormatException or OverflowException) – Philoctetes

Consider ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex).Throw(); instead of just throw; to maintain the StackTrace. https://mcmap.net/q/40922/-what-39-s-the-point-of-passing-exceptiondispatchinfo-around-instead-of-just-the-exception – Chrome

Answer 2

EDIT: I do concur with others who are saying that, as of C# 6.0, exception filters are now a perfectly fine way to go: catch (Exception ex) when (ex is ... || ex is ... )

Except that I still kind of hate the one-long-line layout and would personally lay the code out like the following. I think this is as functional as it is aesthetic, since I believe it improves comprehension. Some may disagree:

catch (Exception ex) when (
    ex is ...
    || ex is ...
    || ex is ...
)

ORIGINAL:

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but holy smoke...

Cutting straight to the chase, this kind of duplicates an earlier answer, but if you really want to perform a common action for several exception types and keep the whole thing neat and tidy within the scope of the one method, why not just use a lambda/closure/inline function to do something like the following? I mean, chances are pretty good that you'll end up realizing that you just want to make that closure a separate method that you can utilize all over the place. But then it will be super easy to do that without actually changing the rest of the code structurally. Right?

private void TestMethod ()
{
    Action<Exception> errorHandler = ( ex ) => {
        // write to a log, whatever...
    };

    try
    {
        // try some stuff
    }
    catch ( FormatException  ex ) { errorHandler ( ex ); }
    catch ( OverflowException ex ) { errorHandler ( ex ); }
    catch ( ArgumentNullException ex ) { errorHandler ( ex ); }
}

I can't help but wonder (warning: a little irony/sarcasm ahead) why on earth go to all this effort to basically just replace the following:

try
{
    // try some stuff
}
catch( FormatException ex ){}
catch( OverflowException ex ){}
catch( ArgumentNullException ex ){}

...with some crazy variation of this next code smell, I mean example, only to pretend that you're saving a few keystrokes.

// sorta sucks, let's be honest...
try
{
    // try some stuff
}
catch( Exception ex )
{
    if (ex is FormatException ||
        ex is OverflowException ||
        ex is ArgumentNullException)
    {
        // write to a log, whatever...
        return;
    }
    throw;
}

Because it certainly isn't automatically more readable.

Granted, I left the three identical instances of /* write to a log, whatever... */ return; out of the first example.

But that's sort of my point. Y'all have heard of functions/methods, right? Seriously. Write a common ErrorHandler function and, like, call it from each catch block.

If you ask me, the second example (with the if and is keywords) is both significantly less readable, and simultaneously significantly more error-prone during the maintenance phase of your project.

The maintenance phase, for anyone who might be relatively new to programming, is going to compose 98.7% or more of the overall lifetime of your project, and the poor schmuck doing the maintenance is almost certainly going to be someone other than you. And there is a very good chance they will spend 50% of their time on the job cursing your name.

And of course FxCop barks at you and so you have to also add an attribute to your code that has precisely zip to do with the running program, and is only there to tell FxCop to ignore an issue that in 99.9% of cases it is totally correct in flagging. And, sorry, I might be mistaken, but doesn't that "ignore" attribute end up actually compiled into your app?

Would putting the entire if test on one line make it more readable? I don't think so. I mean, I did have another programmer vehemently argue once long ago that putting more code on one line would make it "run faster." But of course he was stark raving nuts. Trying to explain to him (with a straight face--which was challenging) how the interpreter or compiler would break that long line apart into discrete one-instruction-per-line statements--essentially identical to the result if he had gone ahead and just made the code readable instead of trying to out-clever the compiler--had no effect on him whatsoever. But I digress.

How much less readable does this get when you add three more exception types, a month or two from now? (Answer: it gets a lot less readable).

One of the major points, really, is that most of the point of formatting the textual source code that we're all looking at every day is to make it really, really obvious to other human beings what is actually happening when the code runs. Because the compiler turns the source code into something totally different and couldn't care less about your code formatting style. So all-on-one-line totally sucks, too.

Just saying...

// super sucks...
catch( Exception ex )
{
    if ( ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException || ex is ArgumentNullException )
    {
        // write to a log, whatever...
        return;
    }
    throw;
}

Cindelyn

You can use the new syntax: when (ex is FormatException or OverflowException or ArgumentNullException) – Exterminatory

Answer 3

As others have pointed out, you can have an if statement inside your catch block to determine what is going on. C#6 supports Exception Filters, so the following will work:

try { … }
catch (Exception e) when (MyFilter(e))
{
    …
}

The MyFilter method could then look something like this:

private bool MyFilter(Exception e)
{
  return e is ArgumentNullException || e is FormatException;
}

Alternatively, this can be all done inline (the right hand side of the when statement just has to be a boolean expression).

try { … }
catch (Exception e) when (e is ArgumentNullException || e is FormatException)
{
    …
}

This is different from using an if statement from within the catch block, using exception filters will not unwind the stack.

You can download Visual Studio 2015 to check this out.

If you want to continue using Visual Studio 2013, you can install the following nuget package:

Install-Package Microsoft.Net.Compilers

At time of writing, this will include support for C# 6.

Referencing this package will cause the project to be built using the specific version of the C# and Visual Basic compilers contained in the package, as opposed to any system installed version.

Bishop

You are unable to do generic exception logic because you cant name both exceptions you are catching the same variable name. – Hillis

Answer 4

Not in C# unfortunately, as you'd need an exception filter to do it and C# doesn't expose that feature of MSIL. VB.NET does have this capability though, e.g.

Catch ex As Exception When TypeOf ex Is FormatException OrElse TypeOf ex Is OverflowException

What you could do is use an anonymous function to encapsulate your on-error code, and then call it in those specific catch blocks:

Action onError = () => WebId = Guid.Empty;
try
{
    // something
}
catch (FormatException)
{
    onError();
}
catch (OverflowException)
{
    onError();
}

Nereid

Answer 5

Exception filters are now available in c# 6+. You can do

try
{
       WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
}
catch (Exception ex) when(ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException)
{
     WebId = Guid.Empty;
}

In C# 7.0+, you can combine this with pattern matching too

try
{
   await Task.WaitAll(tasks);
}
catch (Exception ex) when( ex is AggregateException ae &&
                           ae.InnerExceptions.Count > tasks.Count/2)
{
   //More than half of the tasks failed maybe..? 
}

Beehive

This method is preferred not only because it is simple and clear, but also doesn't have to unwind stack if the conditions are not met, which provides better performance and diagnostic info comparing with rethrow. – Mullein

Answer 6

For the sake of completeness, since .NET 4.0 the code can rewritten as:

Guid.TryParse(queryString["web"], out WebId);

TryParse never throws exceptions and returns false if format is wrong, setting WebId to Guid.Empty.

---

Since C# 7 you can avoid introducing a variable on a separate line:

Guid.TryParse(queryString["web"], out Guid webId);

You can also create methods for parsing returning tuples, which aren't available in .NET Framework yet as of version 4.6:

(bool success, Guid result) TryParseGuid(string input) =>
    (Guid.TryParse(input, out Guid result), result);

And use them like this:

WebId = TryParseGuid(queryString["web"]).result;
// or
var tuple = TryParseGuid(queryString["web"]);
WebId = tuple.success ? tuple.result : DefaultWebId;

---

Next useless update to this useless answer comes when deconstruction of out-parameters is implemented in C# 12. :)

Uncaredfor

Answer 7

If you can upgrade your application to C# 6 you are lucky. The new C# version has implemented Exception filters. So you can write this:

catch (Exception ex) when (ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException) {
    WebId = Guid.Empty;
}

Some people think this code is the same as

catch (Exception ex) {                
    if (ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException) {
        WebId = Guid.Empty;
    }
    else {
        throw;
    }
}

But it´s not. Actually this is the only new feature in C# 6 that is not possible to emulate in prior versions. First, a re-throw means more overhead than skipping the catch. Second, it is not semantically equivalent. The new feature preserves the stack intact when you are debugging your code. Without this feature the crash dump is less useful or even useless.

See a discussion about this on CodePlexNot available anymore. And an example showing the difference.

Pregnable

Throw without exception preserves the stack, but "throw ex" will overwrite it. – Fancier

Did you forget the return? Your second example will throw the exception even if it's a FormatException or OverflowException – Suavity

He forgot an else. I edited the answer. – Risinger

Answer 8

Update for C# 9

Using the new pattern matching enhancements made in C# 9, you can shorten the expression in the exception filter. Now, catching multiple exceptions is a simple is this:

try
{
    WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
}
catch (Exception e) when (e is FormatException or OverflowException)
{
    WebId = Guid.Empty;
}

Cuttie

Answer 9

With C# 7 the answer from Michael Stum can be improved while keeping the readability of a switch statement:

catch (Exception ex)
{
    switch (ex)
    {
        case FormatException _:
        case OverflowException _:
            WebId = Guid.Empty;
            break;
        default:
            throw;
    }
}

Thanks to Orace comment this can be simplified with C# 8 by omitting the discard variable:

catch (Exception ex)
{
    switch (ex)
    {
        case FormatException:
        case OverflowException:
            WebId = Guid.Empty;
            break;
        default:
            throw;
    }
} 

And with C# 8 as switch expression:

catch (Exception ex)
{
    WebId = ex switch
    {
        _ when ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException => Guid.Empty,
        _ => throw ex
    };
}

As Nechemia Hoffmann pointed out. The latter example will cause a loss of the stacktrace. This can be prevented by using the extension method described by Jürgen Steinblock to capture the stacktrace before throwing:

catch (Exception ex)
{
    WebId = ex switch
    {
        _ when ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException => Guid.Empty,
        _ => throw ex.Capture()
    };
}

public static Exception Capture(this Exception ex)
{
    ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex).Throw();
    return ex;
}

Both styles can be simplified with the pattern matching enhancements of C# 9:

catch (Exception ex)
{
    switch (ex)
    {
        case FormatException or OverflowException:
            WebId = Guid.Empty;
            break;
        default:
            throw;
    }
} 

catch (Exception ex)
{
    WebId = ex switch
    {
        _ when ex is FormatException or OverflowException => Guid.Empty,
        _ => throw ex.Capture()
    };
}

Bureaucratize

Wont you loose the stacktrace if you throw ex? – Cuttie

Yes in the switch expression example (2nd example) you do loose the stacktrace. Thanks for pointing that out. (Just to be clear: you do not loose it in the first example) – Bureaucratize

For the first code block, _ are nor needed anymore in C#8 – Criticaster

Answer 10

catch (Exception ex) when (ex is FormatException or OverflowException)
{
    WebId = Guid.Empty;
}

or

catch (Exception ex)
{
    if (ex is not FormatException and not OverflowException)
        throw;

    WebId = Guid.Empty;
}

Rhines

Answer 11

If you don't want to use an if statement within the catch scopes, in C# 6.0 you can use Exception Filters syntax which was already supported by the CLR in previews versions but existed only in VB.NET/MSIL:

try
{
    WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
}
catch (Exception exception) when (exception is FormatException || ex is OverflowException)
{
    WebId = Guid.Empty;
}

This code will catch the Exception only when it's a InvalidDataException or ArgumentNullException.

Actually, you can put basically any condition inside that when clause:

static int a = 8;

...

catch (Exception exception) when (exception is InvalidDataException && a == 8)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Catch");
}

Note that as opposed to an if statement inside the catch's scope, Exception Filters cannot throw Exceptions, and when they do, or when the condition is not true, the next catch condition will be evaluated instead:

static int a = 7;

static int b = 0;

...

try
{
    throw new InvalidDataException();
}
catch (Exception exception) when (exception is InvalidDataException && a / b == 2)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Catch");
}
catch (Exception exception) when (exception is InvalidDataException || exception is ArgumentException)
{
    Console.WriteLine("General catch");
}

Output: General catch.

When there is more then one true Exception Filter - the first one will be accepted:

static int a = 8;

static int b = 4;

...

try
{
    throw new InvalidDataException();
}
catch (Exception exception) when (exception is InvalidDataException && a / b == 2)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Catch");
}
catch (Exception exception) when (exception is InvalidDataException || exception is ArgumentException)
{
    Console.WriteLine("General catch");
}

Output: Catch.

And as you can see in the MSIL the code is not translated to if statements, but to Filters, and Exceptions cannot be throw from within the areas marked with Filter 1 and Filter 2 but the filter throwing the Exception will fail instead, also the last comparison value pushed to the stack before the endfilter command will determine the success/failure of the filter (Catch 1 XOR Catch 2 will execute accordingly):

Also, specifically Guid has the Guid.TryParse method.

Sedillo

Answer 12

The accepted answer seems acceptable, except that CodeAnalysis/FxCop will complain about the fact that it's catching a general exception type.

Also, it seems the "is" operator might degrade performance slightly.

CA1800: Do not cast unnecessarily says to "consider testing the result of the 'as' operator instead", but if you do that, you'll be writing more code than if you catch each exception separately.

Anyhow, here's what I would do:

bool exThrown = false;

try
{
    // Something
}
catch (FormatException) {
    exThrown = true;
}
catch (OverflowException) {
    exThrown = true;
}

if (exThrown)
{
    // Something else
}

Magnification

Answer 13

in C# 6 the recommended approach is to use Exception Filters, here is an example:

 try
 {
      throw new OverflowException();
 }
 catch(Exception e ) when ((e is DivideByZeroException) || (e is OverflowException))
 {
       // this will execute iff e is DividedByZeroEx or OverflowEx
       Console.WriteLine("E");
 }

Longoria

Answer 14

This is a variant of Matt's answer (I feel that this is a bit cleaner)...use a method:

public void TryCatch(...)
{
    try
    {
       // something
       return;
    }
    catch (FormatException) {}
    catch (OverflowException) {}

    WebId = Guid.Empty;
}

Any other exceptions will be thrown and the code WebId = Guid.Empty; won't be hit. If you don't want other exceptions to crash your program, just add this AFTER the other two catches:

...
catch (Exception)
{
     // something, if anything
     return; // only need this if you follow the example I gave and put it all in a method
}

Recording

Answer 15

Joseph Daigle's Answer is a good solution, but I found the following structure to be a bit tidier and less error prone.

catch(Exception ex)
{   
    if (!(ex is SomeException || ex is OtherException)) throw;

    // Handle exception
}

There are a few advantages of inverting the expression:

• A return statement is not necessary
• The code isn't nested
• There's no risk of forgetting the 'throw' or 'return' statements that in Joseph's solution are separated from the expression.

It can even be compacted to a single line (though not very pretty)

catch(Exception ex) { if (!(ex is SomeException || ex is OtherException)) throw;

    // Handle exception
}

---

Edit: The exception filtering in C# 6.0 will make the syntax a bit cleaner and comes with a number of other benefits over any current solution. (most notably leaving the stack unharmed)

Here is how the same problem would look using C# 6.0 syntax:

catch(Exception ex) when (ex is SomeException || ex is OtherException)
{
    // Handle exception
}

Goahead

Answer 16

@Micheal

Slightly revised version of your code:

catch (Exception ex)
{
   Type exType = ex.GetType();
   if (exType == typeof(System.FormatException) || 
       exType == typeof(System.OverflowException)
   {
       WebId = Guid.Empty;
   } else {
      throw;
   }
}

String comparisons are ugly and slow.

Lissy

Answer 17

How about

try
{
    WebId = Guid.Empty;
    WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
}
catch (FormatException)
{
}
catch (OverflowException)
{
}

Useful

That works only if the Catch-Code can be fully moved into the Try-Block. But imaging code where you make multiple manipulations to an object, and one in the middle fails, and you want to "reset" the object. – Unswear

In that case I would add a reset function and call that from multiple catch blocks. – Useful

OP has requested catching multiple exceptions at once. You catch them in different blocks – Plenty

Answer 18

Cautioned and Warned: Yet another kind, functional style.

What is in the link doesn't answer your question directly, but it's trivial to extend it to look like:

static void Main() 
{ 
    Action body = () => { ...your code... };

    body.Catch<InvalidOperationException>() 
        .Catch<BadCodeException>() 
        .Catch<AnotherException>(ex => { ...handler... })(); 
}

(Basically provide another empty Catch overload which returns itself)

The bigger question to this is why. I do not think the cost outweighs the gain here :)

Latent

Your link returns a 404 error page today. – Unideaed

Unfortunately, I dont remember much, but I will leave the answer here for anyone who can work on from the idea I posted. Not very difficult (or very useful today :)) – Latent

Answer 19

Update 2015-12-15: See https://mcmap.net/q/40487/-catch-multiple-exceptions-at-once for C#6. It's a cleaner and now standard in the language.

Geared for people that want a more elegant solution to catch once and filter exceptions, I use an extension method as demonstrated below.

I already had this extension in my library, originally written for other purposes, but it worked just perfectly for type checking on exceptions. Plus, imho, it looks cleaner than a bunch of || statements. Also, unlike the accepted answer, I prefer explicit exception handling so ex is ... had undesireable behaviour as derrived classes are assignable to there parent types).

Usage

if (ex.GetType().IsAnyOf(
    typeof(FormatException),
    typeof(ArgumentException)))
{
    // Handle
}
else
    throw;

IsAnyOf.cs Extension (See Full Error Handling Example for Dependancies)

namespace Common.FluentValidation
{
    public static partial class Validate
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Validates the passed in parameter matches at least one of the passed in comparisons.
        /// </summary>
        /// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam>
        /// <param name="p_parameter">Parameter to validate.</param>
        /// <param name="p_comparisons">Values to compare against.</param>
        /// <returns>True if a match is found.</returns>
        /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"></exception>
        public static bool IsAnyOf<T>(this T p_parameter, params T[] p_comparisons)
        {
            // Validate
            p_parameter
                .CannotBeNull("p_parameter");
            p_comparisons
                .CannotBeNullOrEmpty("p_comparisons");

            // Test for any match
            foreach (var item in p_comparisons)
                if (p_parameter.Equals(item))
                    return true;

            // Return no matches found
            return false;
        }
    }
}

Full Error Handling Example (Copy-Paste to new Console app)

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using Common.FluentValidation;

namespace IsAnyOfExceptionHandlerSample
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            // High Level Error Handler (Log and Crash App)
            try
            {
                Foo();
            }
            catch (OutOfMemoryException ex)
            {
                Console.WriteLine("FATAL ERROR! System Crashing. " + ex.Message);
                Console.ReadKey();
            }
        }

        static void Foo()
        {
            // Init
            List<Action<string>> TestActions = new List<Action<string>>()
            {
                (key) => { throw new FormatException(); },
                (key) => { throw new ArgumentException(); },
                (key) => { throw new KeyNotFoundException();},
                (key) => { throw new OutOfMemoryException(); },
            };

            // Run
            foreach (var FooAction in TestActions)
            {
                // Mid-Level Error Handler (Appends Data for Log)
                try
                {
                    // Init
                    var SomeKeyPassedToFoo = "FooParam";

                    // Low-Level Handler (Handle/Log and Keep going)
                    try
                    {
                        FooAction(SomeKeyPassedToFoo);
                    }
                    catch (Exception ex)
                    {
                        if (ex.GetType().IsAnyOf(
                            typeof(FormatException),
                            typeof(ArgumentException)))
                        {
                            // Handle
                            Console.WriteLine("ex was {0}", ex.GetType().Name);
                            Console.ReadKey();
                        }
                        else
                        {
                            // Add some Debug info
                            ex.Data.Add("SomeKeyPassedToFoo", SomeKeyPassedToFoo.ToString());
                            throw;
                        }
                    }
                }
                catch (KeyNotFoundException ex)
                {
                    // Handle differently
                    Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);

                    int Count = 0;
                    if (!Validate.IsAnyNull(ex, ex.Data, ex.Data.Keys))
                        foreach (var Key in ex.Data.Keys)
                            Console.WriteLine(
                                "[{0}][\"{1}\" = {2}]",
                                Count, Key, ex.Data[Key]);

                    Console.ReadKey();
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

namespace Common.FluentValidation
{
    public static partial class Validate
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Validates the passed in parameter matches at least one of the passed in comparisons.
        /// </summary>
        /// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam>
        /// <param name="p_parameter">Parameter to validate.</param>
        /// <param name="p_comparisons">Values to compare against.</param>
        /// <returns>True if a match is found.</returns>
        /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"></exception>
        public static bool IsAnyOf<T>(this T p_parameter, params T[] p_comparisons)
        {
            // Validate
            p_parameter
                .CannotBeNull("p_parameter");
            p_comparisons
                .CannotBeNullOrEmpty("p_comparisons");

            // Test for any match
            foreach (var item in p_comparisons)
                if (p_parameter.Equals(item))
                    return true;

            // Return no matches found
            return false;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Validates if any passed in parameter is equal to null.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="p_parameters">Parameters to test for Null.</param>
        /// <returns>True if one or more parameters are null.</returns>
        public static bool IsAnyNull(params object[] p_parameters)
        {
            p_parameters
                .CannotBeNullOrEmpty("p_parameters");

            foreach (var item in p_parameters)
                if (item == null)
                    return true;

            return false;
        }
    }
}

namespace Common.FluentValidation
{
    public static partial class Validate
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Validates the passed in parameter is not null, throwing a detailed exception message if the test fails.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="p_parameter">Parameter to validate.</param>
        /// <param name="p_name">Name of tested parameter to assist with debugging.</param>
        /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"></exception>
        public static void CannotBeNull(this object p_parameter, string p_name)
        {
            if (p_parameter == null)
                throw
                    new
                        ArgumentNullException(
                        string.Format("Parameter \"{0}\" cannot be null.",
                        p_name), default(Exception));
        }
    }
}

namespace Common.FluentValidation
{
    public static partial class Validate
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Validates the passed in parameter is not null or an empty collection, throwing a detailed exception message if the test fails.
        /// </summary>
        /// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam>
        /// <param name="p_parameter">Parameter to validate.</param>
        /// <param name="p_name">Name of tested parameter to assist with debugging.</param>
        /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"></exception>
        /// <exception cref="ArgumentOutOfRangeException"></exception>
        public static void CannotBeNullOrEmpty<T>(this ICollection<T> p_parameter, string p_name)
        {
            if (p_parameter == null)
                throw new ArgumentNullException("Collection cannot be null.\r\nParameter_Name: " + p_name, default(Exception));

            if (p_parameter.Count <= 0)
                throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Collection cannot be empty.\r\nParameter_Name: " + p_name, default(Exception));
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Validates the passed in parameter is not null or empty, throwing a detailed exception message if the test fails.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="p_parameter">Parameter to validate.</param>
        /// <param name="p_name">Name of tested parameter to assist with debugging.</param>
        /// <exception cref="ArgumentException"></exception>
        public static void CannotBeNullOrEmpty(this string p_parameter, string p_name)
        {
            if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(p_parameter))
                throw new ArgumentException("String cannot be null or empty.\r\nParameter_Name: " + p_name, default(Exception));
        }
    }
}

Two Sample NUnit Unit Tests

Matching behaviour for Exception types is exact (ie. A child IS NOT a match for any of its parent types).

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using Common.FluentValidation;
using NUnit.Framework;

namespace UnitTests.Common.Fluent_Validations
{
    [TestFixture]
    public class IsAnyOf_Tests
    {
        [Test, ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentNullException))]
        public void IsAnyOf_ArgumentNullException_ShouldNotMatch_ArgumentException_Test()
        {
            Action TestMethod = () => { throw new ArgumentNullException(); };

            try
            {
                TestMethod();
            }
            catch (Exception ex)
            {
                if (ex.GetType().IsAnyOf(
                    typeof(ArgumentException), /*Note: ArgumentNullException derrived from ArgumentException*/
                    typeof(FormatException),
                    typeof(KeyNotFoundException)))
                {
                    // Handle expected Exceptions
                    return;
                }

                //else throw original
                throw;
            }
        }

        [Test, ExpectedException(typeof(OutOfMemoryException))]
        public void IsAnyOf_OutOfMemoryException_ShouldMatch_OutOfMemoryException_Test()
        {
            Action TestMethod = () => { throw new OutOfMemoryException(); };

            try
            {
                TestMethod();
            }
            catch (Exception ex)
            {
                if (ex.GetType().IsAnyOf(
                    typeof(OutOfMemoryException),
                    typeof(StackOverflowException)))
                    throw;

                /*else... Handle other exception types, typically by logging to file*/
            }
        }
    }
}

Blackguard

Enhancing the language is not "more elegent". In many places this actually created a maintenance hell. Years later, many programmers are not proud of what monster they created. It's not what you are used to read. It may cause a "huh?" effect, or even severe "WTFs". It's confusing, sometimes. The only thing it does is making the code much harder to grasp for those who need to deal with it later in maintenance - only because a single programmer tried to be "clever". Over the years, i learned that those "clever" solutions are seldomly also the good ones. – Jalousie

Answer 20

Note that I did find one way to do it, but this looks more like material for The Daily WTF:

catch (Exception ex)
{
    switch (ex.GetType().Name)
    {
        case "System.FormatException":
        case "System.OverflowException":
            WebId = Guid.Empty;
            break;
        default:
            throw;
    }
}

Unswear

-1 vote, +5 WTF :-) This should not have been marked as an answer, but it is he-larious. – Gumbotil

Doesn't matter how simply we could do it. But he didn't sit idle and came up with his view to solve it. Really appreciate. – Whispering

Don't actually do this though, use Exception Filters in C# 6 or any of the other answers - I put this here specifically as "This is one way, but it's bad and I want to do something better". – Unswear

WHY is this bad? I was puzzled you could not use the exception in a switch statement directly. – Dynamometry

@Dynamometry I see a few reasons it's bad. It requires writing the fully-qualified class names as string literals, which is vulnerable to typos that the compiler can't save you from. (This is significant since in many shops error cases are less well-tested and so trivial mistakes in them are more likely to be missed.) It will also fail to match an exception which is a subclass of one of the specified cases. And, due to being strings, the cases will be missed by tools like VS's "Find All References" - pertinent if you want to add a cleanup step everywhere a particular exception is caught. – Brittaneybrittani

Answer 21

Since I felt like these answers just touched the surface, I attempted to dig a bit deeper.

So what we would really want to do is something that doesn't compile, say:

// Won't compile... damn
public static void Main()
{
    try
    {
        throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
    }
    catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException)
    catch (IndexOutOfRangeException) 
    {
        // ... handle
    }

The reason we want this is because we don't want the exception handler to catch things that we need later on in the process. Sure, we can catch an Exception and check with an 'if' what to do, but let's be honest, we don't really want that. (FxCop, debugger issues, uglyness)

So why won't this code compile - and how can we hack it in such a way that it will?

If we look at the code, what we really would like to do is forward the call. However, according to the MS Partition II, IL exception handler blocks won't work like this, which in this case makes sense because that would imply that the 'exception' object can have different types.

Or to write it in code, we ask the compiler to do something like this (well it's not entirely correct, but it's the closest possible thing I guess):

// Won't compile... damn
try
{
    throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException e) {
    goto theOtherHandler;
}
catch (IndexOutOfRangeException e) {
theOtherHandler:
    Console.WriteLine("Handle!");
}

The reason that this won't compile is quite obvious: what type and value would the '$exception' object have (which are here stored in the variables 'e')? The way we want the compiler to handle this is to note that the common base type of both exceptions is 'Exception', use that for a variable to contain both exceptions, and then handle only the two exceptions that are caught. The way this is implemented in IL is as 'filter', which is available in VB.Net.

To make it work in C#, we need a temporary variable with the correct 'Exception' base type. To control the flow of the code, we can add some branches. Here goes:

    Exception ex;
    try
    {
        throw new ArgumentException(); // for demo purposes; won't be caught.
        goto noCatch;
    }
    catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException e) {
        ex = e;
    }
    catch (IndexOutOfRangeException e) {
        ex = e;
    }

    Console.WriteLine("Handle the exception 'ex' here :-)");
    // throw ex ?

noCatch:
    Console.WriteLine("We're done with the exception handling.");

The obvious disadvantages for this are that we cannot re-throw properly, and -well let's be honest- that it's quite the ugly solution. The uglyness can be fixed a bit by performing branch elimination, which makes the solution slightly better:

Exception ex = null;
try
{
    throw new ArgumentException();
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException e)
{
    ex = e;
}
catch (IndexOutOfRangeException e)
{
    ex = e;
}
if (ex != null)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Handle the exception here :-)");
}

That leaves just the 're-throw'. For this to work, we need to be able to perform the handling inside the 'catch' block - and the only way to make this work is by an catching 'Exception' object.

At this point, we can add a separate function that handles the different types of Exceptions using overload resolution, or to handle the Exception. Both have disadvantages. To start, here's the way to do it with a helper function:

private static bool Handle(Exception e)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Handle the exception here :-)");
    return true; // false will re-throw;
}

public static void Main()
{
    try
    {
        throw new OutOfMemoryException();
    }
    catch (ArgumentException e)
    {
        if (!Handle(e)) { throw; }
    }
    catch (IndexOutOfRangeException e)
    {
        if (!Handle(e)) { throw; }
    }

    Console.WriteLine("We're done with the exception handling.");

And the other solution is to catch the Exception object and handle it accordingly. The most literal translation for this, based on the context above is this:

try
{
    throw new ArgumentException();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
    Exception ex = (Exception)(e as ArgumentException) ?? (e as IndexOutOfRangeException);
    if (ex != null)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Handle the exception here :-)");
        // throw ?
    }
    else 
    {
        throw;
    }
}

So to conclude:

• If we don't want to re-throw, we might consider catching the right exceptions, and storing them in a temporary.
• If the handler is simple, and we want to re-use code, the best solution is probably to introduce a helper function.
• If we want to re-throw, we have no choice but to put the code in a 'Exception' catch handler, which will break FxCop and your debugger's uncaught exceptions.

Cabstand

Answer 22

This is a classic problem every C# developer faces eventually.

Let me break your question into 2 questions. The first,

Can I catch multiple exceptions at once?

In short, no.

Which leads to the next question,

How do I avoid writing duplicate code given that I can't catch multiple exception types in the same catch() block?

Given your specific sample, where the fall-back value is cheap to construct, I like to follow these steps:

1. Initialize WebId to the fall-back value.
2. Construct a new Guid in a temporary variable.
3. Set WebId to the fully constructed temporary variable. Make this the final statement of the try{} block.

So the code looks like:

try
{
    WebId = Guid.Empty;
    Guid newGuid = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
    // More initialization code goes here like 
    // newGuid.x = y;
    WebId = newGuid;
}
catch (FormatException) {}
catch (OverflowException) {}

If any exception is thrown, then WebId is never set to the half-constructed value, and remains Guid.Empty.

If constructing the fall-back value is expensive, and resetting a value is much cheaper, then I would move the reset code into its own function:

try
{
    WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
    // More initialization code goes here.
}
catch (FormatException) {
    Reset(WebId);
}
catch (OverflowException) {
    Reset(WebId);
}

Beatrice

This is nice, "ecological coding" i.e. you're thinking ahead about your code & data footprint and making sure no leakage of half processed values. Nice going to follow this pattern thanks Jeffrey! – Teasel

Answer 23

So you´re repeating lots of code within every exception-switch? Sounds like extracting a method would be god idea, doesn´t it?

So your code comes down to this:

MyClass instance;
try { instance = ... }
catch(Exception1 e) { Reset(instance); }
catch(Exception2 e) { Reset(instance); }
catch(Exception) { throw; }

void Reset(MyClass instance) { /* reset the state of the instance */ }

I wonder why no-one noticed that code-duplication.

From C#6 you furthermore have the exception-filters as already mentioned by others. So you can modify the code above to this:

try { ... }
catch(Exception e) when(e is Exception1 || e is Exception2)
{ 
    Reset(instance); 
}

Chemism

"I wonder why no-one noticed that code-duplication." - uh, what? The entire point of the question is to eliminate the code duplication. – Brittaneybrittani

Answer 24

Wanted to added my short answer to this already long thread. Something that hasn't been mentioned is the order of precedence of the catch statements, more specifically you need to be aware of the scope of each type of exception you are trying to catch.

For example if you use a "catch-all" exception as Exception it will preceed all other catch statements and you will obviously get compiler errors however if you reverse the order you can chain up your catch statements (bit of an anti-pattern I think) you can put the catch-all Exception type at the bottom and this will be capture any exceptions that didn't cater for higher up in your try..catch block:

            try
            {
                // do some work here
            }
            catch (WebException ex)
            {
                // catch a web excpetion
            }
            catch (ArgumentException ex)
            {
                // do some stuff
            }
            catch (Exception ex)
            {
                // you should really surface your errors but this is for example only
                throw new Exception("An error occurred: " + ex.Message);
            }

I highly recommend folks review this MSDN document:

Exception Hierarchy

Teasel

Answer 25

Maybe try to keep your code simple such as putting the common code in a method, as you would do in any other part of the code that is not inside a catch clause?

E.g.:

try
{
    // ...
}
catch (FormatException)
{
    DoSomething();
}
catch (OverflowException)
{
    DoSomething();
}

// ...

private void DoSomething()
{
    // ...
}

Just how I would do it, trying to find the simple is beautiful pattern

Arrester

Answer 26

It is worth mentioning here. You can respond to the multiple combinations (Exception error and exception.message).

I ran into a use case scenario when trying to cast control object in a datagrid, with either content as TextBox, TextBlock or CheckBox. In this case the returned Exception was the same, but the message varied.

try
{
 //do something
}
catch (Exception ex) when (ex.Message.Equals("the_error_message1_here"))
{
//do whatever you like
} 
catch (Exception ex) when (ex.Message.Equals("the_error_message2_here"))
{
//do whatever you like
} 

Avast

Messages can be translated in various cultures. Would be far better to relay on Exception types and/or error codes (if available) – Sontich

Answer 27

I want to suggest shortest answer (one more functional style):

        Catch<FormatException, OverflowException>(() =>
            {
                WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
            },
            exception =>
            {
                WebId = Guid.Empty;
            });

For this you need to create several "Catch" method overloads, similar to System.Action:

    [DebuggerNonUserCode]
    public static void Catch<TException1, TException2>(Action tryBlock,
        Action<Exception> catchBlock)
    {
        CatchMany(tryBlock, catchBlock, typeof(TException1), typeof(TException2));
    }

    [DebuggerNonUserCode]
    public static void Catch<TException1, TException2, TException3>(Action tryBlock,
        Action<Exception> catchBlock)
    {
        CatchMany(tryBlock, catchBlock, typeof(TException1), typeof(TException2), typeof(TException3));
    }

and so on as many as you wish. But you need to do it once and you can use it in all your projects (or, if you created a nuget package we could use it too).

And CatchMany implementation:

    [DebuggerNonUserCode]
    public static void CatchMany(Action tryBlock, Action<Exception> catchBlock,
        params Type[] exceptionTypes)
    {
        try
        {
            tryBlock();
        }
        catch (Exception exception)
        {
            if (exceptionTypes.Contains(exception.GetType())) catchBlock(exception);
            else throw;
        }
    }

p.s. I haven't put null checks for code simplicity, consider to add parameter validations.

p.s.2 If you want to return a value from the catch, it's necessary to do same Catch methods, but with returns and Func instead of Action in parameters.

Unpleasantness

Answer 28

           try
           {
                WebId = new Guid(queryString["web"]);
           }
           catch (Exception ex)
           {
                string ExpTyp = ex.GetType().Name;
                if (ExpTyp == "FormatException")
                {
                     WebId = Guid.Empty;
                }
                else if (ExpTyp == "OverflowException")
                {
                     WebId = Guid.Empty;
                }
           }

Pelorus

This is not a good way to check types. – Huh

And first of all: it does not eliminate the duplicated code which was the original question – Altruistic

Answer 29

In c# 6.0,Exception Filters is improvements for exception handling

try
{
    DoSomeHttpRequest();
}
catch (System.Web.HttpException e)
{
    switch (e.GetHttpCode())
    {
        case 400:
            WriteLine("Bad Request");
        case 500:
            WriteLine("Internal Server Error");
        default:
            WriteLine("Generic Error");
    }
}

Unlade

This example does not show any use of exception filters. – Retract

This is standard way to filter exception in c#6.0 – Unlade

Take a look again at what exactly exception filters are. You are not using an exception filter in your example. There's a proper example in this answer posted a year before yours. – Retract

An example of exception filtering would be catch (HttpException e) when e.GetHttpCode() == 400 { WriteLine("Bad Request"; } – Calore