Catching multiple exception types in one catch block
Update:
As of PHP 7.1, this is available.
The syntax is:
try
{
// Some code...
}
catch(AError | BError $e)
{
// Handle exceptions
}
catch(Exception $e)
{
// Handle the general case
}
Docs: https://www.php.net/manual/en/language.exceptions.php#example-294
RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/multiple-catch
Commit: https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/0aed2cc2a440e7be17552cc669d71fdd24d1204a
For PHP before 7.1:
Despite what these other answers say, you can catch AError
and BError
in the same block (it is somewhat easier if you are the one defining the exceptions). Even given that there are exceptions you want to "fall through", you should still be able to define a hierarchy to match your needs.
abstract class MyExceptions extends Exception {}
abstract class LetterError extends MyExceptions {}
class AError extends LetterError {}
class BError extends LetterError {}
Then:
catch(LetterError $e){
//voodoo
}
As you can see here and here, even the SPL
default exceptions have a hierarchy you can leverage. Additionally, as stated in the PHP Manual:
When an exception is thrown, code following the statement will not be
executed, and PHP will attempt to find the first matching catch block.
This means you could also have
class CError extends LetterError {}
which you need to handle differently than AError
or BError
, so your catch statement would look like this:
catch(CError $e){
//voodoo
}
catch(LetterError $e){
//voodoo
}
If you had the case where there were twenty or more exceptions that legitimately belonged under the same superclass, and you needed to handle five (or whatever large-ish group) of them one way and the rest the other, you can STILL do this.
interface Group1 {}
class AError extends LetterError implements Group1 {}
class BError extends LetterError implements Group1 {}
And then:
catch (Group1 $e) {}
Using OOP when it comes to exceptions is very powerful. Using things like get_class
or instanceof
are hacks, and should be avoided if possible.
Another solution I would like to add is putting the exception handling functionality in its own method.
You could have
function handleExceptionMethod1(Exception $e)
{
//voodoo
}
function handleExceptionMethod2(Exception $e)
{
//voodoo
}
Assuming there is absolutely no way you can control exception class hierarchies or interfaces (and there almost always will be a way), you can do the following:
try
{
stuff()
}
catch(ExceptionA $e)
{
$this->handleExceptionMethod1($e);
}
catch(ExceptionB $e)
{
$this->handleExceptionMethod1($e);
}
catch(ExceptionC $e)
{
$this->handleExceptionMethod1($e);
}
catch(Exception $e)
{
$this->handleExceptionMethod2($e);
}
In this way, you are still have a only single code location you have to modify if your exception handling mechanism needs to change, and you are working within the general constructs of OOP.
Can I catch multiple Java exceptions in the same catch clause?
This has been possible since Java 7. The syntax for a multi-catch block is:
try {
...
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | SecurityException | IllegalAccessException |
NoSuchFieldException e) {
someCode();
}
Remember, though, that if all the exceptions belong to the same class hierarchy, you can simply catch that base exception type.
Also note that you cannot catch both ExceptionA
and ExceptionB
in the same block if ExceptionB
is inherited, either directly or indirectly, from ExceptionA
. The compiler will complain:
Alternatives in a multi-catch statement cannot be related by subclassing
Alternative ExceptionB is a subclass of alternative ExceptionA
The fix for this is to only include the ancestor exception in the exception list, as it will also catch exceptions of the descendant type.
Is it possible to catch multiple exceptions and perform different logic upon them without using multiple catch statements?
That doesn't make sense. When you use a multi catch, then you are implicitly saying: all of "these" exceptions should fall into the same bucket.
Of course, you can then do some instanceof
if/else trees, but heck: the java way of doing that would be to have different catch statements for each one.
But, also of course, depending on context, it might be pragmatic to do something like
catch(XException | YException | ZException xyOrZ) {
log(xyOrZ);
handle(xyOrZ);
where handle()
does some instanceof
"switching".
Long story short: multi catch is a convenient way to enable an aspect (such as logging) that works for all exceptions. But it can get into your way regarding exception specific handling. You simply have to balance your requirements, and use that solution that your team finds to best fit your needs. To a certain degree, this is about style, and style questions are decided by the people working the code base.
Catch multiple exceptions at once?
Catch System.Exception
and switch on the types
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (ex is FormatException || ex is OverflowException)
{
WebId = Guid.Empty;
return;
}
throw;
}
Specific and same actions when catching multiple exceptions
Use the catch (ExceptionA | ExceptionB e)
construct. Within the catch
block, first do an instanceof
check for e
and handle the exception types separately. After this, have the common handling for both types. This way you can do everything in one catch
block:
try {
// do something...
} catch (ExceptionA | ExceptionB e) {
if (e instanceof ExceptionA) {
// handling for ExceptionA
} else {
// handling for ExceptionB
}
// common handling for both exception types
}
Catching multiple exceptions in Java-8
The type of the expression
b ? new Excep1() : new Excep2()
is Exception
, since that's the common supertype of Excep1
and Excep2
.
However, you are not catching Exception
, so the compiler complains about it.
If you catch Exception
, it will pass compilation:
public int m2(boolean b) {
try {
throw b ? new Excep1() : new Excep2();
} catch (Exception e) {
return 0;
}
}
I tried to find the JLS entry that explains the type of conditional ternary expression in your example.
All I could find was that this particular expression is a 15.25.3. Reference Conditional Expression.
I'm not entirely sure if it counts as a poly expression or a standalone expression. I think it's standalone (since poly expressions involve an assignment context or an invocation context, and I don't think a throw
statement counts as either of those).
For a standalone expression: "If the second and third operands have the same type (which may be the null type), then that is the type of the conditional expression."
In your case, the second and third operands have three common types - Object
, Throwable
and Exception
- the type of the expression must be one of the latter two, since, "The Expression in a throw statement must either denote a variable or value of a reference type which is assignable (§5.2) to the type Throwable."
It appears that the compiler picks the most specific common type (Exception
), and therefore a catch (Exception e)
solves the compilation error.
I also tried to replace your two custom exceptions with two sub-classes of IOException
, in which case catch (IOException e)
solves the compilation error.
Catch multiple exceptions in one line (except block)
From Python Documentation:
An except clause may name multiple exceptions as a parenthesized tuple, for example
except (IDontLikeYouException, YouAreBeingMeanException) as e:
pass
Or, for Python 2 only:
except (IDontLikeYouException, YouAreBeingMeanException), e:
pass
Separating the exception from the variable with a comma will still work in Python 2.6 and 2.7, but is now deprecated and does not work in Python 3; now you should be using as
.
Is it possible in Java to catch two exceptions in the same catch block?
Java 7 and later
Multiple-exception catches are supported, starting in Java 7.
The syntax is:
try {
// stuff
} catch (Exception1 | Exception2 ex) {
// Handle both exceptions
}
The static type of ex
is the most specialized common supertype of the exceptions listed. There is a nice feature where if you rethrow ex
in the catch, the compiler knows that only one of the listed exceptions can be thrown.
Java 6 and earlier
Prior to Java 7, there are ways to handle this problem, but they tend to be inelegant, and to have limitations.
Approach #1
try {
// stuff
} catch (Exception1 ex) {
handleException(ex);
} catch (Exception2 ex) {
handleException(ex);
}
public void handleException(SuperException ex) {
// handle exception here
}
This gets messy if the exception handler needs to access local variables declared before the try
. And if the handler method needs to rethrow the exception (and it is checked) then you run into serious problems with the signature. Specifically, handleException
has to be declared as throwing SuperException
... which potentially means you have to change the signature of the enclosing method, and so on.
Approach #2
try {
// stuff
} catch (SuperException ex) {
if (ex instanceof Exception1 || ex instanceof Exception2) {
// handle exception
} else {
throw ex;
}
}
Once again, we have a potential problem with signatures.
Approach #3
try {
// stuff
} catch (SuperException ex) {
if (ex instanceof Exception1 || ex instanceof Exception2) {
// handle exception
}
}
If you leave out the else
part (e.g. because there are no other subtypes of SuperException
at the moment) the code becomes more fragile. If the exception hierarchy is reorganized, this handler without an else
may end up silently eating exceptions!
Related Topics
Pkill -F Doesn't Work for Process Killing
Php: Using a Variable Inside a Double Quotes
Post Form and Update Multiple Rows with MySQL
How to Alias a Table in Laravel Eloquent Queries (Or Using Query Builder)
Shorthand for Arrays: Is There a Literal Syntax Like {} or []
Create New Variables from Array Keys in PHP
Mysql_Num_Rows(): Supplied Argument Is Not a Valid MySQL Result Resource
PHP Array_Filter with Arguments
Execute Commands on Remote MAChine via PHP
How to Get Rid of MySQL Error 'Prepared Statement Needs to Be Re-Prepared'
Using MySQLi from Another Class in PHP
Php7.1 JSON_Encode() Float Issue
How to Access the PHP.Ini File in Godaddy Shared Hosting Linux
Instantiate a Class with or Without Parentheses