Search Results

Search found 6972 results on 279 pages for 'catch phrases'.

Page 17/279 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • read text file from phone memory in android

    - by Sudhakar
    Hi..I just wanna create a text file into phone memory and have to read its content to display.Now i created a text file.But its not present in the path data/data/package-name/file name.txt & it didn't display the content on emulator. My code is.. public class PhonememAct extends Activity { /** Called when the activity is first created. */ @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); TextView tv=(TextView)findViewById(R.id.tv); FileOutputStream fos = null; try { fos = openFileOutput("Test.txt", Context.MODE_PRIVATE); } catch (FileNotFoundException e2) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e2.printStackTrace(); } try { fos.write("Hai..".getBytes()); } catch (IOException e1) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e1.printStackTrace(); } try { fos.close(); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } FileInputStream fis = null; try { fis = openFileInput("Test.txt"); } catch (FileNotFoundException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } int c; try { while((c=fis.read())!=-1) { tv.setText(c); setContentView(tv); //k += (char)c; } } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } try { fis.close(); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } } } Thanks in adv.

    Read the article

  • Isn't it better to use a single try catch instead of tons of TryParsing and other error handling sometimes?

    - by Ryan Peschel
    I know people say it's bad to use exceptions for flow control and to only use exceptions for exceptional situations, but sometimes isn't it just cleaner and more elegant to wrap the entire block in a try-catch? For example, let's say I have a dialog window with a TextBox where the user can type input in to be parsed in a key-value sort of manner. This situation is not as contrived as you might think because I've inherited code that has to handle this exact situation (albeit not with farm animals). Consider this wall of code: class Animals { public int catA, catB; public float dogA, dogB; public int mouseA, mouseB, mouseC; public double cow; } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { string input = "Sets all the farm animals CAT 3 5 DOG 21.3 5.23 MOUSE 1 0 1 COW 12.25"; string[] splitInput = input.Split(' '); string[] animals = { "CAT", "DOG", "MOUSE", "COW", "CHICKEN", "GOOSE", "HEN", "BUNNY" }; Animals animal = new Animals(); for (int i = 0; i < splitInput.Length; i++) { string token = splitInput[i]; if (animals.Contains(token)) { switch (token) { case "CAT": animal.catA = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 1]); animal.catB = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 2]); break; case "DOG": animal.dogA = float.Parse(splitInput[i + 1]); animal.dogB = float.Parse(splitInput[i + 2]); break; case "MOUSE": animal.mouseA = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 1]); animal.mouseB = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 2]); animal.mouseC = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 3]); break; case "COW": animal.cow = double.Parse(splitInput[i + 1]); break; } } } } } In actuality there are a lot more farm animals and more handling than that. A lot of things can go wrong though. The user could enter in the wrong number of parameters. The user can enter the input in an incorrect format. The user could specify numbers too large or too small for the data type to handle. All these different errors could be handled without exceptions through the use of TryParse, checking how many parameters the user tried to use for a specific animal, checking if the parameter is too large or too small for the data type (because TryParse just returns 0), but every one should result in the same thing: A MessageBox appearing telling the user that the inputted data is invalid and to fix it. My boss doesn't want different message boxes for different errors. So instead of doing all that, why not just wrap the block in a try-catch and in the catch statement just display that error message box and let the user try again? Maybe this isn't the best example but think of any other scenario where there would otherwise be tons of error handling that could be substituted for a single try-catch. Is that not the better solution?

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Exception handler semantics

    - by Simon Cooper
    In my blog posts on fault and filter exception handlers, I said that the same behaviour could be replicated using normal catch blocks. Well, that isn't entirely true... Changing the handler semantics Consider the following: .try { .try { .try { newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.Exception::.ctor() // IL for: // e.Data.Add("DictKey", true) throw } fault { ldstr "1: Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) endfault } } filter { ldstr "2a: Filter logic" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) // IL for: // (bool)((Exception)e).Data["DictKey"] endfilter }{ ldstr "2b: Filter handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } } catch object { ldstr "3: Catch handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } Return: // rest of method If the filter handler is engaged (true is inserted into the exception dictionary) then the filter handler gets engaged, and the following gets printed to the console: 2a: Filter logic 1: Fault handler 2b: Filter handler and if the filter handler isn't engaged, then the following is printed: 2a:Filter logic 1: Fault handler 3: Catch handler Filter handler execution The filter handler is executed first. Hmm, ok. Well, what happens if we replaced the fault block with the C# equivalent (with the exception dictionary value set to false)? .try { // throw exception } catch object { ldstr "1: Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) rethrow } we get this: 1: Fault handler 2a: Filter logic 3: Catch handler The fault handler is executed first, instead of the filter block. Eh? This change in behaviour is due to the way the CLR searches for exception handlers. When an exception is thrown, the CLR stops execution of the thread, and searches up the stack for an exception handler that can handle the exception and stop it propagating further - catch or filter handlers. It checks the type clause of catch clauses, and executes the code in filter blocks to see if the filter can handle the exception. When the CLR finds a valid handler, it saves the handler's location, then goes back to where the exception was thrown and executes fault and finally blocks between there and the handler location, discarding stack frames in the process, until it reaches the handler. So? By replacing a fault with a catch, we have changed the semantics of when the filter code is executed; by using a rethrow instruction, we've split up the exception handler search into two - one search to find the first catch, then a second when the rethrow instruction is encountered. This is only really obvious when mixing C# exception handlers with fault or filter handlers, so this doesn't affect code written only in C#. However it could cause some subtle and hard-to-debug effects with object initialization and ordering when using and calling code written in a language that can compile fault and filter handlers.

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Fault exception handlers

    - by Simon Cooper
    Fault event handlers are one of the two handler types that aren't available in C#. It behaves exactly like a finally, except it is only run if control flow exits the block due to an exception being thrown. As an example, take the following method: .method public static void FaultExample(bool throwException) { .try { ldstr "Entering try block" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) ldarg.0 brfalse.s NormalReturn ThrowException: ldstr "Throwing exception" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) newobj void [mscorlib]System.Exception::.ctor() throw NormalReturn: ldstr "Leaving try block" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } fault { ldstr "Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) endfault } Return: ldstr "Returning from method" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) ret } If we pass true to this method the following gets printed: Entering try block Throwing exception Fault handler and the exception gets passed up the call stack. So, the exception gets thrown, the fault handler gets run, and the exception propagates up the stack afterwards in the normal way. If we pass false, we get the following: Entering try block Leaving try block Returning from method Because we are leaving the .try using a leave.s instruction, and not throwing an exception, the fault handler does not get called. Fault handlers and C# So why were these not included in C#? It seems a pretty simple feature; one extra keyword that compiles in exactly the same way, and with the same semantics, as a finally handler. If you think about it, the same behaviour can be replicated using a normal catch block: try { throw new Exception(); } catch { // fault code goes here throw; } The catch block only gets run if an exception is thrown, and the exception gets rethrown and propagates up the call stack afterwards; exactly like a fault block. The only complications that occur is when you want to add a fault handler to a try block with existing catch handlers. Then, you either have to wrap the try in another try: try { try { // ... } catch (DirectoryNotFoundException) { // ... // leave.s as normal... } catch (IOException) { // ... throw; } } catch { // fault logic throw; } or separate out the fault logic into another method and call that from the appropriate handlers: try { // ... } catch (DirectoryNotFoundException ) { // ... } catch (IOException ioe) { // ... HandleFaultLogic(); throw; } catch (Exception e) { HandleFaultLogic(); throw; } To be fair, the number of times that I would have found a fault handler useful is minimal. Still, it's quite annoying knowing such functionality exists, but you're not able to access it from C#. Fortunately, there are some easy workarounds one can use instead. Next time: filter handlers.

    Read the article

  • How do encrypt a long or int using the Bouncy Castle crypto routines for BlackBerry?

    - by DanG
    How do encrypt/decrypt a long or int using the Bouncy Castle crypto routines for BlackBerry? I know how to encrypt/decrypt a String. I can encrypt a long but can't get a long to decrypt properly. Some of this is poorly done, but I'm just trying stuff out at the moment. I've included my entire crypto engine here: import org.bouncycastle.crypto.BufferedBlockCipher; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.DataLengthException; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.InvalidCipherTextException; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.engines.AESFastEngine; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.paddings.PaddedBufferedBlockCipher; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.params.KeyParameter; public class CryptoEngine { // Global Variables // Global Objects private static AESFastEngine engine; private static BufferedBlockCipher cipher; private static KeyParameter key; public static boolean setEncryptionKey(String keyText) { // adding in spaces to force a proper key keyText += " "; // cutting off at 128 bits (16 characters) keyText = keyText.substring(0, 16); keyText = HelperMethods.cleanUpNullString(keyText); byte[] keyBytes = keyText.getBytes(); key = new KeyParameter(keyBytes); engine = new AESFastEngine(); cipher = new PaddedBufferedBlockCipher(engine); // just for now return true; } public static String encryptString(String plainText) { try { byte[] plainArray = plainText.getBytes(); cipher.init(true, key); byte[] cipherBytes = new byte[cipher.getOutputSize(plainArray.length)]; int cipherLength = cipher.processBytes(plainArray, 0, plainArray.length, cipherBytes, 0); cipher.doFinal(cipherBytes, cipherLength); String cipherString = new String(cipherBytes); return cipherString; } catch (DataLengthException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (IllegalArgumentException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (IllegalStateException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (InvalidCipherTextException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (Exception ex) { Logger.logToConsole(ex); } // else return "";// default bad value } public static String decryptString(String encryptedText) { try { byte[] cipherBytes = encryptedText.getBytes(); cipher.init(false, key); byte[] decryptedBytes = new byte[cipher.getOutputSize(cipherBytes.length)]; int decryptedLength = cipher.processBytes(cipherBytes, 0, cipherBytes.length, decryptedBytes, 0); cipher.doFinal(decryptedBytes, decryptedLength); String decryptedString = new String(decryptedBytes); // crop accordingly int index = decryptedString.indexOf("\u0000"); if (index >= 0) { decryptedString = decryptedString.substring(0, index); } return decryptedString; } catch (DataLengthException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (IllegalArgumentException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (IllegalStateException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (InvalidCipherTextException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (Exception ex) { Logger.logToConsole(ex); } // else return "";// default bad value } private static byte[] convertLongToByteArray(long longToConvert) { return new byte[] { (byte) (longToConvert >>> 56), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 48), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 40), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 32), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 24), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 16), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 8), (byte) (longToConvert) }; } private static long convertByteArrayToLong(byte[] byteArrayToConvert) { long returnable = 0; for (int counter = 0; counter < byteArrayToConvert.length; counter++) { returnable += ((byteArrayToConvert[byteArrayToConvert.length - counter - 1] & 0xFF) << counter * 8); } if (returnable < 0) { returnable++; } return returnable; } public static long encryptLong(long plainLong) { try { String plainString = String.valueOf(plainLong); String cipherString = encryptString(plainString); byte[] cipherBytes = cipherString.getBytes(); long returnable = convertByteArrayToLong(cipherBytes); return returnable; } catch (Exception e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } // else return Integer.MIN_VALUE;// default bad value } public static long decryptLong(long encryptedLong) { byte[] cipherBytes = convertLongToByteArray(encryptedLong); cipher.init(false, key); byte[] decryptedBytes = new byte[cipher.getOutputSize(cipherBytes.length)]; int decryptedLength = cipherBytes.length; try { cipher.doFinal(decryptedBytes, decryptedLength); } catch (DataLengthException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } catch (IllegalStateException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } catch (InvalidCipherTextException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } catch (Exception e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } long plainLong = convertByteArrayToLong(decryptedBytes); return plainLong; } public static boolean encryptBoolean(int plainBoolean) { return false; } public static boolean decryptBoolean(int encryptedBoolean) { return false; } public static boolean testLongToByteArrayConversion() { boolean returnable = true; // fails out of the bounds of an integer, the conversion to long from byte // array does not hold, need to figure out a better solution for (long counter = -1000000; counter < 1000000; counter++) { long test = counter; byte[] bytes = convertLongToByteArray(test); long result = convertByteArrayToLong(bytes); if (result != test) { returnable = false; Logger.logToConsole("long conversion failed"); Logger.logToConsole("test = " + test + "\n result = " + result); } // regardless } // the end Logger.logToConsole("final returnable result = " + returnable); return returnable; } }

    Read the article

  • How do I catch jQuery $.getJSON (or $.ajax with datatype set to 'jsonp') error when using JSONP?

    - by Andy May
    Is it possible to catch an error when using JSONP with jQuery? I've tried both the $.getJSON and $.ajax methods but neither will catch the 404 error I'm testing. Here is what I've tried (keep in mind that these all work successfully, but I want to handle the case when it fails): jQuery.ajax({ type: "GET", url: handlerURL, dataType: "jsonp", success: function(results){ alert("Success!"); }, error: function(XMLHttpRequest, textStatus, errorThrown){ alert("Error"); } }); And also: jQuery.getJSON(handlerURL + "&callback=?", function(jsonResult){ alert("Success!"); }); I've also tried adding the $.ajaxError but that didn't work either: jQuery(document).ajaxError(function(event, request, settings){ alert("Error"); }); Thanks in advance for any replies!

    Read the article

  • How to catch FTP errors? e.g., socket.error: [Errno 10060]

    - by Johnson
    I'm using the ftplib module to upload files: files = [ a.txt , b.txt , c.txt ] s = ftplib.FTP(ftp_server , ftp_user , ftp_pw) # Connect to FTP for i in range(len(files)): f = open(files[i], 'rb') stor = 'stor ' + files[i] s.storbinary(stor, f) f.close() # close file s.quit() # close ftp How do I catch the following error? socket.error: [Errno 10060] A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond And what other errors are common when using the FTP module that I should also catch? Thanks for any help or pointers.

    Read the article

  • Where should I catch WM_HIBERNATE and WM_CLOSE in Windows Mobile/WinCE?

    - by afriza
    I have read about Windows Mobile's X button's behaviour, WM_HIBERNATE, and WM_CLOSE on Low Memory Situation. MSDN on WM_HIBERNATE: This message is sent to an application when system resources are running low. An application should attempt to release as many resources as possible when sent this message by unloading dialog boxes, destroying windows, or freeing up as much local storage as possible without changing the internal state. MSDN on WM_CLOSE: This message is sent as a signal that a window or an application should terminate. Where should I catch the message? in the main message pump? in every window? or only some windows? If I am using MFC, where should I catch it?

    Read the article

  • How to catch exceptions from another program (for logging)?

    - by CuriousCoder
    I am working on a tool that monitors a number of applications and ensures they are always running and in a clean state. Some of these applications have unhandled exceptions which do occur periodically and present the 'send crash report' window. I do not have the source code to these applications. Is there any mechanism I could use to catch the exceptions, or simply identify their exception type, as well as identify the application's main executable file that threw the exception. I'm not trying to do anything crazy like catch and handle it on the applications behalf, I'm simply trying to capture the exception type, log it and then restart the application.

    Read the article

  • How can I tell Visual Studio to not catch a particular exception?

    - by Noel Kennedy
    I have a particular type of exception that I would like Visual Studio to not catch with the Exception Assistant. Essentially I would like it just to let my normal exception handling infrastructure deal with it. The exception is an inheritor of System.Exception which I wrote and have the source code for. Any where this is thrown I want VS to not catch it, ie it is not useful to just supress a single throw new BlahException(); in code. This is because the exception is thrown a lot, and I don't want to have to supress every single instance individually. In case it makes a difference I am on Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate, Framework 3.5 SP1.

    Read the article

  • How do I catch the exception in windows application in c#?

    - by user291169
    Where should we catch exception • In Layer Boundary (UI-BLL & BLL-DAL) • In that methods where there is no interaction between Layers only some business logic present How do I write exception in Save/Delete where some DML statement executing? • What should I write in DAL end? • What should I write in BLL end? • What should I write in UI end? In Get/Load method How do we handle exception • What should I write in BLL end? • What should I write in UI end? Should I catch System exception?

    Read the article

  • Bash Script (Cygwin) to grep a logfile for multiple phrases and output a new file for each phrase.

    - by Chris
    Each logfile is titled based on the date it was created in the format YYYY-MM-DD.txt. I need to search each file for five different keywords and output five files prepended with the specific keyword and then the original logfile name. Example: Test-YYYY-MM-DD.txt grep -i -w 'keyword1' YYYY-MM-DD.txt Keyword1-YYYY-MM-DD.txt If it's also possible to email each new file to a different person, that would be helpful as well.

    Read the article

  • How to catch any exception (System.Exception) without a warning in F#?

    - by LLS
    I tried to catch an Exception but the compiler gives warning: This type test or downcast will always hold let testFail () = try printfn "Ready for failing..." failwith "Fails" with | :? System.ArgumentException -> () | :? System.Exception -> () The question is: how to I do it without the warning? (I believe there must be a way to do this, otherwise there should be no warning) Like C# try { Console.WriteLine("Ready for failing..."); throw new Exception("Fails"); } catch (Exception) { }

    Read the article

  • Getting information about where c++ exceptions are thrown inside of catch block?

    - by tfinniga
    I've got a c++ app that wraps large parts of code in try blocks. When I catch exceptions I can return the user to a stable state, which is nice. But I'm not longer receiving crash dumps. I'd really like to figure out where in the code the exception is taking place, so I can log it and fix it. Being able to get a dump without halting the application would be ideal, but I'm not sure that's possible. Is there some way I can figure out where the exception was thrown from within the catch block? If it's useful, I'm using native msvc++ on windows xp and higher. My plan is to simply log the crashes to a file on the various users' machines, and then upload the crashlogs once they get to a certain size.

    Read the article

  • Exception Handling Frequency/Log Detail

    - by Cyborgx37
    I am working on a fairly complex .NET application that interacts with another application. Many single-line statements are possible culprits for throwing an Exception and there is often nothing I can do to check the state before executing them to prevent these Exceptions. The question is, based on best practices and seasoned experience, how frequently should I lace my code with try/catch blocks? I've listed three examples below, but I'm open to any advice. I'm really hoping to get some pros/cons of various approaches. I can certainly come up with some of my own (greater log granularity for the O-C approach, better performance for the Monolithic approach), so I'm looking for experience over opinion. EDIT: I should add that this application is a batch program. The only "recovery" necessary in most cases is to log the error, clean up gracefully, and quit. So this could be seen to be as much a question of log granularity as exception handling. In my mind's eye I can imagine good reasons for both, so I'm looking for some general advice to help me find an appropriate balance. Monolitich Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } public static void Step2(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } public static void Step3(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } } Delegated Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step2(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step3(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } } Obsessive-Compulsive Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step2(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step3(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } } Other approaches welcomed and encouraged. Above are examples only.

    Read the article

  • In Javascript, what's better than try/catch for exiting an outer scope?

    - by gruseom
    In Javascript, I sometimes want to return a value from a scope that isn't the current function. It might be a block of code within the function, or it might be an enclosing function as in the following example, which uses a local function to recursively search for something. As soon as it finds a solution, the search is done and the whole thing should just return. Unfortunately, I can't think of a simpler way to do this than by hacking try/catch for the purpose: function solve(searchSpace) { var search = function (stuff) { solution = isItSolved(stuff); if (solution) { throw solution; } else { search(narrowThisWay(stuff)); search(narrowThatWay(stuff)); }; }; try { return search(searchSpace); } catch (solution) { return solution; }; }; I realize one could assign the solution to a local variable and then check it before making another recursive call, but my question is specifically about transfer of control. Is there a better way than the above? Perhaps involving label/break?

    Read the article

  • How to catch this low level MySQL (?) error in PHP/Magento

    - by andnil
    When I'm executing the following statement in Magento with a really large $sku, the execution terminates without any errors thrown what so ever. There are no errors in either Magento's, Apache's or PHP's error logs. Mage::getModel('catalog/product')-loadByAttribute('sku', $sku); Question: How do I catch the error? I've tried to set custom error handlers, and for testing purposes I've also managed to trigger error situations where each of the error handler functions are invoked. But when running the previously mentioned Magento code with a large $sku, none of the error handling functions are executed. error_reporting( -1 ); set_error_handler( array( 'Error', 'captureNormal' ) ); set_exception_handler( array( 'Error', 'captureException' ) ); register_shutdown_function( array( 'Error', 'captureShutdown' ) ); For completeness, this is the $sku I'm passing to loadByAttribute(). (The sku is invalid, but that is not the issue) 1- 9685 0102046|1- 9685 1212100|1- 9685 1212092|1- 9685 1212096|1- 9685 1102100|1- 9685 1102108|1- 9685 1102112|1- 9685 1102092|1- 9685 0102048|1- 9685 0102054|1- 9685 0102056|1- 9685 0102058|1- 9685 1212104|1- 9685 1212108|1- 9685 0212058|1- 9685 0104050|1- 9685 0212050|1- 9685 0212056|1- 9685 0212044|1- 9685 0212048|1- 9685 0212052|1- 9685 0212054|1- 9685 1102104|1- 9685 1102124 Any insight into this matter is much appreciated! Update: Upon further investigation, this is the exact point in the code where execution terminates. when the foreach is executed I guess Magento goes into MySQL world and starts loading up data from the database. \Mage\Catalog\Model\Abstract.php public function loadByAttribute($attribute, $value, $additionalAttributes = '*') { $collection = $this->getResourceCollection() ->addAttributeToSelect($additionalAttributes) ->addAttributeToFilter($attribute, $value) ->setPage(1,1); foreach ($collection as $object) { // <--------------- HERE return $object; } return false; } Note, I'm ONLY interested in finding out how to properly CATCH these kinds of errors, not "fix" the logic. This is so that I can present a proper error message to the user. The example above with the malformed sku is contrived and I have no desire to make my Magento app work with those erroneous skus.

    Read the article

  • How to create a route that catch all pdf file?

    - by VinnyG
    I want to have my pdf files sent this way to my users : public ActionResult GetPDF( string filename ) { return File( filename, "application/pdf", Server.HtmlEncode( filename ) ); } But I don't know how to create a route that will catch all the different pdf file in my site? Thanks a lot for the help!

    Read the article

  • Why should I not wrap every block in "try"-"catch"?

    - by Konrad
    I have always been of the belief that if a method can throw an exception then it is reckless not to protect this call with a meaningful try block. I just posted 'You should ALWAYS wrap calls that can throw in try, catch blocks.' to this question and was told that it was 'remarkably bad advice' - I'd like to understand why. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Java: how to access assignments in try-catch -loop?

    - by HH
    $ javac TestInit2.java TestInit2.java:13: variable unknown might not have been initialized System.out.println(unknown); ^ 1 error Code import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class TestInit2 { public static void main(String[] args){ String unknown; try{ unknown="cannot see me, why?"; }catch(Exception e){ e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println(unknown); } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >