I hope there is a general consensus to this question and I'm not asking for people's opinions.
My component dispatches a action method:
await dispatch('someAction', payload)
Store
async someAction({commit}, payload){
try {
const data = await http.get('/foobar', payload)
commit('someCommit', data.data)
} catch (error) {
throw error
}
}
In the store method, the try/catch is throwing an Eslint error unnecessary try/catch, which to me doesn't make sense. The server can throw an error and the http call can fail, so in order to avoid the commit from firing I added a try/catch block. I guess I could add a if (data) commit(... but isn't it cleaner with a try/catch?
Also, in the catch I'm throwing the error so that the original dispatch call can be stopped (if it was in its own try/catch).
Am I doing things wrong here? Is there a 'better' way of doing things?
From the docs
A catch clause that only rethrows the original error is redundant, and has no effect on the runtime behavior of the program. These redundant clauses can be a source of confusion and code bloat, so it’s better to disallow these unnecessary catch clauses.
The preferred way to handle an error is to... well, handle it. Log it, respond to it in some way, just don't throw it. However, as the docs also say,
If you don’t want to be notified about unnecessary catch clauses, you can safely disable this rule.
Which can be done in your eslint config:
"rules": {
"no-useless-catch": "off" // "off" or 0 both work
}
** Try catch will instantly hault that stack and fire the catch... You can put any type of callback in there... Like for instance you can recursively function again to retry ...
Also you dont have to worry about dispatches and stuff like that in pinia just use this inside the action as if it were a normal javascript class.
state =( (){
color = "red"
},
actions{
changeColors{
try{
const colors = await api.getColors()
this.colors = colors.data // this doesnt fire if the request fails
}
catch(error){
// were only here because of the fact that the runtime
// threw an error... If we dont catch it nodejs crashes...
// now you do anything you want here -> -> -> but just know the code
// above did not complete... so thats what you do here.
console.log(error)
anyFunction(error)
}
},
})
When you catch an error ... You are CATCHING an error that was thrown inside the try block... So to go around in circles and then rethrow it... Is a waste of memory its like console logging a console log...
This is why AI generated code is useless(just guessing you generated this off of something... Not saying it in a negative way.. u obv know what code is , but you wouldnt of used throw there, you would of used something like console.log(error.message or whatever else you care about. Or used some type of middleware to forward it back to the user.
). When you dont throw an error it causes the runtime to terminate. When you catch the error... You are trying to prevent that from happening by turning it into an event listener esentially... When an error is thrown do this... To turn around and throw it ... is a waste of resourses especially if u are using that type of design pattern on something like react where or vue where your doing the same thing hundreds of times in little variated ways.
I am using try catch inside try block to print relative message or get to know in which method error happened.
code snippet
for (const searchUrl of savedSearchUrls) {
console.log("here");
// function will get all the links of profiles in saved search url
try {
const links = await scrapeFromurl(browser, searchUrl);
try {
saveToDatabase(links);
} catch (e) {
handleError(e, "eror while saving to database");
}
} catch (err) {
handleError(err, "error in scrapeFromurl()");
}
}
I have searched on google but couldn't find related topic.
what are the other ways to accomplish similar things?
what are the best practice to handle this type of situation.
I would suggest using only one try catch block and specific error instances for each method, then in catch block you can simply check which method throws an error by using instanceof operator
class ScrapeError extends Error {
message = "error in scrapeFromurl()"
}
class DBError extends Error {
message = "eror while saving to database"
}
async function scrapeFromurl() {
throw new ScrapeError();
}
async function saveToDatabase(links) {
throw new DBError();
}
async function main() {
try {
const links = await scrapeFromurl();
await saveToDatabase(links);
} catch (e) {
if (e instanceof ScrapeError) {
console.log('scrape', e);
}
if (e instanceof DBError) {
console.log('dberror', e);
}
}
}
main();
By default a single try-catch block is enough without needs for nesting other try-catches into it. However, there may be some legitimate exceptions from these rules.
Exception 1: Different handlers for the same exception
Let's consider the following example
try {
myroutine(); // may throw three types of exceptions
} catch (e) {
if (e instanceof TypeError) {
// statements to handle TypeError exceptions
} else if (e instanceof RangeError) {
// statements to handle RangeError exceptions
} else if (e instanceof EvalError) {
// statements to handle EvalError exceptions
} else {
// statements to handle any unspecified exceptions
logMyErrors(e); // pass exception object to error handler
}
}
It is perfectly possible that inside your try there is a section where a given error type, like a RangeError needs a different way of handling than the main catch. In this case it might make sense to have another try-catch inside your try, albeit, in this case, for better readability it would make sense to consider the inner try as a method and call that, so you would not physically nest the try-catch blocks, but separate the concerns of the try-catches into separate methods.
Exception 2: Handling a certain type of error only at a section of a try-block
It is quite possible that you want your try-catch to throw the error further in the majority of your try block, but, in a specific section you want it to handle it. Again, in this case it would make sense to separate the inner try into its own method.
Conclusion
Having nested try-catches are nonintuitive for a reader, therefore it makes sense to separate the inner try into its own method whenever you encounter the need to nest tries. Yet, as the examples above show, there are legitimate needs to drift away from the outer handling of an error for some sections. However, by default it is a good idea to consider such sections as separate concerns worthy of separating from the method. Of course, sometimes you might want to keep nested try-catches without separating their concerns, but more often than not it is worth to apply the separations. So, a rule of thumb that you may want to consider is to refactor nested try-catches either into separate methods or a single try-catch, unless there is a very good reason not to do so.
In asyncronous scripts you can use domains for error handling. And trycatch in trycatch can be treated like domain in domain, which is pointless.
Moreover, programmers always tend to prevent the code from growing horizontally like this
{
...
{
...
{
... (and so on)
{
}
}
}
}
So it is a really bad idea. I can keep on telling drawbacks of this approach, but not going to. Just use one trycatch with switchcase inside to handle all errors
I just started trying out node.js a few days ago. I've realized that the Node is terminated whenever I have an unhandled exception in my program. This is different than the normal server container that I have been exposed to where only the Worker Thread dies when unhandled exceptions occur and the container would still be able to receive the request. This raises a few questions:
Is process.on('uncaughtException') the only effective way to guard against it?
Will process.on('uncaughtException') catch the unhandled exception during execution of asynchronous processes as well?
Is there a module that is already built (such as sending email or writing to a file) that I could leverage in the case of uncaught exceptions?
I would appreciate any pointer/article that would show me the common best practices for handling uncaught exceptions in node.js
Update: Joyent now has their own guide. The following information is more of a summary:
Safely "throwing" errors
Ideally we'd like to avoid uncaught errors as much as possible, as such, instead of literally throwing the error, we can instead safely "throw" the error using one of the following methods depending on our code architecture:
For synchronous code, if an error happens, return the error:
// Define divider as a syncrhonous function
var divideSync = function(x,y) {
// if error condition?
if ( y === 0 ) {
// "throw" the error safely by returning it
return new Error("Can't divide by zero")
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
return x/y
}
}
// Divide 4/2
var result = divideSync(4,2)
// did an error occur?
if ( result instanceof Error ) {
// handle the error safely
console.log('4/2=err', result)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
console.log('4/2='+result)
}
// Divide 4/0
result = divideSync(4,0)
// did an error occur?
if ( result instanceof Error ) {
// handle the error safely
console.log('4/0=err', result)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
console.log('4/0='+result)
}
For callback-based (ie. asynchronous) code, the first argument of the callback is err, if an error happens err is the error, if an error doesn't happen then err is null. Any other arguments follow the err argument:
var divide = function(x,y,next) {
// if error condition?
if ( y === 0 ) {
// "throw" the error safely by calling the completion callback
// with the first argument being the error
next(new Error("Can't divide by zero"))
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
next(null, x/y)
}
}
divide(4,2,function(err,result){
// did an error occur?
if ( err ) {
// handle the error safely
console.log('4/2=err', err)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
console.log('4/2='+result)
}
})
divide(4,0,function(err,result){
// did an error occur?
if ( err ) {
// handle the error safely
console.log('4/0=err', err)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
console.log('4/0='+result)
}
})
For eventful code, where the error may happen anywhere, instead of throwing the error, fire the error event instead:
// Definite our Divider Event Emitter
var events = require('events')
var Divider = function(){
events.EventEmitter.call(this)
}
require('util').inherits(Divider, events.EventEmitter)
// Add the divide function
Divider.prototype.divide = function(x,y){
// if error condition?
if ( y === 0 ) {
// "throw" the error safely by emitting it
var err = new Error("Can't divide by zero")
this.emit('error', err)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
this.emit('divided', x, y, x/y)
}
// Chain
return this;
}
// Create our divider and listen for errors
var divider = new Divider()
divider.on('error', function(err){
// handle the error safely
console.log(err)
})
divider.on('divided', function(x,y,result){
console.log(x+'/'+y+'='+result)
})
// Divide
divider.divide(4,2).divide(4,0)
Safely "catching" errors
Sometimes though, there may still be code that throws an error somewhere which can lead to an uncaught exception and a potential crash of our application if we don't catch it safely. Depending on our code architecture we can use one of the following methods to catch it:
When we know where the error is occurring, we can wrap that section in a node.js domain
var d = require('domain').create()
d.on('error', function(err){
// handle the error safely
console.log(err)
})
// catch the uncaught errors in this asynchronous or synchronous code block
d.run(function(){
// the asynchronous or synchronous code that we want to catch thrown errors on
var err = new Error('example')
throw err
})
If we know where the error is occurring is synchronous code, and for whatever reason can't use domains (perhaps old version of node), we can use the try catch statement:
// catch the uncaught errors in this synchronous code block
// try catch statements only work on synchronous code
try {
// the synchronous code that we want to catch thrown errors on
var err = new Error('example')
throw err
} catch (err) {
// handle the error safely
console.log(err)
}
However, be careful not to use try...catch in asynchronous code, as an asynchronously thrown error will not be caught:
try {
setTimeout(function(){
var err = new Error('example')
throw err
}, 1000)
}
catch (err) {
// Example error won't be caught here... crashing our app
// hence the need for domains
}
If you do want to work with try..catch in conjunction with asynchronous code, when running Node 7.4 or higher you can use async/await natively to write your asynchronous functions.
Another thing to be careful about with try...catch is the risk of wrapping your completion callback inside the try statement like so:
var divide = function(x,y,next) {
// if error condition?
if ( y === 0 ) {
// "throw" the error safely by calling the completion callback
// with the first argument being the error
next(new Error("Can't divide by zero"))
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
next(null, x/y)
}
}
var continueElsewhere = function(err, result){
throw new Error('elsewhere has failed')
}
try {
divide(4, 2, continueElsewhere)
// ^ the execution of divide, and the execution of
// continueElsewhere will be inside the try statement
}
catch (err) {
console.log(err.stack)
// ^ will output the "unexpected" result of: elsewhere has failed
}
This gotcha is very easy to do as your code becomes more complex. As such, it is best to either use domains or to return errors to avoid (1) uncaught exceptions in asynchronous code (2) the try catch catching execution that you don't want it to. In languages that allow for proper threading instead of JavaScript's asynchronous event-machine style, this is less of an issue.
Finally, in the case where an uncaught error happens in a place that wasn't wrapped in a domain or a try catch statement, we can make our application not crash by using the uncaughtException listener (however doing so can put the application in an unknown state):
// catch the uncaught errors that weren't wrapped in a domain or try catch statement
// do not use this in modules, but only in applications, as otherwise we could have multiple of these bound
process.on('uncaughtException', function(err) {
// handle the error safely
console.log(err)
})
// the asynchronous or synchronous code that emits the otherwise uncaught error
var err = new Error('example')
throw err
Following is a summarization and curation from many different sources on this topic including code example and quotes from selected blog posts. The complete list of best practices can be found here
Best practices of Node.JS error handling
Number1: Use promises for async error handling
TL;DR: Handling async errors in callback style is probably the fastest way to hell (a.k.a the pyramid of doom). The best gift you can give to your code is using instead a reputable promise library which provides much compact and familiar code syntax like try-catch
Otherwise: Node.JS callback style, function(err, response), is a promising way to un-maintainable code due to the mix of error handling with casual code, excessive nesting and awkward coding patterns
Code example - good
doWork()
.then(doWork)
.then(doError)
.then(doWork)
.catch(errorHandler)
.then(verify);
code example anti pattern – callback style error handling
getData(someParameter, function(err, result){
if(err != null)
//do something like calling the given callback function and pass the error
getMoreData(a, function(err, result){
if(err != null)
//do something like calling the given callback function and pass the error
getMoreData(b, function(c){
getMoreData(d, function(e){
...
});
});
});
});
});
Blog quote: "We have a problem with promises"
(From the blog pouchdb, ranked 11 for the keywords "Node Promises")
"…And in fact, callbacks do something even more sinister: they deprive us of the stack, which is something we usually take for granted in programming languages. Writing code without a stack is a lot like driving a car without a brake pedal: you don’t realize how badly you need it, until you reach for it and it’s not there. The whole point of promises is to give us back the language fundamentals we lost when we went async: return, throw, and the stack. But you have to know how to use promises correctly in order to take advantage of them."
Number2: Use only the built-in Error object
TL;DR: It pretty common to see code that throws errors as string or as a custom type – this complicates the error handling logic and the interoperability between modules. Whether you reject a promise, throw exception or emit error – using Node.JS built-in Error object increases uniformity and prevents loss of error information
Otherwise: When executing some module, being uncertain which type of errors come in return – makes it much harder to reason about the coming exception and handle it. Even worth, using custom types to describe errors might lead to loss of critical error information like the stack trace!
Code example - doing it right
//throwing an Error from typical function, whether sync or async
if(!productToAdd)
throw new Error("How can I add new product when no value provided?");
//'throwing' an Error from EventEmitter
const myEmitter = new MyEmitter();
myEmitter.emit('error', new Error('whoops!'));
//'throwing' an Error from a Promise
return new promise(function (resolve, reject) {
DAL.getProduct(productToAdd.id).then((existingProduct) =>{
if(existingProduct != null)
return reject(new Error("Why fooling us and trying to add an existing product?"));
code example anti pattern
//throwing a String lacks any stack trace information and other important properties
if(!productToAdd)
throw ("How can I add new product when no value provided?");
Blog quote: "A string is not an error"
(From the blog devthought, ranked 6 for the keywords “Node.JS error object”)
"…passing a string instead of an error results in reduced interoperability between modules. It breaks contracts with APIs that might be performing instanceof Error checks, or that want to know more about the error. Error objects, as we’ll see, have very interesting properties in modern JavaScript engines besides holding the message passed to the constructor.."
Number3: Distinguish operational vs programmer errors
TL;DR: Operations errors (e.g. API received an invalid input) refer to known cases where the error impact is fully understood and can be handled thoughtfully. On the other hand, programmer error (e.g. trying to read undefined variable) refers to unknown code failures that dictate to gracefully restart the application
Otherwise: You may always restart the application when an error appear, but why letting ~5000 online users down because of a minor and predicted error (operational error)? the opposite is also not ideal – keeping the application up when unknown issue (programmer error) occurred might lead unpredicted behavior. Differentiating the two allows acting tactfully and applying a balanced approach based on the given context
Code example - doing it right
//throwing an Error from typical function, whether sync or async
if(!productToAdd)
throw new Error("How can I add new product when no value provided?");
//'throwing' an Error from EventEmitter
const myEmitter = new MyEmitter();
myEmitter.emit('error', new Error('whoops!'));
//'throwing' an Error from a Promise
return new promise(function (resolve, reject) {
DAL.getProduct(productToAdd.id).then((existingProduct) =>{
if(existingProduct != null)
return reject(new Error("Why fooling us and trying to add an existing product?"));
code example - marking an error as operational (trusted)
//marking an error object as operational
var myError = new Error("How can I add new product when no value provided?");
myError.isOperational = true;
//or if you're using some centralized error factory (see other examples at the bullet "Use only the built-in Error object")
function appError(commonType, description, isOperational) {
Error.call(this);
Error.captureStackTrace(this);
this.commonType = commonType;
this.description = description;
this.isOperational = isOperational;
};
throw new appError(errorManagement.commonErrors.InvalidInput, "Describe here what happened", true);
//error handling code within middleware
process.on('uncaughtException', function(error) {
if(!error.isOperational)
process.exit(1);
});
Blog Quote: "Otherwise you risk the state"
(From the blog debugable, ranked 3 for the keywords "Node.JS uncaught exception")
"…By the very nature of how throw works in JavaScript, there is almost never any way to safely “pick up where you left off”, without leaking references, or creating some other sort of undefined brittle state. The safest way to respond to a thrown error is to shut down the process. Of course, in a normal web server, you might have many connections open, and it is not reasonable to abruptly shut those down because an error was triggered by someone else. The better approach is to send an error response to the request that triggered the error, while letting the others finish in their normal time, and stop listening for new requests in that worker"
Number4: Handle errors centrally, through but not within middleware
TL;DR: Error handling logic such as mail to admin and logging should be encapsulated in a dedicated and centralized object that all end-points (e.g. Express middleware, cron jobs, unit-testing) call when an error comes in.
Otherwise: Not handling errors within a single place will lead to code duplication and probably to errors that are handled improperly
Code example - a typical error flow
//DAL layer, we don't handle errors here
DB.addDocument(newCustomer, (error, result) => {
if (error)
throw new Error("Great error explanation comes here", other useful parameters)
});
//API route code, we catch both sync and async errors and forward to the middleware
try {
customerService.addNew(req.body).then(function (result) {
res.status(200).json(result);
}).catch((error) => {
next(error)
});
}
catch (error) {
next(error);
}
//Error handling middleware, we delegate the handling to the centrzlied error handler
app.use(function (err, req, res, next) {
errorHandler.handleError(err).then((isOperationalError) => {
if (!isOperationalError)
next(err);
});
});
Blog quote: "Sometimes lower levels can’t do anything useful except propagate the error to their caller"
(From the blog Joyent, ranked 1 for the keywords “Node.JS error handling”)
"…You may end up handling the same error at several levels of the stack. This happens when lower levels can’t do anything useful except propagate the error to their caller, which propagates the error to its caller, and so on. Often, only the top-level caller knows what the appropriate response is, whether that’s to retry the operation, report an error to the user, or something else. But that doesn’t mean you should try to report all errors to a single top-level callback, because that callback itself can’t know in what context the error occurred"
Number5: Document API errors using Swagger
TL;DR: Let your API callers know which errors might come in return so they can handle these thoughtfully without crashing. This is usually done with REST API documentation frameworks like Swagger
Otherwise: An API client might decide to crash and restart only because he received back an error he couldn’t understand. Note: the caller of your API might be you (very typical in a microservices environment)
Blog quote: "You have to tell your callers what errors can happen"
(From the blog Joyent, ranked 1 for the keywords “Node.JS logging”)
…We’ve talked about how to handle errors, but when you’re writing a new function, how do you deliver errors to the code that called your function? …If you don’t know what errors can happen or don’t know what they mean, then your program cannot be correct except by accident. So if you’re writing a new function, you have to tell your callers what errors can happen and what they mea
Number6: Shut the process gracefully when a stranger comes to town
TL;DR: When an unknown error occurs (a developer error, see best practice number #3)- there is uncertainty about the application healthiness. A common practice suggests restarting the process carefully using a ‘restarter’ tool like Forever and PM2
Otherwise: When an unfamiliar exception is caught, some object might be in a faulty state (e.g an event emitter which is used globally and not firing events anymore due to some internal failure) and all future requests might fail or behave crazily
Code example - deciding whether to crash
//deciding whether to crash when an uncaught exception arrives
//Assuming developers mark known operational errors with error.isOperational=true, read best practice #3
process.on('uncaughtException', function(error) {
errorManagement.handler.handleError(error);
if(!errorManagement.handler.isTrustedError(error))
process.exit(1)
});
//centralized error handler encapsulates error-handling related logic
function errorHandler(){
this.handleError = function (error) {
return logger.logError(err).then(sendMailToAdminIfCritical).then(saveInOpsQueueIfCritical).then(determineIfOperationalError);
}
this.isTrustedError = function(error)
{
return error.isOperational;
}
Blog quote: "There are three schools of thoughts on error handling"
(From the blog jsrecipes)
…There are primarily three schools of thoughts on error handling: 1. Let the application crash and restart it. 2. Handle all possible errors and never crash. 3. Balanced approach between the two
Number7: Use a mature logger to increase errors visibility
TL;DR: A set of mature logging tools like Winston, Bunyan or Log4J, will speed-up error discovery and understanding. So forget about console.log.
Otherwise: Skimming through console.logs or manually through messy text file without querying tools or a decent log viewer might keep you busy at work until late
Code example - Winston logger in action
//your centralized logger object
var logger = new winston.Logger({
level: 'info',
transports: [
new (winston.transports.Console)(),
new (winston.transports.File)({ filename: 'somefile.log' })
]
});
//custom code somewhere using the logger
logger.log('info', 'Test Log Message with some parameter %s', 'some parameter', { anything: 'This is metadata' });
Blog quote: "Lets identify a few requirements (for a logger):"
(From the blog strongblog)
…Lets identify a few requirements (for a logger):
1. Time stamp each log line. This one is pretty self explanatory – you should be able to tell when each log entry occured.
2. Logging format should be easily digestible by humans as well as machines.
3. Allows for multiple configurable destination streams. For example, you might be writing trace logs to one file but when an error is encountered, write to the same file, then into error file and send an email at the same time…
Number8: Discover errors and downtime using APM products
TL;DR: Monitoring and performance products (a.k.a APM) proactively gauge your codebase or API so they can auto-magically highlight errors, crashes and slow parts that you were missing
Otherwise: You might spend great effort on measuring API performance and downtimes, probably you’ll never be aware which are your slowest code parts under real world scenario and how these affects the UX
Blog quote: "APM products segments"
(From the blog Yoni Goldberg)
"…APM products constitutes 3 major segments:1. Website or API monitoring – external services that constantly monitor uptime and performance via HTTP requests. Can be setup in few minutes. Following are few selected contenders: Pingdom, Uptime Robot, and New Relic
2. Code instrumentation – products family which require to embed an agent within the application to benefit feature slow code detection, exceptions statistics, performance monitoring and many more. Following are few selected contenders: New Relic, App Dynamics
3. Operational intelligence dashboard – these line of products are focused on facilitating the ops team with metrics and curated content that helps to easily stay on top of application performance. This is usually involves aggregating multiple sources of information (application logs, DB logs, servers log, etc) and upfront dashboard design work. Following are few selected contenders: Datadog, Splunk"
The above is a shortened version - see here more best practices and examples
You can catch uncaught exceptions, but it's of limited use. See http://debuggable.com/posts/node-js-dealing-with-uncaught-exceptions:4c933d54-1428-443c-928d-4e1ecbdd56cb
monit, forever or upstart can be used to restart node process when it crashes. A graceful shutdown is best you can hope for (e.g. save all in-memory data in uncaught exception handler).
nodejs domains is the most up to date way of handling errors in nodejs. Domains can capture both error/other events as well as traditionally thrown objects. Domains also provide functionality for handling callbacks with an error passed as the first argument via the intercept method.
As with normal try/catch-style error handling, is is usually best to throw errors when they occur, and block out areas where you want to isolate errors from affecting the rest of the code. The way to "block out" these areas are to call domain.run with a function as a block of isolated code.
In synchronous code, the above is enough - when an error happens you either let it be thrown through, or you catch it and handle there, reverting any data you need to revert.
try {
//something
} catch(e) {
// handle data reversion
// probably log too
}
When the error happens in an asynchronous callback, you either need to be able to fully handle the rollback of data (shared state, external data like databases, etc). OR you have to set something to indicate that an exception has happened - where ever you care about that flag, you have to wait for the callback to complete.
var err = null;
var d = require('domain').create();
d.on('error', function(e) {
err = e;
// any additional error handling
}
d.run(function() { Fiber(function() {
// do stuff
var future = somethingAsynchronous();
// more stuff
future.wait(); // here we care about the error
if(err != null) {
// handle data reversion
// probably log too
}
})});
Some of that above code is ugly, but you can create patterns for yourself to make it prettier, eg:
var specialDomain = specialDomain(function() {
// do stuff
var future = somethingAsynchronous();
// more stuff
future.wait(); // here we care about the error
if(specialDomain.error()) {
// handle data reversion
// probably log too
}
}, function() { // "catch"
// any additional error handling
});
UPDATE (2013-09):
Above, I use a future that implies fibers semantics, which allow you to wait on futures in-line. This actually allows you to use traditional try-catch blocks for everything - which I find to be the best way to go. However, you can't always do this (ie in the browser)...
There are also futures that don't require fibers semantics (which then work with normal, browsery JavaScript). These can be called futures, promises, or deferreds (I'll just refer to futures from here on). Plain-old-JavaScript futures libraries allow errors to be propagated between futures. Only some of these libraries allow any thrown future to be correctly handled, so beware.
An example:
returnsAFuture().then(function() {
console.log('1')
return doSomething() // also returns a future
}).then(function() {
console.log('2')
throw Error("oops an error was thrown")
}).then(function() {
console.log('3')
}).catch(function(exception) {
console.log('handler')
// handle the exception
}).done()
This mimics a normal try-catch, even though the pieces are asynchronous. It would print:
1
2
handler
Note that it doesn't print '3' because an exception was thrown that interrupts that flow.
Take a look at bluebird promises:
https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird
Note that I haven't found many other libraries other than these that properly handle thrown exceptions. jQuery's deferred, for example, don't - the "fail" handler would never get the exception thrown an a 'then' handler, which in my opinion is a deal breaker.
I wrote about this recently at http://snmaynard.com/2012/12/21/node-error-handling/. A new feature of node in version 0.8 is domains and allow you to combine all the forms of error handling into one easier manage form. You can read about them in my post.
You can also use something like Bugsnag to track your uncaught exceptions and be notified via email, chatroom or have a ticket created for an uncaught exception (I am the co-founder of Bugsnag).
One instance where using a try-catch might be appropriate is when using a forEach loop. It is synchronous but at the same time you cannot just use a return statement in the inner scope. Instead a try and catch approach can be used to return an Error object in the appropriate scope. Consider:
function processArray() {
try {
[1, 2, 3].forEach(function() { throw new Error('exception'); });
} catch (e) {
return e;
}
}
It is a combination of the approaches described by #balupton above.
I would just like to add that Step.js library helps you handle exceptions by always passing it to the next step function. Therefore you can have as a last step a function that check for any errors in any of the previous steps. This approach can greatly simplify your error handling.
Below is a quote from the github page:
any exceptions thrown are caught and passed as the first argument to
the next function. As long as you don't nest callback functions inline
your main functions this prevents there from ever being any uncaught
exceptions. This is very important for long running node.JS servers
since a single uncaught exception can bring the whole server down.
Furthermore, you can use Step to control execution of scripts to have a clean up section as the last step. For example if you want to write a build script in Node and report how long it took to write, the last step can do that (rather than trying to dig out the last callback).
Catching errors has been very well discussed here, but it's worth remembering to log the errors out somewhere so you can view them and fix stuff up.
Bunyan is a popular logging framework for NodeJS - it supporst writing out to a bunch of different output places which makes it useful for local debugging, as long as you avoid console.log.
In your domain's error handler you could spit the error out to a log file.
var log = bunyan.createLogger({
name: 'myapp',
streams: [
{
level: 'error',
path: '/var/tmp/myapp-error.log' // log ERROR to this file
}
]
});
This can get time consuming if you have lots of errors and/or servers to check, so it could be worth looking into a tool like Raygun (disclaimer, I work at Raygun) to group errors together - or use them both together.
If you decided to use Raygun as a tool, it's pretty easy to setup too
var raygunClient = new raygun.Client().init({ apiKey: 'your API key' });
raygunClient.send(theError);
Crossed with using a tool like PM2 or forever, your app should be able to crash, log out what happened and reboot without any major issues.
After reading this post some time ago I was wondering if it was safe to use domains for exception handling on an api / function level. I wanted to use them to simplify exception handling code in each async function I wrote. My concern was that using a new domain for each function would introduce significant overhead. My homework seems to indicate that there is minimal overhead and that performance is actually better with domains than with try catch in some situations.
http://www.lighthouselogic.com/#/using-a-new-domain-for-each-async-function-in-node/
If you want use Services in Ubuntu(Upstart): Node as a service in Ubuntu 11.04 with upstart, monit and forever.js
getCountryRegionData: (countryName, stateName) => {
let countryData, stateData
try {
countryData = countries.find(
country => country.countryName === countryName
)
} catch (error) {
console.log(error.message)
return error.message
}
try {
stateData = countryData.regions.find(state => state.name === stateName)
} catch (error) {
console.log(error.message)
return error.message
}
return {
countryName: countryData.countryName,
countryCode: countryData.countryShortCode,
stateName: stateData.name,
stateCode: stateData.shortCode,
}
},
I've heard from plenty of people saying that throwing errors in Node is bad practice, and you should rather manually handle them via CommonJS's callback syntax:
somethingThatPassesAnError( function(err, value) {
if (err) console.log("ERROR: " + err);
});
Yet, I've found in multiple unit testing frameworks (Mocha, Should.js, Gently) that it seems like they want you to throw an error when something happens. I mean, sure, you can design your tests to check for equality of variables and check for not-null in error vars, but in the words of Ryan Dahl himself, "you should write your framework to make the right things easy to do and the wrong things hard to do".
So what gives? Can anyone explain why that practice exists? Should I start throwing fatal exceptions like require() would if the module couldn't be found?
It because nodejs programs typically make heavy use of async, and as a result errors are often thrown after your try/catch has already completed successfully. Consider this contrived example.
function foo(callback) {
process.nextTick(function() {
if (something) throw "error";
callback("data");
});
}
try {
foo(function(data) {
dosomething(data);
});
} catch (e) {
// "error" will not be caught here, as this code will have been executed
// before the callback returns.
}
The typical node pattern, of the first argument in a callback being an error, obviates this problem, providing a consistent way to return errors from asynchronous code.
function foo(callback) {
process.nextTick(function() {
if (something) return callback("error");
callback("data");
});
}
foo(function(error, data) {
if (error) return handleError(error);
dosomething(data);
});
It is my understanding that the case against throwing exceptions in JavaScript is due to the heavy use of asynchronous patterns. When an error occurs on another stack, you can't catch it. In those cases, use the err parameter as the first parameter for the callback.
I don't think that is the same as saying "never throw anything". If I have synchronous code, and an exception occurs, I throw it. There are differing opinions, but if callbacks aren't involved at all, I see no reason to not use throw.
I tend to follow the guidance on Joyent's Error Handling in Node.js for this one. The oversimplified gist is that there are really two types of errors (operational and programmer), and three ways to pass errors (emitting an error event on an event emitter, returning the callback with the error argument as non-null, and throwing the error).
Operational errors are errors that you expect might happen and are able to handle, ie. not necessarily bugs. Programmer errors are errors in the code itself. If you are writing code and you expect the error, then any of the patterns for passing an error are valuable. For example:
If the error happens inside an asynchronous function that accepts a callback, using the idiomatic return callback(new Error('Yadda yadda yadda')) is a correct solution (if you can't handle the error in the function).
If the error happens inside of a synchronous function and is a breaking problem (ie. the program cannot continue without the operation that was attempted) then blowing up with an uncaught thrown error is acceptable.
If the error occurs in a synchronous function but can be dealt with, then the error should be dealt with, otherwise it should be thrown, and maybe the parent function can handle it, maybe not.
Personally, I tend to only throw errors that I consider fatal, thus my code is mostly devoid of try/catch blocks (I even wrap JSON.parse in a function defined thusly: function jsonParseAsync(json, cb) { var out, err; try { out = JSON.parse(json) } catch(e) { err = e }; return cb(err, out); } ). I also try to avoid promises because they conflate promise rejection and thrown errors (even though this is getting harder to do as promises become more ubiquitous). Instead, I tend to think of synchronous functions as mathematical proofs in that if they are correct they must always be correct (thus an error in a synchronous function should break the whole program, otherwise the proof can be wrong but still usable). My error creation and checks are almost entirely assertions for bad input and emitting error events or handling asynchronous errors idiomatically.
I would suggest using exceptions to handle critical errors, much like the way require() works. If this functionality causes Node.js to misbehave, then that's a bug which I'm sure will get fixed in time.