Hidden exceptions about redbus HOT 5 CLOSED

I would choose the second option, setting if you want to 'false' by default to keep it working the same.

from redbus.

I can add exposing exceptions here, but we do not want to throw at this point because other subscriptions will be missed - a subscription should handle any exceptions in its own code that is run on publish.

Also, throwing here would mean exposing an exception from a subscription, to the publisher and the publisher should have no knowledge, or care about subscribers.

Hope that makes sense.

from redbus.

Think of the case where I don't have my own code in a try/catch.

In that case you are going to handle the exception but as you do nothing with it you "hide it", that's what's dangerous and what can take hours to debug.

See this:

https://rules.sonarsource.com/csharp/type/Vulnerability/RSPEC-2486

from redbus.

This is true, but I don't think throwing the exception here is the better option - for the reasons I mentioned before.

This code doesn't care about exceptions raised by the code it calls into, and definetly doesn't want other subscribers to not get messages because a unrelated different subscriber had an error.

What do you think of some event that you can subscribe to that exposes any exceptions raised, like a global handler? So you can have something that subscribes to that and gets events raised on any exceptions here? Or, I guess I could expose some configuration that would allow exceptions to be thrown so you could specify the behaviour you want. Which would be your preference on this?

from redbus.

Added option to throw subscriber exceptions in 1.0.7

from redbus.