DO NOT REMOVE!!eleven
-
catch (Ex90013Exception ex)
{
/*
standard logging, as in the rest of the app
*/// DO NOT REMOVE THE FOLLOWING SECTION!! // This will form the basis of associating components if (forceFullTraceValidation) { // decimal Qty = foo.Quantity; // foreach (TreeViewItem assembly in bar.TreeViewItems) // { // //AssociationAdjustment assAdj = assembly.associationAdjustment; // //assAdj.Populate( Coordinator.BuildComponents[ 0 ] ); // TreeViewItem comps = assembly.ComponentItems; // foreach (TreeViewItem comp in comps) // { // AssociationAdjustment compAdj = comp.associationAdjustment; // foreach (AssociationItem traceAdj in compAdj.AssociationItems) // { // if (traceAdj.AvailableQuantity > 0 && traceAdj.Quantity == 0) // { // traceAdj.Quantity = 1; // break; // } // } // } // } //if some kind of error then we give up! // throw ex; } }
A bit of logging that's pretty standard for catch blocks in this part of the code. Then the WTF starts:
- A scary sounding warning comment
- followed by a commented out load of code (revision history? No, lets keep it all in the code)
- not all commented, the
if
block is still there, checking a boolean for no good reason throw ex
- because who needs the original stack trace?- the original code had three nested
foreach
loops in the catch. It obviously wasn't a particularly necessary cleanup or it would still be there rather than being commented
Oh,and that Exception type isn't anonymised - that's the actual type (that one is a Sage WTF)
-
Oh,and that Exception type isn't anonymised - that's the actual type (that one is a Sage WTF)
Do you guys have 90k Exceptions or is there some kind of pattern that makes at least the number make sense? (some ISO maybe?)Filed Under: Make an Exception for every bug in Discourse
-
I would also add as a WTF all that code in an error handling block.
catch (Ex90013Exception ex) { handleEx90013Exception(ex); }
Oh,and that Exception type isn't anonymised - that's the actual type (that one is a Sage WTF)
No results found for Ex90013Exception
-
throw ex
- because who needs the original stack trace?
Not that it matters; it's commented out!
@Jaloopa said:that one is a Sage WTF
I work with a number of ex-Sage guys...
-
Do you guys have 90k Exceptions
The exceptions are part of the Sage API. I have no idea what the rationale behind the naming convention is, and I'm not sure I want to
-
throw ex - because who needs the original stack trace?
This is C#? That would be cromulent in Java (because of the different way it handles exceptions).
-
Probably. In C#, if you want the stack trace, you just
throw;
;throw ex;
resets the stack trace.SEMICOLONS!
-
Correct. This is C#
-
Uggh, my company uses a heavily-customized Sage CRM product, and there are so many WTFs in there that I wouldn't even know where to start describing them. This doesn't surprise me at all.
-
-
-
Oh,and that Exception type isn't anonymised
Seems like someone's been looking up to Oracle. When was it that we stopped needing error numbers, early 2000s?
-
Still better than Sage Timberline - that's a stinking pile of crap if there ever was one. Most of the time it's installed on a terminal server, since any kind of a bad connection can cause the DB to get corrupted (e.g. Jim 3 desks over sneezed, restore from backup).
Oh, and did I mention that it's for construction accounting - probably the worst network connections imaginable (oops, the backhoe cut the line again). So bad connections are the norm.