Swift: if a do return try fails does catch execute - swift

I am working on a piece of code that is going to fetch an array of NSManagedObjects from CoreData. When using a do catch statement in my code it doesn't seem right to do it this way, but it is the simplest way I can write this line of code.
In any other scenario when you use the return statement you are jumping out of the current function you are in. And you can be assured that no other code in your function will execute past the return statement. I am wondering if the same applies to Swift's do catch paradigm.
class func getAll() -> [MMNotification] {
let context = appDelegate.persistentContainer.viewContext
let fetchRequest = NSFetchRequest<MMNotification>(entityName: "MMNotification")
do {
return try context.fetch(fetchRequest)
}
catch {
// Will this 'catch' if the try fails,
// even if we said we are 'return'ing right before the 'try'?
return []
}
}
Here I am fetching a list of notifications stored in CoreData. In the do block you can see the line of code in question.
QUESTION
Will the catch block execute if the try fails after already stating that the function should return?

What you have should work as expected. Basically what happens is if a throw occurs at any time within a do, the catch is called and any code after the throw will not be executed.

Yes, the catch block will execute if the try in return try fails. The return will not happen.
Here's a little code to prove it to yourself. Paste it into a new playground to try it out.
import UIKit
let shouldFail = true
enum DemoError:Error {
case shouldFail
}
func failableGetter() throws -> String {
if shouldFail { throw DemoError.shouldFail }
return "Succeeded"
}
func fetchInfo() -> String {
do {
return try failableGetter()
} catch {
return "Failed"
}
}
print(fetchInfo()) // "Failed" or "Succeeded" depending on shouldFail
When shouldFail is true, the failableGetter() throws an error and the do-catch in fetchInfo() skips to the catch section before returning.
When shouldFail is false, the failableGetter() doesn't fail and fetchInfo() returns the result.

Adding to this answer. Scope matters a bit here. Code inside the do block code after a throw will NOT be executed. However, code further down outside of the scope of the do block will be executed. I made a simple playground you can run to see for yourself.
import Foundation
let error = NSError(domain: "", code: 123, userInfo: [NSLocalizedDescriptionKey: "My error"])
func functionThatAlwaysThrows() throws {
throw(error)
}
func myFunction() {
do {
try functionThatAlwaysThrows()
// This will never print
print("Continuing after throw inside do scope")
} catch let err {
print("Caught Error: \(err.localizedDescription)")
}
// This will always print
print("Continuing after throw outside do scope")
}
Output:
Caught Error: My error
Continuing after throw outside do scope
If you want more information on Error handling you can take a look at the docs

Related

How to use a method with throws returning a value in promiseKit

I create a set of promises which relies on the results from a function that may throw an error. I can get this to work as shown in the code below, but I don't like the double catch blocks. I'd like to use the a single promiseKit catch block. Anyone have a better solution that works?
do {
let accounts = try Account.getAccounts()
let mailboxPromises = accounts.map { self.fetchMailboxes($0) }
when(fulfilled: mailboxPromises).map { _ in
self.updateBadgeCount()
}
.catch { (error) in
}
} catch {
}
Maybe wrap Account.getAccounts() in a promise which you can then use in your promise chain?
func getAccounts() -> Promise<[Account]> {
return Promise {
do {
let accounts = try Account.getAccounts()
$0.fulfill(accounts)
} catch {
$0.reject(error)
}
}
}
UPDATE:
Below info is from the documentation at https://github.com/mxcl/PromiseKit/blob/master/Documentation/CommonPatterns.md so you should be able to use this pattern instead of your do/catch block.
Since promises handle thrown errors, you don't have to wrap calls to throwing functions in a do block unless you really want to handle the errors locally:
foo().then { baz in
bar(baz)
}.then { result in
try doOtherThing()
}.catch { error in
// if doOtherThing() throws, we end up here
}

How to exit a function scope from inner function using Swift?

With return it is possible to exit the scope of the current function but is it also possible to exit the scope of the outer function that is calling the inner function?
func innerFunction() {
guard 1 == 2 else {
// exit scope of innerFunction and outerFunction
}
}
func outerFunction() {
innerFunction()
print("should be unreachable")
}
There could be one approach using a return value of the inner function that we can check for:
func innerFunction() -> Bool {
guard 1 == 2 else {
return false
}
return true
}
func outerFunction() {
guard innerFunction() else {
return
}
print("should be unreachable")
}
The problem with this approach is that it can clutter your code pretty quickly if the functions become more complicated and you have to use them over and over again.
Consider applying this approach with XCTest. It would look like this:
func testFoobar() {
guard let unwrappedObject = helperFunction() else {
XCTFail("A failure message that can change with each helperFunction call")
return
}
print("should be unreachable when helperFunction already failed")
}
I'd like to have something similar to this:
func testFoobar() {
let unwrappedObject = helperFunction()
print("should be unreachable when helperFunction already failed")
}
This is basically what Swift's error handling does:
func outer() throws
{
try inner()
print("Unreachable")
}
struct DoNotContinue : Error {}
func inner() throws
{
throw DoNotContinue()
}
do { try outer() }
catch _ { print("Skipped the unreachable") }
Note, of course, that the caller still has control over this: it could catch the thrown error itself instead of just exiting.
problem with this approach is that it can clutter your code
There's a much more serious problem with allowing callees to directly exit their callers, and that is that the flow of control very quickly becomes incomprehensible. Imagine that you have a couple of layers of this. Reading the top-level function, you no longer have any clear idea what can happen. You must yourself recurse into every callee's callee to make sure that the original code will continue on its course.

Using variable/constant outside of do{}catch{} - swift2

So on a button press I'm creating splitLat: [Double] from a throwing function called splitLatitude that takes currentLocation: CLLocationCoordinate2D?. I then want to use splitLat as a Label (its going to be used for other things as well but this serves the example)
#IBAction func ButtonPress() {
let splitLat = try self.splitLatitude(self.currentLocation)
LatSplitLabel.text = "\(splitLat)"
}
this gets a error "Errors thrown from here are not handled"
I resolve this by putting it in a do catch block
do{
let splitLat = try self.splitLatitude(self.currentLocation)
} catch {
print("error") //Example - Fix
}
but the when i try to set the label later on splitLat is an "unresolved identifier"
New to swift and programming in general, am i missing something basic/ do i have a mis understanding? is there a way i can use the constant from the do {} statement outside of the do statement. Tried return but that is reserved for functions.
Really appreciate any help
Thanks
You have two options (I'll assume that splitLat is String type)
do{
let splitLat = try self.splitLatitude(self.currentLocation)
//do rest of the code here
} catch {
print("error") //Example - Fix
}
second option, predeclare the variable
let splitLat : String? //you can late init let vars from swift 1.2
do{
splitLat = try self.splitLatitude(self.currentLocation)
} catch {
print("error") //Example - Fix
}
//Here splitLat is recognized
Now, some explanation of your problem.
in Swift (and many other languages) variables are only defined inside the scope they are defined
scope is defined between these brackets {/* scope code */ }
{
var x : Int
{
//Here x is defined, it is inside the parent scope
var y : Int
}
//Here Y is not defined, it is outside it's scope
}
//here X is outside the scope, undefined
A 3rd option is to use a closure:
let splitLat:String = {
do {
return try self.splitLatitude(self.currentLocation)
}
catch {
print("error") //Example - Fix
return ""
}
}()
LatSplitLabel.text = "\(splitLat)"
This is a scoping error if you want to succeed execution after the do/catch block. You must declare the variable outside of this do/catch scope in order to utilize it after the do/catch execution.
Try this:
var splitLat: <initialType> = <initialValue>
do {
let splitLat = try self.splitLatitude(self.currentLocation)
} catch {
print("error")
}
print(splitLat)
Here is a concocted example that runs in a Swift 2.2 playground:
enum Errors: ErrorType {
case SomeBadError
}
func getResult(param: String) throws -> Bool {
if param == "" {
throw Errors.SomeBadError
}
return true
}
var result = false
do {
result = try getResult("it")
} catch {
print("Some error")
}
print(result)

Where to place deferred completion closure in try/catch in swift

I am at a bit of a loss as to how the following code will run. My intention is that the onCompletion is executed only if the try succeeds. So should the defer closure be inside the try or after it? - Or am I completely on the wrong track.
This...
func addUserActivity(aUserActivity:UserActivity, onError:OnError, onCompletion: (Void) -> (Void)) {
if let database = database {
do {
try database.write({
database.add(aUserActivity)
defer {
onCompletion()
}
})
} catch {
onError(message: "Realm error",informativeText: "Realm database failed to write object")
}
}
}
Or this...
func addUserActivity(aUserActivity:UserActivity, onError:OnError, onCompletion: (Void) -> (Void)) {
if let database = database {
do {
try database.write({
database.add(aUserActivity)
})
defer {
onCompletion()
}
} catch {
onError(message: "Realm error",informativeText: "Realm database failed to write object")
}
}
}
Or something completely different?
In either case the defer is not necessary. You can simply write onCompletion().
If you call onCompletion() inside the write block, it will always be executed, but if you write it after the try database.write{...} then the onCompletion will be skipped if the write throws an error, which sounds like your desired behavior.
(edited by OP to include final solution)
SOLUTION
func addUserActivity(aUserActivity:UserActivity, onError:OnError, onCompletion: (Void) -> (Void)) {
if let database = database {
do {
try database.write({
database.add(aUserActivity)
})
onCompletion()
} catch {
onError(message: "Realm error",informativeText: "Realm database failed to write object")
}
}
}

Error-Handling in Swift-Language

I haven't read too much into Swift but one thing I noticed is that there are no exceptions.
So how do they do error handling in Swift? Has anyone found anything related to error-handling?
Swift 2 & 3
Things have changed a bit in Swift 2, as there is a new error-handling mechanism, that is somewhat more similar to exceptions but different in detail.
1. Indicating error possibility
If function/method wants to indicate that it may throw an error, it should contain throws keyword like this
func summonDefaultDragon() throws -> Dragon
Note: there is no specification for type of error the function actually can throw. This declaration simply states that the function can throw an instance of any type implementing ErrorType or is not throwing at all.
2. Invoking function that may throw errors
In order to invoke function you need to use try keyword, like this
try summonDefaultDragon()
this line should normally be present do-catch block like this
do {
let dragon = try summonDefaultDragon()
} catch DragonError.dragonIsMissing {
// Some specific-case error-handling
} catch DragonError.notEnoughMana(let manaRequired) {
// Other specific-case error-handlng
} catch {
// Catch all error-handling
}
Note: catch clause use all the powerful features of Swift pattern matching so you are very flexible here.
You may decided to propagate the error, if your are calling a throwing function from a function that is itself marked with throws keyword:
func fulfill(quest: Quest) throws {
let dragon = try summonDefaultDragon()
quest.ride(dragon)
}
Alternatively, you can call throwing function using try?:
let dragonOrNil = try? summonDefaultDragon()
This way you either get the return value or nil, if any error occurred. Using this way you do not get the error object.
Which means that you can also combine try? with useful statements like:
if let dragon = try? summonDefaultDragon()
or
guard let dragon = try? summonDefaultDragon() else { ... }
Finally, you can decide that you know that error will not actually occur (e.g. because you have already checked are prerequisites) and use try! keyword:
let dragon = try! summonDefaultDragon()
If the function actually throws an error, then you'll get a runtime error in your application and the application will terminate.
3. Throwing an error
In order to throw an error you use throw keyword like this
throw DragonError.dragonIsMissing
You can throw anything that conforms to ErrorType protocol. For starters NSError conforms to this protocol but you probably would like to go with enum-based ErrorType which enables you to group multiple related errors, potentially with additional pieces of data, like this
enum DragonError: ErrorType {
case dragonIsMissing
case notEnoughMana(requiredMana: Int)
...
}
Main differences between new Swift 2 & 3 error mechanism and Java/C#/C++ style exceptions are follows:
Syntax is a bit different: do-catch + try + defer vs traditional try-catch-finally syntax.
Exception handling usually incurs much higher execution time in exception path than in success path. This is not the case with Swift 2.0 errors, where success path and error path cost roughly the same.
All error throwing code must be declared, while exceptions might have been thrown from anywhere. All errors are "checked exceptions" in Java nomenclature. However, in contrast to Java, you do not specify potentially thrown errors.
Swift exceptions are not compatible with ObjC exceptions. Your do-catch block will not catch any NSException, and vice versa, for that you must use ObjC.
Swift exceptions are compatible with Cocoa NSError method conventions of returning either false (for Bool returning functions) or nil (for AnyObject returning functions) and passing NSErrorPointer with error details.
As an extra syntatic-sugar to ease error handling, there are two more concepts
deferred actions (using defer keyword) which let you achieve the same effect as finally blocks in Java/C#/etc
guard statement (using guard keyword) which let you write little less if/else code than in normal error checking/signaling code.
Swift 1
Runtime errors:
As Leandros suggests for handling runtime errors (like network connectivity problems, parsing data, opening file, etc) you should use NSError like you did in ObjC, because the Foundation, AppKit, UIKit, etc report their errors in this way. So it's more framework thing than language thing.
Another frequent pattern that is being used are separator success/failure blocks like in AFNetworking:
var sessionManager = AFHTTPSessionManager(baseURL: NSURL(string: "yavin4.yavin.planets"))
sessionManager.HEAD("/api/destoryDeathStar", parameters: xwingSquad,
success: { (NSURLSessionDataTask) -> Void in
println("Success")
},
failure:{ (NSURLSessionDataTask, NSError) -> Void in
println("Failure")
})
Still the failure block frequently received NSError instance, describing the error.
Programmer errors:
For programmer errors (like out of bounds access of array element, invalid arguments passed to a function call, etc) you used exceptions in ObjC. Swift language does not seem to have any language support for exceptions (like throw, catch, etc keyword). However, as documentation suggests it is running on the same runtime as ObjC, and therefore you are still able to throw NSExceptions like this:
NSException(name: "SomeName", reason: "SomeReason", userInfo: nil).raise()
You just cannot catch them in pure Swift, although you may opt for catching exceptions in ObjC code.
The questions is whether you should throw exceptions for programmer errors, or rather use assertions as Apple suggests in the language guide.
Update June 9th 2015 - Very important
Swift 2.0 comes with try, throw, and catch keywords and the most exciting is:
Swift automatically translates Objective-C methods that produce errors into methods that throw an error according to Swift's native error handling functionality.
Note: Methods that consume errors, such as delegate methods or methods
that take a completion handler with an NSError object argument, do not
become methods that throw when imported by Swift.
Excerpt From: Apple Inc. “Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C (Swift 2 Prerelease).” iBooks.
Example: (from the book)
NSFileManager *fileManager = [NSFileManager defaultManager];
NSURL *URL = [NSURL fileURLWithPath:#"/path/to/file"];
NSError *error = nil;
BOOL success = [fileManager removeItemAtURL:URL error:&error];
if (!success && error){
NSLog(#"Error: %#", error.domain);
}
The equivalent in swift will be:
let fileManager = NSFileManager.defaultManager()
let URL = NSURL.fileURLWithPath("path/to/file")
do {
try fileManager.removeItemAtURL(URL)
} catch let error as NSError {
print ("Error: \(error.domain)")
}
Throwing an Error:
*errorPtr = [NSError errorWithDomain:NSURLErrorDomain code:NSURLErrorCannotOpenFile userInfo: nil]
Will be automatically propagated to the caller:
throw NSError(domain: NSURLErrorDomain, code: NSURLErrorCannotOpenFile, userInfo: nil)
From Apple books, The Swift Programming Language it's seems errors should be handle using enum.
Here is an example from the book.
enum ServerResponse {
case Result(String, String)
case Error(String)
}
let success = ServerResponse.Result("6:00 am", "8:09 pm")
let failure = ServerResponse.Error("Out of cheese.")
switch success {
case let .Result(sunrise, sunset):
let serverResponse = "Sunrise is at \(sunrise) and sunset is at \(sunset)."
case let .Error(error):
let serverResponse = "Failure... \(error)"
}
From: Apple Inc. “The Swift Programming Language.” iBooks. https://itun.es/br/jEUH0.l
Update
From Apple news books, "Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C". Runtime exceptions not occur using swift languages, so that's why you don't have try-catch. Instead you use Optional Chaining.
Here is a stretch from the book:
For example, in the code listing below, the first and second lines are
not executed because the length property and the characterAtIndex:
method do not exist on an NSDate object. The myLength constant is
inferred to be an optional Int, and is set to nil. You can also use an
if–let statement to conditionally unwrap the result of a method that
the object may not respond to, as shown on line three
let myLength = myObject.length?
let myChar = myObject.characterAtIndex?(5)
if let fifthCharacter = myObject.characterAtIndex(5) {
println("Found \(fifthCharacter) at index 5")
}
Excerpt From: Apple Inc. “Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C.” iBooks. https://itun.es/br/1u3-0.l
And the books also encourage you to use cocoa error pattern from Objective-C (NSError Object)
Error reporting in Swift follows the same pattern it does in
Objective-C, with the added benefit of offering optional return
values. In the simplest case, you return a Bool value from the
function to indicate whether or not it succeeded. When you need to
report the reason for the error, you can add to the function an
NSError out parameter of type NSErrorPointer. This type is roughly
equivalent to Objective-C’s NSError **, with additional memory safety
and optional typing. You can use the prefix & operator to pass in a
reference to an optional NSError type as an NSErrorPointer object, as
shown in the code listing below.
var writeError : NSError?
let written = myString.writeToFile(path, atomically: false,
encoding: NSUTF8StringEncoding,
error: &writeError)
if !written {
if let error = writeError {
println("write failure: \(error.localizedDescription)")
}
}
Excerpt From: Apple Inc. “Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C.” iBooks. https://itun.es/br/1u3-0.l
There are no Exceptions in Swift, similar to Objective-C's approach.
In development, you can use assert to catch any errors which might appear, and need to be fixed before going to production.
The classic NSError approach isn't altered, you send an NSErrorPointer, which gets populated.
Brief example:
var error: NSError?
var contents = NSFileManager.defaultManager().contentsOfDirectoryAtPath("/Users/leandros", error: &error)
if let error = error {
println("An error occurred \(error)")
} else {
println("Contents: \(contents)")
}
The recommended 'Swift Way' is:
func write(path: String)(#error: NSErrorPointer) -> Bool { // Useful to curry error parameter for retrying (see below)!
return "Hello!".writeToFile(path, atomically: false, encoding: NSUTF8StringEncoding, error: error)
}
var writeError: NSError?
let written = write("~/Error1")(error: &writeError)
if !written {
println("write failure 1: \(writeError!.localizedDescription)")
// assert(false) // Terminate program
}
However I prefer try/catch as I find it easier to follow because it moves the error handling to a separate block at the end, this arrangement is sometimes called "Golden Path". Lucky you can do this with closures:
TryBool {
write("~/Error2")(error: $0) // The code to try
}.catch {
println("write failure 2: \($0!.localizedDescription)") // Report failure
// assert(false) // Terminate program
}
Also it is easy to add a retry facility:
TryBool {
write("~/Error3")(error: $0) // The code to try
}.retry {
println("write failure 3 on try \($1 + 1): \($0!.localizedDescription)")
return write("~/Error3r") // The code to retry
}.catch {
println("write failure 3 catch: \($0!.localizedDescription)") // Report failure
// assert(false) // Terminate program
}
The listing for TryBool is:
class TryBool {
typealias Tryee = NSErrorPointer -> Bool
typealias Catchee = NSError? -> ()
typealias Retryee = (NSError?, UInt) -> Tryee
private var tryee: Tryee
private var retries: UInt = 0
private var retryee: Retryee?
init(tryee: Tryee) {
self.tryee = tryee
}
func retry(retries: UInt, retryee: Retryee) -> Self {
self.retries = retries
self.retryee = retryee
return self
}
func retry(retryee: Retryee) -> Self {
return self.retry(1, retryee)
}
func retry(retries: UInt) -> Self {
// For some reason you can't write the body as "return retry(1, nil)", the compiler doesn't like the nil
self.retries = retries
retryee = nil
return self
}
func retry() -> Self {
return retry(1)
}
func catch(catchee: Catchee) {
var error: NSError?
for numRetries in 0...retries { // First try is retry 0
error = nil
let result = tryee(&error)
if result {
return
} else if numRetries != retries {
if let r = retryee {
tryee = r(error, numRetries)
}
}
}
catchee(error)
}
}
You can write a similar class for testing an Optional returned value instead of Bool value:
class TryOptional<T> {
typealias Tryee = NSErrorPointer -> T?
typealias Catchee = NSError? -> T
typealias Retryee = (NSError?, UInt) -> Tryee
private var tryee: Tryee
private var retries: UInt = 0
private var retryee: Retryee?
init(tryee: Tryee) {
self.tryee = tryee
}
func retry(retries: UInt, retryee: Retryee) -> Self {
self.retries = retries
self.retryee = retryee
return self
}
func retry(retryee: Retryee) -> Self {
return retry(1, retryee)
}
func retry(retries: UInt) -> Self {
// For some reason you can't write the body as "return retry(1, nil)", the compiler doesn't like the nil
self.retries = retries
retryee = nil
return self
}
func retry() -> Self {
return retry(1)
}
func catch(catchee: Catchee) -> T {
var error: NSError?
for numRetries in 0...retries {
error = nil
let result = tryee(&error)
if let r = result {
return r
} else if numRetries != retries {
if let r = retryee {
tryee = r(error, numRetries)
}
}
}
return catchee(error)
}
}
The TryOptional version enforces a non-Optional return type that makes subsequent programming easier, e.g. 'Swift Way:
struct FailableInitializer {
init?(_ id: Int, error: NSErrorPointer) {
// Always fails in example
if error != nil {
error.memory = NSError(domain: "", code: id, userInfo: [:])
}
return nil
}
private init() {
// Empty in example
}
static let fallback = FailableInitializer()
}
func failableInitializer(id: Int)(#error: NSErrorPointer) -> FailableInitializer? { // Curry for retry
return FailableInitializer(id, error: error)
}
var failError: NSError?
var failure1Temp = failableInitializer(1)(error: &failError)
if failure1Temp == nil {
println("failableInitializer failure code: \(failError!.code)")
failure1Temp = FailableInitializer.fallback
}
let failure1 = failure1Temp! // Unwrap
Using TryOptional:
let failure2 = TryOptional {
failableInitializer(2)(error: $0)
}.catch {
println("failableInitializer failure code: \($0!.code)")
return FailableInitializer.fallback
}
let failure3 = TryOptional {
failableInitializer(3)(error: $0)
}.retry {
println("failableInitializer failure, on try \($1 + 1), code: \($0!.code)")
return failableInitializer(31)
}.catch {
println("failableInitializer failure code: \($0!.code)")
return FailableInitializer.fallback
}
Note auto-unwrapping.
Edit: Although this answer works, it is little more than Objective-C transliterated into Swift. It has been made obsolete by changes in Swift 2.0. Guilherme Torres Castro's answer above is a very good introduction to the preferred way of handling errors in Swift. VOS
It took a bit of figuring it out but I think I've sussed it. It seems ugly though. Nothing more than a thin skin over the Objective-C version.
Calling a function with an NSError parameter...
var fooError : NSError ? = nil
let someObject = foo(aParam, error:&fooError)
// Check something was returned and look for an error if it wasn't.
if !someObject {
if let error = fooError {
// Handle error
NSLog("This happened: \(error.localizedDescription)")
}
} else {
// Handle success
}`
Writing the function that takes an error parameter...
func foo(param:ParamObject, error: NSErrorPointer) -> SomeObject {
// Do stuff...
if somethingBadHasHappened {
if error {
error.memory = NSError(domain: domain, code: code, userInfo: [:])
}
return nil
}
// Do more stuff...
}
Basic wrapper around objective C that gives you the try catch feature.
https://github.com/williamFalcon/SwiftTryCatch
Use like:
SwiftTryCatch.try({ () -> Void in
//try something
}, catch: { (error) -> Void in
//handle error
}, finally: { () -> Void in
//close resources
})
As Guilherme Torres Castro said, in Swift 2.0, try, catch, do can be used in the programming.
For example, In CoreData fetch data method, instead of put &error as a parameter into the managedContext.executeFetchRequest(fetchRequest, error: &error), now we only need to use use managedContext.executeFetchRequest(fetchRequest) and then handle the error with try, catch (Apple Document Link)
do {
let fetchedResults = try managedContext.executeFetchRequest(fetchRequest) as? [NSManagedObject]
if let results = fetchedResults{
people = results
}
} catch {
print("Could not fetch")
}
If you have already download the xcode7 Beta. Try to search throwing errors in Documentations and API Reference and choose the first showing result, it gives a basic idea what can be done for this new syntax. However, fully documentation is not post for many APIs yet.
More fancy Error Handling techniques can be found in
What's New in Swift (2015 Session 106 28m30s)
This is an update answer for swift 2.0. I am looking forward feature rich Error handling model like in java. Finally, they announced the good news. here
Error handling model: The new error handling model in Swift 2.0 will
instantly feel natural, with familiar try, throw, and catch keywords.
Best of all, it was designed to work perfectly with the Apple SDKs and
NSError. In fact, NSError conforms to a Swift’s ErrorType. You’ll
definitely want to watch the WWDC session on What’s New in Swift to
hear more about it.
e.g :
func loadData() throws { }
func test() {
do {
try loadData()
} catch {
print(error)
}}
Starting with Swift 2, as others have already mentioned, error handling is best accomplished through the use of do/try/catch and ErrorType enums. This works quite well for synchronous methods, but a little cleverness is required for asynchronous error handling.
This article has a great approach to this problem:
https://jeremywsherman.com/blog/2015/06/17/using-swift-throws-with-completion-callbacks/
To summarize:
// create a typealias used in completion blocks, for cleaner code
typealias LoadDataResult = () throws -> NSData
// notice the reference to the typealias in the completionHandler
func loadData(someID: String, completionHandler: LoadDataResult -> Void)
{
completionHandler()
}
then, the call to the above method would be as follows:
self.loadData("someString",
completionHandler:
{ result: LoadDataResult in
do
{
let data = try result()
// success - go ahead and work with the data
}
catch
{
// failure - look at the error code and handle accordingly
}
})
This seems a bit cleaner than having a separate errorHandler callback passed to the asynchronous function, which was how this would be handled prior to Swift 2.
Error handling is a new feature of Swift 2.0. It uses the try, throw and catch keywords.
See the Apple Swift 2.0 announcement on the official Apple Swift blog
Nice and simple lib to handle exception:
TryCatchFinally-Swift
Like a few others it wraps around the objective C exception features.
Use it like this:
try {
println(" try")
}.catch { e in
println(" catch")
}.finally {
println(" finally")
}
enum CheckValidAge : Error{
case overrage
case underage
}
func checkValidAgeForGovernmentJob(age:Int)throws -> Bool{
if age < 18{
throw CheckValidAge.underage
}else if age > 25{
throw CheckValidAge.overrage
}else{
return true
}
}
do {
try checkValidAgeForGovernmentJob(age: 26)
print("You are valid for government job ")
}catch CheckValidAge.underage{
print("You are underage for government job ")
}catch CheckValidAge.overrage{
print("You are overrage for government job ")
}
Change age in try checkValidAgeForGovernmentJob(age: 26)
Out Put
You are overrage for government job
What I have seen is that because of the nature of the device you don't want to be throwing a bunch of cryptic error handling messages at the user. That is why most functions return optional values then you just code to ignore the optional. If a function comes back nil meaning it failed you can pop a message or whatever.