Skip to main content

You Rarely Need Custom Exceptions

Implementing custom exceptions usually gives a hint as to why you rarely need custom implementations. They are often nothing more than sub classes where the only difference is the type name and containing message.

In this C# example there is a lot of code for nothing. When checking logs or handling bugs you will read the message and the stack trace. The first line containing a bespoke name rarely matters. Within the code throwing the exception very little context is gained from the type of exception - instead most of the details will be present within the error message.

Each custom exception you introduce adds overhead from source lines of code (SLOC) to compilation and execution.


Simply do not create custom exceptions except in the rarest of occasions. Instead rely on the standard library of the language you are using.

Take Python as an example [Video]. ~200,000 lines of code yet only ~165 exceptions. This works out at about one exception for ~1200 lines of code.

If battle hardened and widely used standard libraries need only a fraction of the amount of custom exceptions, what makes your tiny CRUD app so special that it needs a namespace dedicated to handfuls of bespoke implementations?


Rather than throwing NoBlogPostsFoundException use a HttpException with a useful message. Instead of BlogPostConfigurationException use ConfigurationErrorsException. Trying to add a comment to a post that is not published? Use an InvalidOperationException.

The downside to this suggestion is knowledge. You need to know what exception to use and more importantly where to find it. Consulting documentation or simple digging around will often yield what you need. As a rule try and default to reusing an exception over creating a new one.

The benefit of this approach is less code, and the removal of placeholder classes where the only thing that differs is the message. To ensure nothing is lost in communicating intent, care must be taken to ensure the message is useful, concise and clear.

Custom Exceptions

There are two exceptions (see what I did there) to this rule.

  1. When you explicitly need to handle a certain scenario and you cannot allow other unhandled exceptions to trigger that code path. In this case a custom exception may be valid. As usual question whether an exception is necessary at all, it may be possible to control this with an explicit code path.
  2. When the exception has some form of behaviour. This tends to be common with frameworks where when an exception of type X changes the flow but also carries out some action such as building up an error response.

In these cases this behaviour belonging with the exception makes sense. Generally most code bases treat exceptions equally. In other words any exception triggers a failure path, meaning the type of the exception does not matter in most cases.


  • Reuse exceptions from the standard library, chances are there is one fit for the job already.
  • Only introduce custom exceptions if the scenario is exceptional and needs to be handled uniquely.
  • Put effort into ensuring the message of an exception is useful - messages and the stack trace are the most important elements.


Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…