Exception thrown in single catch block passes

[danmooney2]

Preconditions

• Magento.Exceptions.ThrowCatch rule implemented (#29: [New Rule] Exceptions must not be handled in the same function #43; tested on Magento Coding Standard 2.0.0 and 1.0.1)

Steps to reproduce

• Run phpcs with --standard=Magento2 against file containing multiple catch blocks (it fails as it should):

<?php
/**
 * Copyright © Magento, Inc. All rights reserved.
 * See COPYING.txt for license details.
 */

namespace Magento;

/**
 * Doer
 */
class Doer
{
    /**
     * Do Something
     */
    public function doSomething()
    {
        try {
            $result = 2;
        } catch (\DummyException $e) {
            throw $e;
        } catch (\NewException $e) {
            throw $e;
        }

        return $result;
    }
}

Run phpcs with --standard=Magento2 against file containing one catch block (it passes when it should not):

<?php
/**
 * Copyright © Magento, Inc. All rights reserved.
 * See COPYING.txt for license details.
 */

namespace Magento;

/**
 * Doer
 */
class Doer
{
    /**
     * Do Something
     */
    public function doSomething()
    {
        try {
            $result = 2;
        } catch (\DummyException $e) {
            throw $e;
        }

        return $result;
    }
}

Expected result

• Both files should fail Magento.Exceptions.ThrowCatch rule

Actual result

• Only file with two catch blocks fails Magento.Exceptions.ThrowCatch rule

[larsroettig]

Hi @danmooney2,
it is not a Bug the check is for _Exceptions must not be handled in the same function where they are thrown. _. In your example the both thrown the Exceptions out of the function.

[danmooney2]

Both examples throw all of their exceptions out of the function so both files should pass then? Please elaborate why having 1 catch block fails, while having > 1 catch block that does the same thing passes this rule.

[danmooney2]

@larsroettig Could you please clarify if the sniff is written properly, and if so, why example 1 passes while example 2 fails?

[lenaorobei]

@larsroettig could you please check this isse? Thank you.

[larsroettig]

Yep Lena I will take a look how we can solve it Lena Orobei <notifications@github.com> schrieb am Fr. 31. Mai 2019 um 16:46:

@larsroettig <https://github.com/larsroettig> could you please check this isse? Thank you. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#93?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABILLGUPCPIZ6ZDZMTPKUPTPYE227A5CNFSM4HJEHKYKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWVNM3A#issuecomment-497735276>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABILLGT2VJGQSJ7NY3PFLKLPYE227ANCNFSM4HJEHKYA> .

-- Lars Röttig Certified PHP Engineer / Web Developer Magento Community Maintainer MAGENTO 2 CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPER MAGENTO CERTIFIED DEVELOPER PLUS Zend Certified PHP Engineer Telefon +49 8031 2210 55 - 0 Telefax +49 8031 2210 55 - 22 l.roettig@techdivision.com TechDivision GmbH Spinnereiinsel 3a 83059 Kolbermoor www.techdivision.com Magento Gold Partner TYPO3 Gold Member Geschäftsführer: Josef und Stefan Willkommer, Tim Wagner Handelsregister Nr. HRB 17123, Amtsgericht Traunstein UStID gemäß § 27 a Umsatzsteuergesetz: DE249664276

[danmooney2]

@lenaorobei Now that we have mutual agreement on the issue, what is the process for removing buggy sniffs from the ruleset?

[lenaorobei]

I would probably decrease its severity to 0 until it fixed.
Need architectural input here @paliarush.

[paliarush]

If I understood the scenario correctly, it is false negative. In this case we should just report an issue to fix the sniff.

If it is false positive - then it should be removed until fixed.

[danmooney2]

I believe both files referenced above should actually pass the rule; editing the expectation

[larsroettig]

I think is a false positive I forget to take a look sorry at the weekend Alex Paliarush <notifications@github.com> schrieb am Di. 4. Juni 2019 um 17:20:

If I understood the scenario correctly, it is false negative. In this case we should just report an issue to fix the sniff. If it is false positive - then it should be removed until fixed. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#93?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABILLGVZIRB4VM5QANWGTCDPY2B5BA5CNFSM4HJEHKYKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODW45MEQ#issuecomment-498718226>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABILLGQV4GKE4YCDU7PEXCTPY2B5BANCNFSM4HJEHKYA> .

-- Lars Röttig Certified PHP Engineer / Web Developer Magento Community Maintainer MAGENTO 2 CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPER MAGENTO CERTIFIED DEVELOPER PLUS Zend Certified PHP Engineer Telefon +49 8031 2210 55 - 0 Telefax +49 8031 2210 55 - 22 l.roettig@techdivision.com TechDivision GmbH Spinnereiinsel 3a 83059 Kolbermoor www.techdivision.com Magento Gold Partner TYPO3 Gold Member Geschäftsführer: Josef und Stefan Willkommer, Tim Wagner Handelsregister Nr. HRB 17123, Amtsgericht Traunstein UStID gemäß § 27 a Umsatzsteuergesetz: DE249664276

[lenaorobei]

@danmooney2 looking at your examples I would say that sniff should fail in both case. The whole purpose of this rule was to prohibit exceptions handling (catching and doing something) and re-throwing in the same function. Maybe I'm missing something. Could you please explain why do you think those examples should pass?