Throwing an exception vs Contract.Requires?

问题:

I'm wondering whether should I throw exceptions or call Contract.Requires<TException>

For example:

public static void Function(String str)
{
    if (str == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("str", "Input string cannot be null.");

    // ...
}

vs

public static void Function(String str)
{
    Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(str != null, "Input string cannot be null.");

    // ...
}

Since Contract.Requires<TException> doesn't require the CONTRACTS_FULL symbol I can keep it in my release builds as well.

This is my consideration:

Con: You can't call an overloaded version of the custom exception type constructor. There is simply no way to pass additional parameters to the constructor.

Pro: Static tools support (e.g. inform the caller of contract violation).

Which one should I use, and for what kind of situation?

回答1:

The basic trade-off between if-then-throw and Requires<TException> as documented in the CodeContract user guide is how you build with your release bits.

Case 1: You only use if-then-throw, no Requires<TException>. In this case you can build your release bits without running the contract tools on your dll/exe. The advantage is that you have faster builds and no risk that the tool introduces bugs. A second advantage is that team members can opt out of using the CodeContract tools. Disadvantages are that you get no contract inheritance of requires, and your contracts are not necessarily visible to the tools (unless you use EndContract). You specify this case by using assembly mode: Custom Parameter Validation

Case2: You decide to run the CodeContract tools on your release bits always. This lets you use Requires<TException> and you get inheritance of contracts, including instrumentation of interfaces etc. Your contracts are clean and tool recognizable. The disadvantage is that everyone building your code must have the CodeContracts tools installed. You specify this case by using assembly mode: Standard in the Contract property pane.

Hope this clear things up.

回答2:

I'm not sure that there are any earth-shattering differences between the two approaches, but here are two reasons why I prefer contracts...

1) The code is much neater, as you are writing a statement at the top of the method that shows the assumptions upon which the method is based. You don't clog up the code with the implementation of what happens if the assumption is violated.

2) You get the benefit of Visual Studio picking up on the code contracts when you are writing code, and giving you hints as to what the method you are about to call expects. This helps you ensure that you are sending the method valid parameters, without having to jump to the method definition to check the code there.

Once the code is compiled and running, I don't think there are any significant differences.

Hope this helps.