Error-handling in VBA can easily get hairy. The best error handling code is no error handling code at all, and by writing our code at a high enough abstraction level, we can achieve exactly that – and leave the gory details in small, specialized, lower-abstraction procedures.
I’m growing rather fond of adapting the famous TryParse Pattern to VBA code, borrowed from the .NET landscape. Not really for performance reasons (VBA doesn’t deal with exceptions or stack traces), but for the net readability and abstraction gains. The crux of it is, you write a small, specialized function that returns a
Boolean and takes a
ByRef parameter for the return value – like this:
Public Function TryDoSomething(ByVal arg As String, ByRef outResult As Object) As Boolean 'only return True and set outResult to a valid reference if successful End Function
Let the calling code decide what to do with a failure – don’t pop a
MsgBox in such a function: it’s the caller’s responsibility to know what to do when you return
The pattern comes from methods like
bool Int32.TryParse(string, out Int32) in .NET, where an exception-throwing
Int32 Int32.Parse(string) equivalent method is also provided: whenever there’s a
TryDoSomething method, there’s an equivalent
DoSomething method that is more straightforward, but also more risky.
Applied consistently, the
Try prefix tells us that the last argument is a
ByRef parameter that means to hold the return value; the
out prefix is Apps Hungarian (the actual original intent of “[Systems] Hungarian Notation”) that the calling code can see with IntelliSense, screaming “this argument is your result, and must be passed by reference” – even though IntelliSense isn’t showing the
This pattern is especially useful to simplify error handling and replace it with standard flow control, like
If statements. For example you could have a
TryFind function that takes a
Range object along with something to find in that range, invokes
Range.Find, and only returns
True if the result isn’t
Dim result As Range If Not TryFind(Sheet1.Range("A:A"), "test", result) Then MsgBox "Range.Find yielded no results.", vbInformation Exit Sub End If result.Activate 'result is guaranteed to be usable here
It’s especially useful for things that can raise a run-time error you have no control over – like opening a workbook off a user-provided
String input, opening an
ADODB database connection, or anything else that might fail for any reason well out of your control, and all your code needs to know is whether it worked or not.
Public Function TryOpenConnection(ByVal connString As String, ByRef outConnection As ADODB.Connection) As Boolean Dim result As ADODB.Connection Set result = New ADODB.Connection On Error GoTo CleanFail result.Open connString If result.State = adOpen Then TryOpenConnection = True Set outConnection = result End If CleanExit: Exit Function CleanFail: Debug.Print "TryOpenConnection failed with error: " & Err.Description Set result = Nothing 'Resume CleanExit 'Resume End Function
The function returns
True if the connection was successfully opened,
False otherwise – regardless of whether that’s because the connection string is malformed, the server wasn’t found, or the connection timed out. If the calling code only needs to care about whether or not the connection succeeded, it’s perfect:
Dim adoConnection As ADODB.Connection If Not TryOpenConnection(connString, adoConnection) Then MsgBox "Could not connect to database.", vbExclamation Exit Function End If 'proceed to consume the successfully open connection
Exit Function are leveraged, to put a quick end to the doomed procedure’s misery… and let the rest of it confidently resume with the assurance that it’s working with an open connection, without a nesting level: having the rest of the procedure in an
Else block would be redundant.
The .NET guideline about offering a pair of methods
DoSomething are taken from Framework Design Guidelines, an excellent book with plenty of very sane conventions – but unless you’re writing a VBA Framework “library” project, it’s almost certainly unnecessary to include the error-throwing sister method. YAGNI: You Ain’t Gonna Need It.
Cool. Can it be abused though?
Of course, and easily so: any
TryDoSomethingThatCouldNeverRaiseAnError method would be weird. Keep the
Try prefix for methods that make you dodge that proverbial error-handling bullet. Parameters should generally passed
ByVal, and if there’s a result to return, it should be returned as a
Function procedure’s return value.
If a function needs to return more than one result and you find yourself using
ByRef parameters for outputs, consider reevaluating its responsibilities: there’s a chance it might be doing more than it should. Or if the return values are so closely related they could be expressed as one thing, consider extracting them into a small class.
GridCoord class in the OOP Battleship project is a great example of this: systematically passing
Y values together everywhere quickly gets old, and turning them into an object suddenly gives us the ability to not only pass them as one single entity, but we also get to compare it with another coordinate object for equality or intersection, or to evaluate whether that other coordinate is adjacent; the object knows how to represent itself as a
String value, and the rest of the code consumes it through the read-only
IGridCoord interface – all that functionality would have to be written somewhere else, if
Y were simply two
Long integer values.
7 thoughts on “Pattern: TryParse”
That’s my usual pattern except I usually return a Long; 0=EXIT_SUCCESS, non-zero is an error code in case the handler wants to know why.
I’d suggest a minor tweak. The only reason to employ this device is because there is a chance of a failure. Therefore I’d prefer to use ‘ParseFails’ as this has a much clearer intent. I’m also adverse to using Goto labels so would prefer the ‘On error resume next’ approach.
Public Function OpenConnectionFails(ByVal connString As String, ByRef outConnection As ADODB.Connection) As Boolean
Dim result As New ADODB.Connection
On Error Resume Next
OpenConnectionFails = Err.Number > 0
If OpenConnectionFails Then
Debug.Print “TryOpenConnection failed with error: ” & Err.Description
On Error GoTo 0
Set result = Nothing
On Error GoTo 0
Set outConnection = result
The problem with XxxxFails is that it flips the logic and makes the calling code read a bit awkwardly IMO: we want to default to the “happy path”, and read that way.
As for On Error labels, that tweak is probably fine – but they’re not “goto labels”; error-handling subroutines are perfectly idiomatic and as long as labels are only jumped at from error-handling control statements (On Error, Resume), there’s no issue there. I use On Error Resume Next /GoTo 0 too, but given how OERN is so easily abused, I prefer not to use it (be it in real code or simplified examples) for anything more than a single statement. If you want real powerful error handling, I’d warmly recommend to look into vbWatchDog – it gives you true Try/Catch/Finally logic, and programmatic access to the call stack.
That said even though the function identifier is essentially an implicit local variable within the function’s body, I very very much prefer to avoid using it as a variable (i.e. reading it) inside the function – seeing it anywhere else than the LHS of an assignment expression immediately raises an eyebrow; lastly “result” is a misnommer, it should be what the function returns (the RHS of the function-identifier assignment) – there’s no need for a local ADO connection object, we already have a pointer for it, received from the caller.
I’d disagree with your comment on the logic. I’d much prefer to see ‘If SomethingWorks then’ or ‘If Somethingfails then’ rather than the very ambiguous ‘If Not TrySomething Then’. The rest is down to personal preference guided by past failures/successes. I’d agree that if you are trying to write VBA code that is more easily transferable to VB.Net or C# then your terminology is perhaps the better way to go.
Anyhow, it is a jolly good article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve used this to access resources, but what would you recommend for normal routines? Can you use this pattern to turn a Sub that raises an error into a Function that returns success? I’ve found myself doing stuff like `tryCallProc` or `tryDestroyWindow` which don’t have any outValue. I feel like this is not the intended use, but sometimes a general “it didn’t work” is all I need, and OERN with a select case on the error number seems overkill.
OERN with a select…case on the error is an anti-pattern IMO (too many reasons to fail to live in a single scope). If there’s no out value, then it’s not a try-pattern 😉
Whether to use a sub that throws an error, or a function that returns a Boolean, depends mostly on whether the failure is *an exceptional situation*, or mere flow control: don’t use runtime errors to control execution flow.
[…] Encoding exceptions as the return value of functions enables use of control structures like If…Else or Select Case, and (hopefully) avoids GOTOs and spaghetti logic (see the TryParse pattern). […]