Jordão

I feel you're still advocating for checked exceptions, although half-baked. In the situation you just described, there's a plethora of exceptions that can be thrown, and I shouldn't be expected...

That kind of thing is present in the [documentation](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.net.httpwebrequest.getresponse?view=netframework-4.8#System_Net_HttpWebRequest_GetResponse) of such methods in C#. The API doesn't force the client to catch anything. If you want to implement a resilience...

Oh somehow I missed that page you linked! I think that _almost_ captures the most common pattern. I would change it so that _upper_method_ catches `CX_ROOT`, or a suitable super...

...and again, you mention that with `cx_no_check`, declaring the exception in `lower_method` would fail with a syntax error, and indeed that's what the documentation _kinda_ tells us, although not with...

I'm glad you could verify that, @flaiker. In my system it worked differently.... go figure.

@flaiker , just to add to my investigation, I did test a global class and a local test class. Here is the local test class, which passed with flying colors:...

No idea. Either way we should stick to the documented behavior, which is the one you're experiencing. Thanks for checking that.

I still would recommend using `cx_no_check`. Just document the exceptions with ABAP doc. There's no need to declare them in the raising clause.

Thanks for those points. I certainly don't have that much experience with ABAP Doc. My general comment was about _documenting_ the exception, regardless if it would be in ABAP Doc...

Curiously enough, the identifiers are in plural mode: `METHODS` and `CONSTANTS` for example. They _imply_ chaining. I always find it awkward to find a lone method declared with `METHODS`.... Either...