Develop Reference

Java 10 ifPresentOrElse that return boolean

I am a little confused on "how to do this properly":
// return true: if present and number of lines != 0
boolean isValid(Optional<File> optFile) {
return optFile.ifPresentOrElse(f -> return !isZeroLine(f), return false);
}
private boolean isZeroLine(File f) {
return MyFileUtils.getNbLinesByFile(f) == 0;
}
I know the syntax is not correct and not compiling, but it's just for you to get the idea.
How can I turn this into 'clean code'?
i.e. avoid doing:
if (optFile.isPresent()) {//} else {//}

Dealing with boolean return type(easily inferred Predicates), one way to do that could be to use Optional.filter :
boolean isValid(Optional<File> optFile) {
return optFile.filter(this::isZeroLine).isPresent();
}
But, then using Optionals arguments seems to be a poor practice. As suggested in comments by Carlos as well, another way of implementing it could possibly be:
boolean isValid(File optFile) {
return Optional.ofNullable(optFile).map(this::isZeroLine).orElse(false);
}
On another note, ifPresentOrElse is a construct to be used while performing some actions corresponding to the presence of the Optional value something like :
optFile.ifPresentOrElse(this::doWork, this::doNothing)
where the corresponding actions could be -
private void doWork(File f){
// do some work with the file
}
private void doNothing() {
// do some other actions
}

How to check multiple objects for nullity?

Often, I can see a code constructs like following:
if(a == null || b == null || c == null){
//...
}
I wonder if there is any widely used library (Google, Apache, etc.) to check against nullity for multiple objects at once, e.g.:
if(anyIsNull(a, b, c)){
//...
}
or
if(allAreNulls(a, b, c)){
//...
}
UPDATE:
I perfectly know how to write it by myself
I know it can be the result of the poor program structure but it's not a case here
Let's make it more challenging and replace original example with something like this:
if(a != null && a.getFoo() != null && a.getFoo().getBar() != null){
//...
}
UPDATE 2:
I've created a pull request for Apache Commons Lang library to fix this gap:
Issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-781
PR: https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/108
These will be incorporated in commons-lang, version 3.5:
anyNotNull (Object... values)
allNotNull (Object... values)

In Java 8, you could use Stream.allMatch to check whether all of the values match a certain condition, such as being null. Not much shorter, but maybe a bit easier to read.
if (Stream.of(a, b, c).allMatch(x -> x == null)) {
...
}
And analogeously for anyMatch and noneMatch.
About your "more challenging example": In this case, I think there is no way around writing a lazy-evaluated conjunction of null-checks, like the one you have:
if (a != null && a.getFoo() != null && a.getFoo().getBar() != null) {
...
}
Any of the other approaches, using streams, lists, or var-arg methods, would try to evaluate a.getFoo() before a has been tested not to be null. You could use Optional with map and method pointers, that will be lazily evaluated one after the other, but whether this makes it any more readable is debatable and may vary from case to case (particularly for longer class names):
if (Optional.ofNullable(a).map(A::getFoo).map(B::getBar).isPresent()) {
...
}
Bar bar = Optional.ofNullable(a).map(A::getFoo).map(B::getBar).orElse(null);
Another alternative might be to try to access the innermost item, but I have a feeling that this is not considered good practice, either:
try {
Bar bar = a.getFoo().getBar();
...
catch (NullPointerException e) {
...
}
Particularly, this will also catch any other NPEs after accessing that element -- either that, or you have to put only the Bar bar = ... in the try and everything else in another if block after the try, nullifying any (questionable) gains in readability or brevity.
Some languages have a Safe Navigation Operator, but it seems like Java is not one of them. This way, you could use a notation like a?.getFoo()?.getBar() != null, where a?.getFoo() will just evaluate to null if a is null. You could emulate behavior like this with a custom function and a lambda, though, returning an Optional or just a value or null if you prefer:
public static <T> Optional<T> tryGet(Supplier<T> f) {
try {
return Optional.of(f.get());
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
return Optional.empty();
}
}
Optional<Bar> bar = tryGet(() -> a.getFoo().getBar(););

EDIT 2018: As of Apache Commons lang 3.5, there has been ObjectUtils.allNotNull() and ObjectUtils.anyNotNull().
No.
None of Apache Commons Lang (3.4), Google Guava (18) and Spring (4.1.7) provide such a utility method.
You'll need to write it on your own if you really, really need it. In modern Java code, I'd probably consider need for such a construct a code smell, though.

You could also use something like the following method. It allows you to pass as many parameters as you want:
public static boolean isAnyObjectNull(Object... objects) {
for (Object o: objects) {
if (o == null) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
You call it with as many parameters as you like:
isAnyObjectNull(a, b, c, d, e, f);
You could do something similar for areAllNull.
public static boolean areAllObjectsNull(Object... objects) {
for (Object o: objects) {
if (o != null) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Note: you could also use the ternary operator instead of if (o == null). The two methods shown here have no error handling. Adjust it to your needs.

Objects.requireNonNull
It is possible with help of Objects class and its requireNonNull method.
public static void requireNonNull(Object... objects) {
for (Object object : objects) {
Objects.requireNonNull(object);
}
}

Apache commons-lang3 since version 3.11 has method ObjectUtils.allNull(Object... values)
ObjectUtils.allNull(obj1, obj2, obj3);

I was looking for a solution, but I don't have apache as a dependency yet and it felt silly to me to add it just for the allNonNull method. Here is my plain vanilla java solution using Predicate#and() / Predicate#or() like this:
private static boolean allNonNull(A a) {
Predicate<A> isNotNull = Objects::nonNull;
Predicate<A> hasFoo = someA -> someA.foo != null;
Predicate<A> hasBar = someA -> someA.foo.bar != null;
return Optional.ofNullable(a)
.filter(isNotNull.and(hasFoo.and(hasBar)))
.isPresent();
}
Note: for the anyNonNull, simply use the or() method instead of and().
When invoked, would give the following output:
System.out.println(isValid(new A(new Foo(new Bar())))); // true
System.out.println(isValid(new A(new Foo(null)))); // false
System.out.println(isValid(new A(null))); // false
System.out.println(isValid(null)); // false
Class definitions used:
public static class A {
public A(Foo foo) {
this.foo = foo;
}
Foo foo;
}
public static class Foo {
public Foo(Bar bar) {
this.bar = bar;
}
Bar bar;
}
public static class Bar { }

Simply as that:
Stream.of(a,b,c).allMatch(Objects::nonNull)

You can create a list of you objects and use yourList.contains(null) in it.
List < Object > obList = new ArrayList < Object > ();
String a = null;
Integer b = 2;
Character c = '9';
obList.add(a);
obList.add(b);
obList.add(c);
System.out.println("List is " + obList);
if (obList.contains(null)) {
System.out.println("contains null");
} else {
System.out.println("does not contains null");
}
DEMO

Does java have some convention to indicate that object is in empty state?

Of course, empty definition can differ. I'm used to PHP's empty though, which calls empty everything that evaluates to false. I'd like to call these things empty in my Java application:
null
String of zero length
0 Integer, Float or Double
false
Any array of zero length
Empty ArrayList or HashMap
Java has, for example, toString convention. Every object is granted to give you some string representation. In my Settings class I operate with HashMap<String, Object>. My empty method looks now like this:
public boolean empty(String name) {
Object val = settings.get(name);
if(val!=null) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
I'd like to extend it in a conventional manner, rather than if(val instanceof XXX) chain.

No, there is no standard convention for this in Java. Also, in Java there is no such thing as "evaluate to false" (except for booleans and Booleans, of course).
You will have to write a method (or rather, a series of overloaded methods for each type you need it for) which implements your notion of "empty". For example:
public static boolean isEmpty(String s) {
return (s == null) || (s.isEmpty());
}
public static boolean isEmpty(int i) {
return i == 0;
}
...

You could use overloading to describe all the "empty" objects:
public static boolean empty(Object o) {
return o == null;
}
public static boolean empty(Object[] array) {
return array == null || array.length == 0;
}
public static boolean empty(int[] array) { //do the same for other primitives
return array == null || array.length == 0;
}
public static boolean empty(String s) {
return s == null || s.isEmpty();
}
public static boolean empty(Number n) {
return n == null || n.doubleValue() == 0;
}
public static boolean empty(Collection<?> c) {
return c == null || c.isEmpty();
}
public static boolean empty(Map<?, ?> m) {
return m == null || m.isEmpty();
}
Examples:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object o = null;
System.out.println(empty(o));
System.out.println(empty(""));
System.out.println(empty("as"));
System.out.println(empty(new int[0]));
System.out.println(empty(new int[] { 1, 2}));
System.out.println(empty(Collections.emptyList()));
System.out.println(empty(Arrays.asList("s")));
System.out.println(empty(0));
System.out.println(empty(1));
}

AFAIK there is no such convention. It's fairly common to see project specific utility classes with methods such as:
public static boolean isEmpty(String s) {
return s == null || s.isEmpty();
}
However I personally think its use is a bit of a code smell in Java. There's a lot of badly written Java around, but well written Java shouldn't need null checks everywhere, and you should know enough about the type of an object to apply type-specific definitions of "empty".
The exception would be if you were doing reflection-oriented code that worked with Object variables who's type you don't know at compile time. That code should be so isolated that it's not appropriate to have a util method to support it.
Python's duck-typing means the rules are sort of different.

How about creating an interface EmptinessComparable or something similar, and having all your classes implement that? So you can just expect that, and not have to ask instanceof every time.

Java does not, but Groovy does. Groovy runs on the Java VM alongside Java code and provides many shortcuts and convenient conventions such as this. A good approach is write foundation and crital project components in Java and use Groovy for less critical higher level components.

If you want to use the one approach, I would overload a utility method:
public class MyUtils {
public static boolean isEmpty(String s) {
return s == null || s.isEmpty();
}
public static boolean isEmpty(Boolean b) {
return b == null || !b;
}
// add other versions of the method for other types
}
Then your code always looks like:
if (MyUtils.isEmpty(something))
If the type you're checking isn't supported, you'll get a compiler error, and you can implement another version as you like.

There are ways to establish the notion of emptiness but it's not standardized across all Java classes. For example, the Map (implementation) provides the Map#containsKey() method to check if a key exists or not. The List and String (implementations) provide the isEmpty() method but the List or String reference itself could be null and hence you cannot avoid a null check there.
You could however come up with a utility class of your own that takes an Object and using instanceof adapts the empty checks accordingly.
public final class DataUtils {
public static boolean isEmpty(Object data) {
if (data == null) {
return false;
}
if (data instanceof String) {
return ((String) data).isEmpty();
}
if (data instanceof Collection) {
return ((Collection) data).isEmpty();
}
}
}

The Guava Libraries already contains Defaults class that do just that.
Calling defaultValue will return the default value for any primitive type (as specified by the JLS), and null for any other type.
You can use it like shown below:
import com.google.common.base.Defaults;
Defaults.defaultValue(Integer.TYPE); //will return 0
Below is example code on how to use it:
import com.google.common.base.Defaults;
public class CheckingFieldsDefault
{
public static class MyClass {
private int x;
private int y = 2;
}
public static void main() {
MyClass my = new MyClass();
System.out.println("x is defualt: " + (my.x == Defaults.defaultValue(box(my.x).TYPE)));
System.out.println("y is defualt: " + (my.y == Defaults.defaultValue(box(my.y).TYPE)));
}
private static <T extends Object> T box(T t) {
return t;
}
}

Evaluating multiple variable together in if condition

I was wondering whether its possible in java to evaluate multiple variables together in if-else condition like in python.
actual code
if(abc!=null && xyz!=null)
{//...}
dummy code
if(abc && xyz !=null)
{// will it be possible}

FIRST DRAFT
You can write smth like this:
boolean notNull(Object item) {
return item != null;
}
then you could use it like:
if (notNull(abc) && notNull(xyz)) {
//...
}
UPDATE 1:
I came up with a new idea, write function using varargs like:
boolean notNull(Object... args) {
for (Object arg : args) {
if (arg == null) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
usage: (you can pass to function multiple arguments)
if (notNull(abc, xyz)) {
//...
}
UPDATE 2:
The best approach is to use library apache commons ObjectUtils,
it contains several ready to use methods like:
allNotNull(Object... values),
anyNotNull(Object... values)
or firstNonNull(T... values)

the only way this would work is if abc was a boolean (and it wouldn't do what you're hoping it would do, it would simply test if abc == true). There is no way to compare one thing to multiple things in Java.

It's Impossible in java, you can use Varargs:
public boolean checkAnything(Object args...){
for(Object obj args){
if(...)
}
return ....;
}
See also:
Varargs
String… parameter in Java

Its not possible to that in Java. Instead you can do something like this:-
public boolean checkForNulls(Object... args){
List<Object> test = new ArrayList<Object>(Arrays.asList(args));
return test.contains(null); // Check if even 1 of the objects was null.
}
If any of the items is null, then the method will return true, else it'll return false. You can use it as per your requirements.

IMHO First is the better way and possible way.
Coming to second way ..if they are boolean values
if(abc && xyz )
{//...}

Assign if not null or if not set in Java

I am really tired of doing all the if null checks, resp. I also want to have a more configurable scenario for this. Let me explain this by an example:
I have a getter() which may return null or '0' in both cases the resp. setter() should not be called passing the getter().
So the implementation is
if(getter() != null && !getter().equals('0')) setter(getter());
this however really anoys me, especially if getter() and setter() are really long method calls and I have to introduce helper variables for this.
I am thinking about a method with parameter
ifNotSet(getter(), setter(), new Object[null, '0']);
which does exactly the same thing. Where the parameters to ifNotSet are
getter - the method to check if it does not equal one of the conditions
setter - the method to call in the way setter(getter) if conditions does not apply
conditions - the conditions which must not apply on evaluation of getter() for the method to be executed
At first sight this does not seem to complicated, it however is! Is anyone aware of a solution to this problem or any kind of implementation?
Thanks!
Update
I've been working some more on the problem, after the feedback of you guys, and found out about the following
private boolean ns(Object[] condition, Object getter) {
boolean ret = false;
for (Object object : condition) {
if(getter) equals or == ??
}
return true;
}
Object[] cond = new Object[] { null, "0" };
Object a;
if (ns(cond, a = getter()))setter(a);
Well, this seemed to be at least a solution if you have a lot of allocations to do. However, if you take a look at the ns() method... the question on the incoming conditions is, whether to use == or equals to do the comparison!?

You can use this way
public boolean checkNotNullOrZero(String s)
{
return (s!=null) && !s.equals("0");
}
Basic use:
if(checkNotNullOrZero(getter()))
{
setter(getter());
}

You can't do what that as in Java methods are not first-class citizens. You could use reflection or anon classes but it would be way more work .
If null and zero are always equivalent for getter then could that be changed to return just one of the two?
If null and zero are always equivalent for setter then could that be changed to normalize the two?
Could you create a method isNullOrZero(x) then you can have
if (!isNullOrZero(getter())) {
setter(getter());
}

Ugly way of doing this literally in Java:
public interface Getter {
public Object get();
}
public interface Caller {
public void call();
}
public void callIfNotNull(Getter getter, Caller caller, Object[] nullObjects) {
Object value = getter.get();
for(Object nullObject : nullObjects) {
if(value==nullObject) {
return;
}
}
caller.call();
}
Usage:
callIfNotNull(new Getter() {
#Override
public Object get() {
return getterMethod();
}
}, new Caller() {
#Override
public void call() {
setter();
}
}, new Object[]{null, '0'});
}
You might need to implement sane way to check for null objects and give reasonable names.
Personnaly, I wouldn't go with this approach. I would try to implement Null Object pattern to resolve an issue.