Develop Reference

Get the only element in a Set

I need to know the "best" and safest way to get a value held within a Set if there is only one entry. methodToGetValues() is used extensively to read config files and return a list of values given a specific key, in this case "enabled". For the enabled key, there should only be one entry returned in the Set, obviously "true" or "false" but, mistakes happen. I have the following which seems a little convoluted:
Set<String> enabled = methodToGetValues("enabled");
if (!enabled.isEmpty() && enabled.size() < 2 && "true".equals(enabled.iterator().next())) {
...
}
Can anyone suggest a simpler yet still robust way of checking this?

Your question asks to get something from the Set. But your example just needs a check.
If you know what to expect in the Set, this works fine.
if (enabled != null && enabled.size() == 1 && enabled.contains("true")) {
...
}
Otherwise, if you just want to get the element but don't know what it is, the iterator you suggested works fine.
String getOnlyElement(Set<String> enabled, String default) {
return (enabled == null || enabled.size() != 1) ? default : enabled.iterator().next();
}
I like having null checks but it depends on what methodToGetValues returns.

Unsure of what the use case is that would drive using a Set<String> for this data but here is an option:
// check size = 1 over two checks, use contains rather than grabbing an iterator
if (set.size() == 1 && set.contains("true")) {
...
}

public Set<String> getValues(final String key){
.....
}
public String getValue(final String key) {
final Set<String> values = getValues(key);
if (values == null || values.size() != 1) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Invalid configuration for give key :" + key);
}
return values.iterator().next();
}
public Boolean getValueAsBoolean(final String key) {
return Boolean.valueOf(getValue(key));
}
You can modify method to have accept argument to return default value when keys are not found. You can add different methods to return specific type object like inte, boolean, this way code looks cleaner

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

How can I cast an Object in an equals override method in Java?

I have the following code in a class used to simulate the IRS with employer filings in accordance with the filer. I am required to override the equals class but I keep getting the error saying that the methods I am trying to use cannot be found when called on the casted Object.
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if ((this == null )|| (obj == null) || (this.getClass() != obj.getClass()))
return false;
if ((this.sameEmployer((Employer)obj))
&& (this.getEmployeeSSN() == (Employer)obj.getEmployeeSSN())
&& (this.getName() == (Employer)obj.getName())
&& (this.getEmployeeName() == (Employer)obj.getEmployeeName())
&& (this.getEmployeeWages() == (Employer)obj.getEmployeeWages()))
return true;
else
return false;
}

Casting happens after method calls. According to the precedence of operators, () for method calling is at the highest level, 1, while () for casting is at level 3. In other words you are attempting to cast obj.getEmployeeSSN() as an Employer, not obj.
Once you know obj is an Employer, you can place parentheses to force casting first, e.g.
&& (this.getEmployeeSSN() == ((Employer) obj).getEmployeeSSN())
However, it looks like a mess of parentheses. For clarity, just declare an Employer variable, cast it once, then call the methods, passing the Employer variable.
Employer emp = (Employer) obj;
if (this.sameEmployer(emp)
&& ...

For expressions like this:
(Employer)obj.getEmployeeSSN()
The . has higher precedence - "binds tighter" - than the cast. So it's closer to:
(Employer) (obj.getEmployeeSSN())
... whereas you want:
((Employer) obj).getEmployeeSSN()
in order to cast and then call the method. That's most easily done by casting in an earlier line:
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (obj == null || this.getClass() != obj.getClass()) {
return false;
}
Employee other = (Employee) obj;
// Now use "other" in the rest of the code:
return sameEmployer(other)
&& getEmployeeSSN() == other.getEmployeeSSN()
...;
}
Note that:
this can never be null, so you don't need to test it
You don't need nearly as many brackets as you had before
I'd strongly encourage you to use braces for all if blocks... you'd be surprised at how easy it is to end up with mistakes otherwise. (There are lots of SO questions which are basically due to that...)
Any time you have:
if (foo) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
you should simplify it to:
return foo;

Class Object doesn't have getEmployeeSSN(). What you should have instead is :
(this.getEmployeeSSN() == ((Employer)obj).getEmployeeSSN() //and so forth.
The cast should happen first, then you try to use the method on the casted object

You just have a problem with priority of your operations. The cast to (Employer) will happen after you call the specific methods. To enforce the priority you need to add brackets:
((Employer) obj).getName()
instead of
(Employer) obj.getName()

What is the correct way to implement compareObjects()

I have compareObjects method implemented as below
public static int compareObjects(Comparable a, Comparable b){
if (a == null && b == null){
return 0;
} else if (a == null && b != null){
return -1;
} else if (a != null && b == null){
return 1;
} else {
return a.compareTo(b);
}
}
When I run this through findBugs, I get this suggestion on the line return a.compareTo(b):
There is a branch of statement that, if executed, guarantees that a null value will be dereferenced, which would generate a NullPointerException when the code is executed. Of course, the problem might be that the branch or statement is infeasible and that the null pointer exception can't ever be executed; deciding that is beyond the ability of FindBugs. Due to the fact that this value had been previously tested for nullness, this is a definite possibility.
At this point a can never be null. Why does FindBugs show me this suggestion? How can I correct this; what is the correct way to implement compareObjects()?

I think it might be because you don't need the extra && statements. After the first if statement you already know that one of them is null.
public static int compareObjects(Comparable a, Comparable b){
if (a == null && b == null){
return 0;
} else if (a == null){
return -1;
} else if (b == null){
return 1;
} else {
return a.compareTo(b);
}
}

Looking at it again , try this code:
if (a == null && b == null){
return 0;
}
if (a == null){
return -1;
}
if (b == null){
return 1;
}
return a.compareTo(b);

It may be a limitation in FindBugs; I agree that you've covered all the bases, but your null-check is split across two different conditions. Now these conditions happen to be complementary, so at least one of them will fire if a is null, but depending how sophisticated FindBugs is, it may not recognise this.
Two options here, then:
Just ignore the FindBugs warning. Due to its nature it will raise some false positives from time to time, so don't feel like you have to rewrite your code to make it 100% happy if you don't think the rewrite is worthwhile on its own merits.
You can use the #SuppressWarnings annotation to actually communicate this to FindBugs, if you want the report to show a nice big zero at the end. See this question for an example.
Restructure the condition so that the nullity check on a is more explicit, by nesting if blocks:
if (a == null) {
return b == null ? 0 : -1;
}
return b == null ? 1 : a.compareTo(b);
Depending on your tastes and style that might be a better rewrite anyway, in that is more clearly says "if a is null, do this calculation and return it, otherwise do this calculation". You can of course change the ternary condition into another if-else block if you prefer that.

Logical mistake or not?

I have written this function which will set
val=max or min (if val comes null)
or val=val (val comes as an Integer or "max" or "min")
while calling i am probably sending checkValue(val,"min") or checkValue(val,"max")
public String checkValue(String val,String valType)
{
System.out.println("outside if val="+val);
if(!val.equals("min") && !val.equals("max"))
{
System.out.println("Inside if val="+val);
try{
System.out.println("*Inside try val="+val);
Integer.parseInt(val);
}
catch(NumberFormatException nFE)
{
System.out.println("***In catch val="+val);
val=valType;
}
return val;
}
else
{
return val;
}
}
But the problem is if val comes null then
outside if******val=null
is shown.
Can any1 tell me is this a logical mistake?
And why will I correct?

If val is null, then the expression val.equals("min") will throw an exception.
You could correct this by using:
if (!"min".equals(val) && !"max".equals(val))
to let it go inside the if block... but I would personally handle it at the start of the method:
if (val == null) {
// Do whatever you want
}
Btw, for the sake of readability you might want to consider allowing a little more whitespace in your code... at the moment it's very dense, which makes it harder to read.

...the problem is if val comes null then outside if****val=null is shown. Can any1 tell me is this a logical mistake?
The output is correct; whether you want it to come out that way is up to you.
Your next line
if(!val.equals("min") && !val.equals("max")){
...will throw a NullPointerException because you're trying to dereference val, which is null. You'll want to add an explicit check for whether val is null:
if (val == null) {
// Do what you want to do when val == null
}

you should use valType instead of val to check either minimum or maximum is necessary to check.
My advice to you in such cases to use boolean value or enum instead of strings. Consider something like that:
/**
* check the value for minimum if min is true and for maximum otherwise
*/
public String checkValue(String val, boolean min){
if (min) {
// ...
} else {
// ...
}
}

If you need to compare strings against constants you should write it the other way around to make it null-safe:
if (! "min".equals(val))
And while this is mostly a style issue, I would make all method arguments final and not re-assign them (because that is confusing), and you can also return from within the method, not just at the end. Or if you want to return at the end, do it at the very end, not have the same return statement in both the if and the else branch.