Related
I started using javax.annotation especially to warn the next developer who maybe will be working with my code in the future.
But while I was using the javax.annotation #Nonnull annotation, a question came into my mind:
If you mark f.e. a parameter of a method thorugh the #Nonnull annotation that it haves to have a value,
do you still need to handle the case, that the next developer who is using your code could be parsing null to your function?
If found one con argument and one pro argument to still handle the special cases.
con: The code is cleaner, especially if you have multiple parameters that you mark with #Nonnull
private void foo(#Nonnull Object o)
{
/*do something*/
}
vs
public void foo(Object o)
throws NullPointerException
{
if (o == null)
{
throw new NullPointerException("Given Object must have a value!");
}
/*do something*/
}
pro: It could cause unhandled errors if the next developer ignore the annotations.
This is an unsolved problem in the nullity annotation space. There are 2 viewpoints that sound identical but result, in fact, in the exact opposite. Given a parameter void foo(#NonNull String param), what does that imply?
It's compiler-checkable documentation that indicates you should not pass null as param here. It does not mean that it is impossible to do this, or that one ought to consider it impossible. Simply that one should not - it's compiler-checkable documentation that the method has no defined useful behaviour if you pass null here.
The compiler is extended to support these annotations to treat it as a single type - the type of param is #NonNull String - and the compiler knows what that means and will in fact ensure this. The type of the parameter is #NonNull String and therefore cannot be null, just like it can't be, say, an InputStream instance either.
Crucially, then, the latter means a null check is flagged as silly code, whereas the former means lack of a null check is marked as bad. Hence, opposites. The former considered a nullcheck a warnable offense (with something along the lines of param can never be null here), for the same reason this is silly code:
void foo(String arg) {
if (!(arg instanceof String)) throw new IllegalArgumentException("arg");
}
That if clause cannot possibly fire. The mindset of various nullchecker frameworks is identical here, and therefore flags it as silly code:
void foo(#NonNull String arg) {
if (arg == null) throw new NullPointerException("arg");
}
The simple fact is, plenty of java devs do not enable annotation-based nullity checking, and even if they did, there are at least 10 competing annotations and many of them mean completely different things, and work completely differently. The vast majority will not be using a checking framework that works as you think it should, therefore, the advice to remove the nullcheck because it is silly is actively a bad thing - you should add that nullcheck. The linting tools that flag this down are misguided; they want to pretend to live in a world where every java programmer on the planet uses their tool. This isn't try and is unlikely to ever become true, hence, wrong.
A few null checking frameworks are sort of living both lives and will allow you to test if an argument marked as #NonNull is null, but only if the if body starts with throw, otherwise it's flagged.
To answer your questions:
You should nullcheck. After all, other developers that use your code may not get the nullity warnings from the nullcheck tool (either other team members working on the same code base but using slightly different tools and/or configurations of those tools, or, your code is a library and another project uses it, a more obvious route to a situation with different tools/configs). The best way to handle a null failure is a compile time error. A close second is an exception that is clear about the problem and whose stack trace can be used to very quickly solve the bug. A distant third is random bizarreness that takes a whole to debug - and that explicit nullcheck means you get nice fallback: If for whatever reason the write-time tooling doesn't catch the problem, the check will then simply turn it into the second, still quite acceptable case of an exception at the point of failure that is clear about what happened and where to fix it.
Lombok's #NonNull annotation can generate it for you, if you want. Now you have the best of both worlds: Just a #NonNull annotation (no clutter) and yet a runtime exception if someone does pass null anyway (DISCLAIMER: I'm one of the core contributors to Lombok).
If your linting tool complains about 'pointless null check' on the line if (param == null) throw new NullPointerException("param");, find the option in the linting tool to exclude if-checks that result in throw statements. If the linting tool cannot be configured to ignore this case, do not use the linting tool, find a better one.
Note that modern JVMs will throw a NullPointerException with the name of the expression as message if you dereference a null pointer, which may obviate the need to write an explicit check. However, now you're dependent on that method always dereferencing that variable forever more; if ever someone changes it and e.g. assigns it to a field and returns, now you have a problem: It should have thrown the exception, in order to ensure the bug is found quickly and with an exception that explains what happened and where to go and fix the problem. Hence I wouldn't rely on the JVM feature for your NPEs.
Error messages should be as short as they can be whilst not skimping on detail. They should also not end in punctuation; especially exclamation marks. Every exception tends to be noteworthy enough to warrant an exclamation mark - but it gets tedious to read them, so do not add them. In fact, the proper thing to throw, is this: throw new NullPointerException("o"). - and you might want to rename that parameter to something more readable if you find o ugly. Parameters are mostly public API info (JVM-technically they are not, but javadoc does include them, which is the basis of API docs, so you should consider them public, and therefore, they should have clear names. Which you can then reuse). That exception conveys all relevant information to a programmer: The nature of the problem (null was sent to code that does not know how to handle this), and where (the stack trace does that automatically), and the specifics (which thing was null). Your message is much longer and doesn't add anything more. At best you can say your message might be understood by a non-coder, except this is both not true (as if a stack trace is something random joe computeruser is going to understand), and irrelevant (it's not like they can fix the problem even if they do know what it means). Using exception messages as UI output just doesn't work, so don't try.
You may want to adjust your style guides and allow braceless if statements provided that the if expression is simple (no && or ||). Possibly add an additional rule that the single statement is a control statement - break;, continue;, return (something);, or throw something;. This will significantly improve readability for multiparams. The point of a style guide is to create legible code. Surely this:
if (param1 == null) throw new NullPointerException("param1");
if (param2 == null) throw new NullPointerException("param2");
is far more legible, especially considering this method has more lines than just those two, than this:
if (param1 == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("param1");
}
if (param2 == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("param2");
}
Styleguides are just a tool. If your styleguide is leading to less productivity and harder to read code, the answer should be obvious. Fix or replace the tool.
Question ahead:
why does in Java the call coll.contains(null) fail for ImmutableCollections?
I know, that immutable collections cannot contain null-elements, and I do not want to discuss whether that's good or bad.
But when I write a Function, that takes a (general, not explicit immutable) Collection, it fails upon checking for nulls. Why does the implementation not return false (which is actually the 'correct' answer)?
And how can I properly check for nulls in a Collection in general?
Edit:
with some discussions (thanks to the commenters!) I realized, that I mixed up two things: ImmutableCollection from the guava library, and the List returned by java.util.List.of, being some class from ImmutableCollections. However, both classes throw an NPE on .contains(null).
My problem was with the List.of result, but technically the same would happen with guaves implementation. [edit: It does not]
I am distressed by this discussion!
Collections that do this have been a pet peeve of mine since before I wrote the first collections that eventually became Guava. If you find any Guava collection that throws NPE just because you asked it a perfectly innocent question like .contains(null), please file a bug! We hate that crap.
EDIT: I was so distressed that I had to go back to look at my 2007 changelist that first created ImmutableSet and saw literally this:
#Override public boolean contains(#Nullable Object target) {
if (target == null) {
return false;
}
ahhhhh.
why does in Java the call coll.contains(null) fail for ImmutableCollections?
Because the design team (the ones who have created guava) decided that, for their collections, null is unwanted, and therefore any interaction between their collections and a null check, even in this case, should just throw to highlight to the programmer, at the earliest possible opportunity, that there is a mismatch. Even where the established behaviour (as per the existing implementations in the core runtime itself, such as ArrayList and friends, as well as the javadoc), rather explicitly go the other way and say that a non-sequitur check (is this pear part of this list of apples?) strongly suggests that the right move is to just return false and not throw.
In other words, guava messed up. But now that they have done so, going back is potentially backwards compatibility breaking. It really isn't very - you are replacing an exception thrown with a false return value; presumably code could be out there that relies on the NPE (catching it and doing something different from what the code would do had contains(null) returned false instead of throwing) - but that's a rare case, and guava breaks backwards compatibility all the time.
And how can I properly check for nulls in a Collection in general?
By calling .contains(null), just as you are. The fact that guava doesn't do it right doesn't change the answer. You might as well ask 'how do I add elements to a list', and counter the answer of "well, you call list.add(item) to do that" with: Well, I have this implementation of the List interface that plays Rick Astley over the speaker instead of adding to the list, so, I reject your answer.
That's.. how java and interfaces work: You can have implementations of them, and the only guardianship that they do what the interface dictates they must, is that the author understands there is a contract that needs to be followed.
Now, normally a library so badly written they break contract for no good reason*, isn't popular. But guava IS popular. Very popular. That gets at a simple truth: No library is perfect. Guava's API design is generally quite good (in my opinion, vastly superior to e.g. Apache commons libraries), and the team actively spends a lot of time debating proper API design, in the sense that the code that one would write using guava is nice (as defined by: Easy to understand, has few surprises, easy to maintain, easy to test, and probably easy to mutate to deal with changing requirements - the only useful definition for nebulous terms like 'nice' or 'elegant' code - it's code that does those things, anything else is pointless aesthetic drivel). In other words, they are actively trying, and they usually get it right.
Just, not in this case. Work around it: return item != null && coll.contains(item); will get the job done.
There is one major argument in favour of guava's choice: They 'contract break' is an implicit break - one would expect that .contains(null) works, and always returns false, but it's not explicitly stated in the javadoc that one must do this. Contrast to e.g. IdentityHashMap, which uses identity equivalence (a==b) and not value equality (a.equals(b)) in its .containsKey etc implementations, which explicitly goes against the javadoc contract as stated in the j.u.Map interface. IHM has an excellent reason for it, and highlights the discrepancy, plus explains the reason, in the javadoc. Guava isn't nearly as clear about their bizarre null behaviour, but, here's a crucial thing about null in java:
Its meaning is nebulous. Sometimes it means 'empty', which is bad design: You should never write if (x == null || x.isEmpty()) - that implies some API is badly coded. If null is semantically equivalent to some value (such as "" or List.of()), then you should just return "" or List.of(), and not null. However, in such a design, list.contains(null) == false) would make sense.
But sometimes null means not found, irrelevant, not applicable, or unknown (for example, if map.get(k) returns null, that's what it means: Not found. Not 'I found an empty value for you'). This matches with what NULL means in e.g. SQL. In all those cases, .contains(null) should be returning neither true nor false. If I hand you a bag of marbles and ask you if there is a marble in there that is grue, and you have no idea what grue means, you shouldn't answer either yes or no to my query: Either answer is a meaningless guess. You should tell me that the question cannot be answered. Which is best represented in java by throwing, which is precisely what guava does. This also matches with what NULL does in SQL. In SQL, v IN (x) returns one of 3 values, not 2 values: It can resolve to true, false, or null. v IN (NULL) would resolve to NULL and not false. It is answering a question that can't be answered with the NULL value, which is to be read as: Don't know.
In other words, guava made a call on what null implies which evidently does not match with your definitions, as you expect .contains(null) to return false. I think your viewpoint is more idiomatic, but the point is, guava's viewpoint is different but also consistent, and the javadoc merely insinuates, but does not explicitly demand, that .contains(null) returns false.
That's not useful whatsoever in fixing your code, but hopefully it gives you a mental model, and answers your question of "why does it work like this?".
That would be so obviously useful that I am starting to think I am missing a rationale to avoid it, since I am sure Oracle would have made it that way. It would be the most valuable feature on Optional for me.
public class TestOptionals{
public static void main(String[] args) {
test(null);
}
public static void test(Optional<Object> optional){
System.out.println(optional.orElse(new DefaultObject()));
}
}
(This throws a NullPointerException)
Without that feature I see too verbose using Optional for the argument.
I prefer a simple Object optional signature and
checking it by if (null = optional) that creating the object Optional for comparing later. It is not valuable if that doesn't help you checking the null
There was a HUGE discussion of Optional on all the various Java mailing lists, comprising hundreds of messages. Do a web search for
site:mail.openjdk.java.net optional
and you'll get links to lots of them. Of course, I can't even hope to summarize all the issues that were raised. There was a lot of controversy, and there was quite a breadth of opinion about how much "optionality" should be added to the platform. Some people thought that a library solution shouldn't be added at all; some people thought that a library solution was useless without language support; some people thought that a library solution was OK, but there was an enormous amount of quibbling about what should be in it; and so forth. See this message from Brian Goetz on the lambda-dev mailing list for a bit of perspective.
One pragmatic decision made by the lambda team was that any optional-like feature couldn't involve any language changes. The language and compiler team already had its hands full with lambda and default methods. These of course were the main priorities. Practically speaking, the choices were either to add Optional as a library class or not at all.
Certainly people were aware of other languages' type systems that support option types. This would be a big change to Java's type system. The fact is that for most of the past 20 years, reference types have been nullable, and there's been a single, untyped null value. Changing this is a massive undertaking. It might not even be possible to do this in a compatible way. I'm not an expert in this area, but most such discussions have tended to go off into the weeds pretty quickly.
A smaller change that might be more tractable (also mentioned by Marko Topolnik) is to consider the relationship between reference types and Optional as one of boxing, and then bring in the support for autoboxing/autounboxing that's already in the language.
Already this is somewhat problematic. When auto(un)boxing was added in Java 5, it made a large number of cases much nicer, but it added a lot of rough edges to the language. For example, with auto-unboxing, one can now use < and > to compare the values of boxed Integer objects. Unfortunately, using == still compares references instead of values! Boxing also made overload resolution more complicated; it's one of the most complicated areas of the language today.
Now let's consider auto(un)boxing between reference types and Optional types. This would let you do:
Optional<String> os1 = "foo";
Optional<String> os2 = null;
In this code, os1 would end up as a boxed string value, and os2 would end up as an empty Optional. So far, so good. Now the reverse:
String s1 = os1;
String s2 = os2;
Now s1 would get the unboxed string "foo", and s2 would be unboxed to null, I guess. But the point of Optional was to make such unboxing explicit, so that programmers would be confronted with a decision about what to do with an empty Optional instead of having it just turn into null.
Hmmm, so maybe let's just do autoboxing of Optional but not autounboxing. Let's return to the OP's use case:
public static void main(String[] args) {
test(null);
}
public static void test(Optional<Object> optional) {
System.out.println(optional.orElse(new DefaultObject()));
}
If you really want to use Optional, you can manually box it one line:
public static void test(Object arg) {
Optional<Object> optional = Optional.ofNullable(arg);
System.out.println(optional.orElse(new DefaultObject()));
}
Obviously it might be nicer if you didn't have to write this, but it would take an enormous amount of language/compiler work, and compatibility risk, to save this line of code. Is it really worth it?
What seems to be going on is that this would allow the caller to pass null in order to have some specific meaning to the callee, such as "use the default object" instead. In small examples this seems fine, but in general, loading semantics onto null increasingly seems like a bad idea. So this is an additional reason not to add specific language support for boxing of null. The Optional.ofNullable() method mainly is there to bridge the gap between code that uses null and code that uses Optional.
If you are committed to using the Optional class, then see the other answers.
On the other hand, I interpreted your question as, "Would it be a good idea to avoid the syntactic overhead of using Optional while still obtaining a guarantee of no null pointer exceptions in your code?" The answer to this question is a resounding yes. Luckily, Java has a feature, type annotations, that enables this. It does not require use of the the Optional class.
You can obtain the same compile-time guarantees, without adding Optional to your code and while retaining backward compatibility with existing code.
Annotate references that might be null with the #Nullable type
annotation.
Run a compiler plugin such as the Checker Framework's Nullness Checker.
If the plugin issues no errors, then you know that your code always checks for null where it needs to, and therefore your code never issues a null pointer exception exception at run time.
The plugin handles the special cases mentioned by #immibis and more, so your code is much less verbose than code using Optional. The plugin is compatible with normal Java code and does not require use of Java 8 as Optional does. It is in daily use at companies such as Google.
Note that this approach requires you to supply a command-line argument to the compiler to tell it to run the plugin. Also note that this approach does not integrate with Optional; it is an alternate approach.
There are some patterns for checking whether a parameter to a method has been given a null value.
First, the classic one. It is common in self-made code and obvious to understand.
public void method1(String arg) {
if (arg == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("arg");
}
}
Second, you can use an existing framework. That code looks a little nicer because it only occupies a single line. The downside is that it potentially calls another method, which might make the code run a little slower, depending on the compiler.
public void method2(String arg) {
Assert.notNull(arg, "arg");
}
Third, you can try to call a method without side effects on the object. This may look odd at first, but it has fewer tokens than the above versions.
public void method3(String arg) {
arg.getClass();
}
I haven't seen the third pattern in wide use, and it feels almost as if I had invented it myself. I like it for its shortness, and because the compiler has a good chance of optimizing it away completely or converting it into a single machine instruction. I also compile my code with line number information, so if a NullPointerException is thrown, I can trace it back to the exact variable, since I have only one such check per line.
Which check do you prefer, and why?
Approach #3: arg.getClass(); is clever, but unless this idiom see widespread adoption, I'd prefer the clearer, more verbose methods as opposed to saving a few characters. I'm a "write once, read many" kind of programmer.
The other approaches are self-documenting: there's a log message you can use to clarify what happened - this log message is use when reading the code and also at run-time. arg.getClass(), as it stands, is not self-documenting. You could use a comment at least o clarify to reviewers of the code:
arg.getClass(); // null check
But you still don't get a chance to put a specific message in the runtime like you can with the other methods.
Approach #1 vs #2 (null-check+NPE/IAE vs assert): I try to follow guidelines like this:
http://data.opengeo.org/GEOT-290810-1755-708.pdf
Use assert to check parameters on private methods
assert param > 0;
Use null check + IllegalArgumentException to check parameters on public methods
if (param == null) throw new IllegalArgumentException("param cannot be null");
Use null check + NullPointerException where needed
if (getChild() == null) throw new NullPointerException("node must have children");
HOWEVER, since this is question may be about catching potential null issues most efficiently, then I have to mention my preferred method for dealing with null is using static analysis, e.g. type annotations (e.g. #NonNull) a la JSR-305. My favorite tool for checking them is:
The Checker Framework:
Custom pluggable types for Java
https://checkerframework.org/manual/#checker-guarantees
If its my project (e.g. not a library with a public API) and if I can use the Checker Framework throughout:
I can document my intention more clearly in the API (e.g. this parameter may not be null (the default), but this one may be null (#Nullable; the method may return null; etc). This annotation is right at the declaration, rather than further away in the Javadoc, so is much more likely to be maintained.
static analysis is more efficient than any runtime check
static analysis will flag potential logic flaws in advance (e.g. that I tried to pass a variable that may be null to a method that only accepts a non-null parameter) rather than depending on the issue occurring at runtime.
One other bonus is that the tool lets me put the annotations in a comment (e.g. `/#Nullable/), so my library code can compatible with type-annotated projects and non-type-annotated projects (not that I have any of these).
In case the link goes dead again, here's the section from GeoTools Developer Guide:
http://data.opengeo.org/GEOT-290810-1755-708.pdf
5.1.7 Use of Assertions, IllegalArgumentException and NPE
The Java language has for a couple of years now made an assert keyword available; this keyword can be used to perform debug only checks.
While there are several uses of this facility, a common one is to check method parameters on private (not public) methods. Other uses are
post-conditions and invariants.
Reference: Programming With Assertions
Pre-conditions (like argument checks in private methods) are typically easy targets for assertions. Post-conditions and invariants are sometime
less straighforward but more valuable, since non-trivial conditions have more risks to be broken.
Example 1: After a map projection in the referencing module, an assertion performs the inverse map projection and checks the result
with the original point (post-condition).
Example 2: In DirectPosition.equals(Object) implementations, if the result is true, then the assertion ensures that
hashCode() are identical as required by the Object contract.
Use Assert to check Parameters on Private methods
private double scale( int scaleDenominator ){
assert scaleDenominator > 0;
return 1 / (double) scaleDenominator;
}
You can enable assertions with the following command line parameter:
java -ea MyApp
You can turn only GeoTools assertions with the following command line parameter:
java -ea:org.geotools MyApp
You can disable assertions for a specific package as shown here:
java -ea:org.geotools -da:org.geotools.referencing MyApp
Use IllegalArgumentExceptions to check Parameters on Public Methods
The use of asserts on public methods is strictly discouraged; because the mistake being reported has been made in client code - be honest and
tell them up front with an IllegalArgumentException when they have screwed up.
public double toScale( int scaleDenominator ){
if( scaleDenominator > 0 ){
throw new IllegalArgumentException( "scaleDenominator must be greater than 0");
}
return 1 / (double) scaleDenominator;
}
Use NullPointerException where needed
If possible perform your own null checks; throwing a IllegalArgumentException or NullPointerException with detailed information
about what has gone wrong.
public double toScale( Integer scaleDenominator ){
if( scaleDenominator == null ){
throw new NullPointerException( "scaleDenominator must be provided");
}
if( scaleDenominator > 0 ){
throw new IllegalArgumentException( "scaleDenominator must be greater than 0");
}
return 1 / (double) scaleDenominator;
}
Aren't you optimizing a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiit too prematurely!?
I would just use the first. It's clear and concise.
I rarely work with Java, but I assume there's a way to have Assert only operate on debug builds, so that would be a no-no.
The third gives me the creeps, and I think I would immediately resort to violence if I ever saw it in code. It's completely unclear what it's doing.
You can use the Objects Utility Class.
public void method1(String arg) {
Objects.requireNonNull(arg);
}
see http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/Objects.html#requireNonNull%28T%29
You should not be throwing NullPointerException. If you want a NullPointerException, just dont check the value and it will be thrown automatically when the parameter is null and you attempt to dereference it.
Check out the apache commons lang Validate and StringUtils classes.
Validate.notNull(variable) it will throw an IllegalArgumentException if "variable" is null.
Validate.notEmpty(variable) will throw an IllegalArgumentException if "variable" is empty (null or zero length".
Perhaps even better:
String trimmedValue = StringUtils.trimToEmpty(variable) will guarantee that "trimmedValue" is never null. If "variable" is null, "trimmedValue" will be the empty string ("").
In my opinion, there are three issues with the third method:
The intent is unclear to the casual reader.
Even though you have line number information, line numbers change. In a real production system, knowing that there was a problem in SomeClass at line 100 doesn't give you all the info you need. You also need to know the revision of the file in question and be able to get to that revision. All in all, a lot of hassle for what appears to be very little benefit.
It is not at all clear why you think the call to arg.getClass can be optimized away. It is a native method. Unless HotSpot is coded to have specific knowledge of the method for this exact eventuality, it'll probably leave the call alone since it can't know about any potential side-effects of the C code that gets called.
My preference is to use #1 whenever I feel there's a need for a null check. Having the variable name in the error message is great for quickly figuring out what exactly has gone wrong.
P.S. I don't think that optimizing the number of tokens in the source file is a very useful criterion.
The first method is my preference because it conveys the most intent. There are often shortcuts that can be taken in programming but my view is that shorter code is not always better code.
x==null is super fast, and it can be a couple of CPU clocks (incl. the branch prediction which is going to succeed). AssertNotNull will be inlined, so no difference there.
x.getClass() should not be faster than x==null even if it uses trap. (reason: the x will be in some register and checking a register vs an immediate value is fast, the branch is going to be predicted properly as well)
Bottom line: unless you do something truly weird, it'd be optimized by the JVM.
The first option is the easiest one and also is the most clear.
It's not common in Java, but in C and C++ where the = operator can be included in a expression in the if statement and therefore lead to errors, it's often recommended to switch places between the variable and the constant like this:
if (NULL == variable) {
...
}
instead of:
if (variable == NULL) {
...
}
preventing errors of the type:
if (variable = NULL) { // Assignment!
...
}
If you make the change, the compiler will find that kind of errors for you.
While I agree with the general consensus of preferring to avoid the getClass() hack, it is worth noting that, as of OpenJDK version 1.8.0_121, javac will use the getClass() hack to insert null checks prior to creating lambda expressions. For example, consider:
public class NullCheck {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object o = null;
Runnable r = o::hashCode;
}
}
After compiling this with javac, you can use javap to see the bytecode by running javap -c NullCheck. The output is (in part):
Compiled from "NullCheck.java"
public class NullCheck {
public NullCheck();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
Code:
0: aconst_null
1: astore_1
2: aload_1
3: dup
4: invokevirtual #2 // Method java/lang/Object.getClass:()Ljava/lang/Class;
7: pop
8: invokedynamic #3, 0 // InvokeDynamic #0:run:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/Runnable;
13: astore_2
14: return
}
The instruction set at "lines" 3, 4 and 7 are basically invoking o.getClass(), and discarding the result. If you run NullCheck, you'll get a NullPointerException thrown from line 4.
Whether this is something that the Java folks concluded was a necessary optimization, or it is just a cheap hack, I don't know. However, based on John Rose's comment at https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8042127?focusedCommentId=13612451&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13612451, I suspect that it may indeed be the case that the getClass() hack, which produces an implicit null check, may be ever so slightly more performant than its explicit counterpart. That said, I would avoid using it unless careful benchmarking showed that it made any appreciable difference.
(Interestingly, the Eclipse Compiler For Java (ECJ) does not include this null check, and running NullCheck as compiled by ECJ will not throw a n NPE.)
I'd use the built-in Java assert mechanism.
assert arg != null;
The advantage of this over all the other methods is that it can be switched off.
I prefer method 4, 5 or 6, with #4 being applied to public API methods and 5 / 6 for internal methods, although #6 would be more frequently applied to public methods.
/**
* Method 4.
* #param arg A String that should have some method called upon it. Will be ignored if
* null, empty or whitespace only.
*/
public void method4(String arg) {
// commons stringutils
if (StringUtils.isNotBlank(arg) {
arg.trim();
}
}
/**
* Method 5.
* #param arg A String that should have some method called upon it. Shouldn't be null.
*/
public void method5(String arg) {
// Let NPE sort 'em out.
arg.trim();
}
/**
* Method 6.
* #param arg A String that should have some method called upon it. Shouldn't be null.
*/
public void method5(String arg) {
// use asserts, expect asserts to be enabled during dev-time, so that developers
// that refuse to read the documentations get slapped on the wrist for still passing
// null. Assert is a no-op if the -ae param is not passed to the jvm, so 0 overhead.
assert arg != null : "Arg cannot be null"; // insert insult here.
arg.trim();
}
The best solution to handle nulls is to not use nulls. Wrap third-party or library methods that may return nulls with null guards, replacing the value with something that makes sense (such as an empty string) but does nothing when used. Throw NPE's if a null really shouldn't be passed, especially in setter methods where the passed object doesn't get called right away.
There is no vote for this one, but I use a slight variation of #2, like
erStr += nullCheck (varName, String errMsg); // returns formatted error message
Rationale: (1) I can loop over a bunch of arguments, (2) The nullCheck method is tucked away in a superclass and (3) at the end of the loop,
if (erStr.length() > 0)
// Send out complete error message to client
else
// do stuff with variables
In the superclass method, your #3 looks nice, but I wouldn't throw an exception (what is the point, somebody has to handle it, and as a servlet container, tomcat will ignore it, so it might as well be this())
Regards, - M.S.
First method. I would never do the second or the third method, not unless they are implemented efficiently by the underlying JVM. Otherwise, those two are just prime examples of premature optimization (with the third having a possible performance penalty - you don't want to be dealing and accessing class meta-data in general access points.)
The problem with NPEs is that they are things that cross-cut many aspects of programming (and my aspects, I mean something deeper and more profound that AOP). It is a language design problem (not saying that the language is bad, but that it is one fundamental short-coming... of any language that allows null pointers or references.)
As such, it is best to simply deal with it explicitly as in the first method. All other methods are (failed) attempts to simplify a model of operations, an unavoidable complexity that exists on the underlying programming model.
It is a bullet that we cannot avoid to bite. Deal with it explicitly as it is - in the general case that is - the less painful down the road.
I believe that the fourth and the most useful pattern is to do nothing. Your code will throw NullPointerException or other exception a couple of lines later (if null is illegal value) and will work fine if null is OK in this context.
I believe that you should perform null check only if you have something to do with it. Checking to throw exception is irrelevant in most cases.
Just do not forget to mention in javadoc whether the parameter can be null.
I’m from a .NET background and now dabbling in Java.
Currently, I’m having big problems designing an API defensively against faulty input. Let’s say I’ve got the following code (close enough):
public void setTokens(Node node, int newTokens) {
tokens.put(node, newTokens);
}
However, this code can fail for two reasons:
User passes a null node.
User passes an invalid node, i.e. one not contained in the graph.
In .NET, I would throw an ArgumentNullException (rather than a NullReferenceException!) or an ArgumentException respectively, passing the name of the offending argument (node) as a string argument.
Java doesn’t seem to have equivalent exceptions. I realize that I could be more specific and just throw whatever exception comes closest to describing the situation, or even writing my own exception class for the specific situation.
Is this the best practice? Or are there general-purpose classes similar to ArgumentException in .NET?
Does it even make sense to check against null in this case? The code will fail anyway and the exception’s stack trace will contain the above method call. Checking against null seems redundant and excessive. Granted, the stack trace will be slightly cleaner (since its target is the above method, rather than an internal check in the HashMap implementation of the JRE). But this must be offset against the cost of an additional if statement, which, furthermore, should never occur anyway – after all, passing null to the above method isn’t an expected situation, it’s a rather stupid bug. Expecting it is downright paranoid – and it will fail with the same exception even if I don’t check for it.
[As has been pointed out in the comments, HashMap.put actually allows null values for the key. So a check against null wouldn’t necessarily be redundant here.]
The standard Java exception is IllegalArgumentException. Some will throw NullPointerException if the argument is null, but for me NPE has that "someone screwed up" connotation, and you don't want clients of your API to think you don't know what you're doing.
For public APIs, check the arguments and fail early and cleanly. The time/cost barely matters.
Different groups have different standards.
Firstly, I assume you know the difference between RuntimeExceptions (unchecked) and normal Exceptions (checked), if not then see this question and the answers. If you write your own exception you can force it to be caught, whereas both NullPointerException and IllegalArgumentException are RuntimeExceptions which are frowned on in some circles.
Secondly, as with you, groups I've worked with but don't actively use asserts, but if your team (or consumer of the API) has decided it will use asserts, then assert sounds like precisely the correct mechanism.
If I was you I would use NullPointerException. The reason for this is precedent. Take an example Java API from Sun, for example java.util.TreeSet. This uses NPEs for precisely this sort of situation, and while it does look like your code just used a null, it is entirely appropriate.
As others have said IllegalArgumentException is an option, but I think NullPointerException is more communicative.
If this API is designed to be used by outside companies/teams I would stick with NullPointerException, but make sure it is declared in the javadoc. If it is for internal use then you might decide that adding your own Exception heirarchy is worthwhile, but personally I find that APIs which add huge exception heirarchies, which are only going to be printStackTrace()d or logged are just a waste of effort.
At the end of the day the main thing is that your code communicates clearly. A local exception heirarchy is like local jargon - it adds information for insiders but can baffle outsiders.
As regards checking against null I would argue it does make sense. Firstly, it allows you to add a message about what was null (ie node or tokens) when you construct the exception which would be helpful. Secondly, in future you might use a Map implementation which allows null, and then you would lose the error check. The cost is almost nothing, so unless a profiler says it is an inner loop problem I wouldn't worry about it.
In Java you would normally throw an IllegalArgumentException
If you want a guide about how to write good Java code, I can highly recommend the book Effective Java by Joshua Bloch.
It sounds like this might be an appropriate use for an assert:
public void setTokens(Node node, int newTokens) {
assert node != null;
tokens.put(node, newTokens);
}
Your approach depends entirely on what contract your function offers to callers - is it a precondition that node is not null?
If it is then you should throw an exception if node is null, since it is a contract violation. If it isnt then your function should silently handle the null Node and respond appropriately.
I think a lot depends on the contract of the method and how well the caller is known.
At some point in the process the caller could take action to validate the node before calling your method. If you know the caller and know that these nodes are always validated then i think it is ok to assume you'll get good data. Essentially responsibility is on the caller.
However if you are, for example, providing a third party library that is distributed then you need to validate the node for nulls, etcs...
An illegalArugementException is the java standard but is also a RunTimeException. So if you want to force the caller to handle the exception then you need to provided a check exception, probably a custom one you create.
Personally I'd like NullPointerExceptions to ONLY happen by accident, so something else must be used to indicate that an illegal argument value was passed. IllegalArgumentException is fine for this.
if (arg1 == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("arg1 == null");
}
This should be sufficient to both those reading the code, but also the poor soul who gets a support call at 3 in the morning.
(and, ALWAYS provide an explanatory text for your exceptions, you will appreciate them some sad day)
like the other : java.lang.IllegalArgumentException.
About checking null Node, what about checking bad input at the Node creation ?
I don't have to please anybody, so what I do now as canonical code is
void method(String s)
if((s != null) && (s instanceof String) && (s.length() > 0x0000))
{
which gets me a lot of sleep.
Others will disagree.