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
}

Can we combine two methods that differ largely based on type?

I have two similar, but of different types, blocks of code in Java:
private Integer readInteger() {
Integer value = null;
while (value == null) {
if (scanner.hasNextInt()) {
value = scanner.nextInt();
} else {
scanner.next();
}
}
return value;
}
private Double readDouble() {
Double value = null;
while (value == null) {
if (scanner.hasNextDouble()) {
value = scanner.nextDouble();
} else {
scanner.next();
}
}
return value;
}
Is it possible to make just one method which would work for both of them?

I'd say, use a generic method, combined with the functional interfaces introduced in Java 8.
The method read now becomes a higher order function.
private <T> T read(Predicate<Scanner> hasVal, Function<Scanner, T> nextVal) {
T value = null;
while (value == null) {
if (hasVal.test(scanner)) {
value = nextVal.apply(scanner);
} else {
scanner.next();
}
}
return value;
}
Calling code becomes:
read(Scanner::hasNextInt, Scanner::nextInt);
read(Scanner::hasNextDouble, Scanner::nextDouble);
read(Scanner::hasNextFloat, Scanner::nextFloat);
// ...
So the readInteger() method can be adapted as follows:
private Integer readInteger() {
return read(Scanner::hasNextInt, Scanner::nextInt);
}

You could have something with three methods:
One which says if there is a value of the right type
Another which gets the value of the right type.
Another which discards whatever token you have.
For example:
interface Frobnitz<T> {
boolean has();
T get();
void discard();
}
You can pass this into your method:
private <T> T read(Frobnitz<? extends T> frob) {
T value = null;
while (value == null) {
if (frob.has()) {
value = frob.get();
} else {
frob.discard();
}
}
return value;
}
And then just implement Frobnitz for your Double and Integer cases.
To be honest, I'm not sure this gets you very much, especially if you've only got two cases; I'd be inclined just to suck up the small amount of duplication.

A lot of people have answered that you can use generics, but you can also simply remove the readInteger method, and only use the readDouble, as integers can be converted to doubles without data loss.

This is about code duplication.
The general approach is to turn similar code (you have) into equal code that can be extracted to a common parameterized method.
In your case what make the two code snipped differ is the access to methods of Scanner. You have to encapsulate them somehow. I'd suggest to do this with Java8 Functional interfaces like this:
#FunctionalInterface
interface ScannerNext{
boolean hasNext(Scanner scanner);
}
#FunctionalInterface
interface ScannerValue{
Number getNext(Scanner scanner);
}
Then replace the actual invocation of methods in scanner with the functional interface:
private Integer readInteger() {
ScannerNext scannerNext = (sc)->sc.hasNextInt();
ScannerValue scannerValue = (sc)-> sc.nextInt();
Integer value = null;
while (value == null) {
if (scannerNext.hasNext(scanner)) {
value = scannerValue.getNext(scanner);
} else {
scanner.next();
}
}
return value;
}
There is one more problem that the type of the value variable differs. So we replace it with its common supertype:
private Integer readInteger() {
ScannerNext scannerNext = (sc)->sc.hasNextInt();
ScannerValue scannerValue = (sc)-> sc.nextInt();
Number value = null;
while (value == null) {
if (scannerNext.hasNext(scanner)) {
value = scannerValue.getNext(scanner);
} else {
scanner.next();
}
}
return (Integer)value;
}
Now you have to places with a big equal section. You can select one of those sections starting with Number value = null; ending with the } before return ... and invoke your IDEs automated refactoring extract method:
private Number readNumber(ScannerNext scannerNext, ScannerValue scannerValue) {
Number value = null;
while (value == null) {
if (scannerNext.hasNext(scanner)) {
value = scannerValue.getNext(scanner);
} else {
scanner.next();
}
}
return value;
}
private Integer readInteger() {
return (Integer) readNumber( (sc)->sc.hasNextInt(), (sc)-> sc.nextInt());
}
private Double readDouble() {
return (Double) readNumber( (sc)->sc.hasNextDouble(), (sc)-> sc.nextDouble());
}
Comments argue against the use of custom interfaces against predefined interfaces from the JVM.
But my point in this answer was how to turn similar code into equal code so that it can be extracted to a single method rather that giving a concrete solution for this random problem.

Not an ideal solution but it still achieves the necessary removal of duplicate code and has the added benefit of not requiring Java-8.
// This could be done better.
static final Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
enum Read{
Int {
#Override
boolean hasNext() {
return scanner.hasNextInt();
}
#Override
<T> T next() {
return (T)Integer.valueOf(scanner.nextInt());
}
},
Dbl{
#Override
boolean hasNext() {
return scanner.hasNextDouble();
}
#Override
<T> T next() {
return (T)Double.valueOf(scanner.nextDouble());
}
};
abstract boolean hasNext();
abstract <T> T next();
// All share this method.
public <T> T read() {
T v = null;
while (v == null) {
if ( hasNext() ) {
v = next();
} else {
scanner.next();
}
}
return v;
}
}
public void test(String[] args) {
Integer i = Read.Int.read();
Double d = Read.Dbl.read();
}
There are some minor issues with this such as the casting but it should be a reasonable option.

A totally different approach from my other answer (and the other answers): don't use generics, but instead just write the methods more concisely, so you don't really notice the duplication.
TL;DR: rewrite the methods as
while (!scanner.hasNextX()) scanner.next();
return scanner.nextX();
The overall goal - write it as a single method - is only possible if you accept some amount of additional cruft.
Java method signatures do not take into account the return type, so it's not possible to have a next() method return an Integer in one context, and Double in another (short of returning a common supertype).
As such, you have to have something at the call sites to distinguish these cases:
You might consider passing something like Integer.class or Double.class. This does have the advantage that you can use generics to know that the returned value matches that type. But callers could pass in something else: how would you handle Long.class, or String.class? Either you need to handle everything, or you fail at runtime (not a good option). Even with a tighter bound (e.g. Class<? extends Number>), you still need to handle more than Integer and Double.
(Not to mention that writing Integer.class and Double.class everywhere is really verbose)
You might consider doing something like #Ward's answer (which I do like, BTW: if you're going to do it with generics, do it like that), and pass in functional objects which are able to deal with the type of interest, as well as providing the type information to indicate the return type.
But, again, you've got to pass these functional objects in at each call site, which is really verbose.
In taking either of these approaches, you can add helper methods which pass the appropriate parameters to the "generic" read method. But this feels like a backwards step: instead of reducing the number of methods to 1, it's increased to 3.
Additionally, you now have to distinguish these helper methods somehow at the call sites, in order to be able to call the appropriate one:
You could have overloads with a parameter of value type, rather than class type, e.g.
Double read(Double d)
Integer read(Integer d)
and then call like Double d = read(0.0); Integer i = read(0);. But anybody reading this code is going to be left wondering what that magic number in the code is - is there any significance to the 0?
Or, easier, just call the two overloads something different:
Double readDouble()
Integer readInteger()
This is nice and easy: whilst it's slightly more verbose than read(0.0), it's readable; and it's way more concise that read(Double.class).
So, this has got us back to the method signatures in OP's code. But this hopefully justifies why you still want to keep those two methods. Now to address the contents of the methods:
Because Scanner.nextX() doesn't return null values, the method can be rewritten as:
while (!scanner.hasNextX()) scanner.next();
return scanner.nextX();
So, it's really easy to duplicate this for the two cases:
private Integer readInteger() {
while (!scanner.hasNextInt()) scanner.next();
return scanner.nextInt();
}
private Double readDouble() {
while (!scanner.hasNextDouble()) scanner.next();
return scanner.nextDouble();
}
If you want, you could pull out a method dropUntil(Predicate<Scanner>) method to avoid duplicating the loop, but I'm not convinced it really saves you that much.
A single (near-)duplicated line is way less burdensome in your code than all those generics and functional parameters. It's just plain old code, which happens to be more concise (and, likely, more efficient) than "new" ways to write it.
The other advantage of this approach is that you don't have to use boxed types - you can make the methods return int and double, and not have to pay the boxing tax unless you actually need it.
This may not be of advantage to OP, since the original methods do return the boxed type; I don't know if this is genuinely desired, or merely an artefact of the way the loop was written. However, it is useful in general not to create those objects unless you really need them.

Reflection is an alternative if you don't care about performance.
private <T> T read(String type) throws Exception {
Method readNext = Scanner.class.getMethod("next" + type);
Method hasNext = Scanner.class.getMethod("hasNext" + type);
T value = null;
while (value == null) {
if ((Boolean) hasNext.invoke(scanner)) {
value = (T) readNext.invoke(scanner);
} else {
scanner.next();
}
}
return value;
}
Then you call
Integer i = read("Int");

Decrease and Increase Enum value [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What's the best way to implement `next` and `previous` on an enum type?
(7 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I would like to create a method called increaseValue, which it's signature is as following:
public Size increaseValue(Size s)
Also I have the following statement:
protected enum Size {XS, S, M, L, XL}
I need to know, how can I make the method return correct value (i.e. XL when input is L... etc.) while not using Switch-Case statement ?
Thanks !

You could assume they are in increasing ordinal() order. I would add this a method on Size.
protected enum Size {
XS, S, M, L, XL;
static final Size[] VALUES = values();
public Size incrementSize() { return VALUES[ordinal()+1]; }
public Size decrementSize() { return VALUES[ordinal()-1]; }
}
Note: I wouldn't assume that XS is after XL, but rather you get an error (though not a very clear one)
Note: every time you call values() it creates a new array. It has to do this because the array is mutable and you might change it. I highly recommend saving a copy and avoid calling values() each time.
You can make the error messages clearer by overriding those methods.
protected enum Size {
XS {
public Size decrementSize() { throw new UnsupportedOperationException("No smaller size"); }
},
S,
M,
L,
XL {
public Size incrementSize() { throw new UnsupportedOperationException("No larger size"); }
};
static final Size[] VALUES = values();
public Size incrementSize() { return VALUES[ordinal()+1]; }
public Size decrementSize() { return VALUES[ordinal()-1]; }
}

Here's why you should not do it: if you perform arithmetic on your enum, you can end up with invalid values, for instance what would happen if you added one to XL?
Here's how you do it:
Size.values()[s.ordinal()+1]

In good OO design you want to internalize such things. Meaning: you want to provide a method like "nextSize()" within that enum, like:
public enum Size {
XS, ...;
public Size nextSize() {
switch (this) ...
In this situation, the values are probably "fixed"; but in other situations, you might later want to insert new constants; thus I prefer an explicit mapping here; instead of relying on calls to ordinal().
And as mentioned in the other answers: you need to define what largestSize().nextSize() means. It could throw an exception, or return null (baaad idea). Alternatively, that method could return Optional<Size>; to make it clear to the caller that this method doesn't always return a valid result.

public Size increaseValue(Size s) {
Size[] allValues = Size.values();
var newOrdinal = s.ordinal() + 1;
return (newOrdinal >= allValues.length) ? null) : allValues[newOrdinal];
}
public Size decreaseValue(Size s) {
var newOrdinal = s.ordinal() - 1;
return (newOrdinal < 0) ? null : values()[newOrdinal];
}

You van modify this enum like this:
protected enum Size {
XS,(1)
S(2),
M(3),
L(4),
XL(5);
private int sizeNo;
Size(int sizeNo) {this.sizeNo = sizeNo;}
Size getBySizeNo(int sizeNo){
for(size : Size.values()) {
if (sizeNo == size.getSizeNo() ) {
return size;
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException() ;
}
public Size increaseValue(Size s){
return getBySizeNo(s.getSizeNo() +1) ;
}
}

Try this:
public Size increaseValue(Size s) {
return Size.values()[s.ordinal() + 1]
}

Java - Better idiom for my control flow

I'd like to call a method that either returns false, or an integer. At the moment my code is:
int winningID = -1;
if((ID = isThereAWinner()) != -1) {
// use the winner's ID
} else {
// there's no winner, do something else
}
private int isThereAWinner() {
// if a winner is found
return winnersID;
// else
return -1;
}
I don't like the if((ID = isThereAWinner()) != -1) bit as it doesn't read very well, but unlike C you can't represent booleans as integers in Java. Is there a better way to do this?

I would use something similar to Mat's answer:
class Result {
public static Result withWinner(int winner) {
return new Result(winner);
}
public static Result withoutWinner() {
return new Result(NO_WINNER);
}
private static final int NO_WINNER = -1;
private int winnerId;
private Result(int id) {
winnerId = id;
}
private int getWinnerId() {
return winnerId;
}
private boolean hasWinner() {
return winnerId != NO_WINNER;
}
}
This class hides the implementation details of how you actually represent if there were no winner at all.
Then in your winner finding method:
private Result isThereAWinner() {
// if a winner is found
return Result.withWinner(winnersID);
// else
return Result.withoutWinner();
}
And in your calling method:
Result result = isThereAWinner();
if(result.hasWinner()) {
int id = result.getWinnerId();
} else {
// do something else
}
It may seem a little bit too complex, but this approach is more flexible if there would be other result options in the future.

What about something like:
private int getWinnerId() {
// return winner id or -1
}
private boolean isValidId(int id) {
return id != -1; // or whatever
}
int winnerId = getWinnerId();
if (isValidId(winnerId)) {
...
} else {
...
}
This is all quite subjective of course, but you usually expect an isFoo method to provide only a yes/no "answer".

The problem is you are trying to return two values at once. The approach you have taken is the simplest for this. If you want a more OO or design pattern approach I would use a listener pattern.
interface WinnerListener {
void onWinner(Int winnerId);
void noWinner();
}
checkWinner(new WinnerListener() {
// handle either action
});
private void checkWinner(WinnerListener wl) {
// if a winner is found
wl.onWinner(winnersID);
// else
wl.noWinner();
}
This approach works well with complex events like multiple arguments and multiple varied events. e.g. You could have multiple winners, or other types of events.

I'm afraid not. To avoid errors caused by mistaking if(a == b) for if(a = b), Java removes the conversion between boolean type and number types. Maybe you can try exceptions instead, but I think exception is somewhat more troublesome. (My English is not quite good. I wonder if I've made it clear...)

Perhaps you may wish to consider exceptions to help you with your understanding of asthetics of coding.

Use Integer instead of int and return null instead of -1. Look from this point: "I am returning not integer, but some object that represents winner identity. No winner - no instance"

Joe another suggestion, this is constructed based on #Mat and #buc mentioned little while ago, again this is all subjective of course I'm not sure what the rest of your class/logic is. You could introduce an enum with different ResultStatuses if it makes sense within the context of your code/exmaple.
As Matt mentioned you would expect isValid method to return a boolean yes/no (some may also complain of readability)
public enum ResultStatus {
WINNER, OTHER, UNLUCKY
}
This could be an overkill as well and depends on the rest of your logic (and if logic is expanding) but I thought I'll suggest nonetheless my two cents! So therefore in your public class (similar to #bloc suggested) you could have a method such as below that will return the status of the result checked.
public ResultStatus getResultStatus() {
if (isWinner()) {
return ResultStatus.WINNER;
} else {
return isOtherCheck() ? ResultStatus.OTHER : ResultStatus.UNLUCKY;
}
}

How to return a flag plus an optional message in Java?

I want to write a method in Java that verifies that some conditions hold on some data, and acknowledges that the data is valid or produces an appropriate error message otherwise.
The problem is that we cannot return more than one thing from a method, so I'm wondering what the best solution is (in terms of readability and maintainability).
First solution. Easy, but we cannot know what exactly made the check fail:
boolean verifyLimits1(Set<Integer> values, int maxValue) {
for (Integer value : values) {
if (value > maxValue) {
return false; // Out of limits
}
}
return true; // All values are OK
}
Second solution. We have the message, but we are using exceptions in a way that we shouldn't (besides, it should probably be a domain-specific checked exception, too much overhead IMO):
void verifyLimits2(Set<Integer> values, int maxValue) {
for (Integer value : values) {
if (value > maxValue) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("The value " + value + " exceeds the maximum value");
}
}
}
Third solution. We have a detailed message, but the contract is not clean: we make the client check whether the String is empty (for which he needs to read the javadoc).
String verifyLimits3(Set<Integer> values, int maxValue) {
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
for (Integer value : values) {
if (value > maxValue) {
builder.append("The value " + value + " exceeds the maximum value/n");
}
}
return builder.toString();
}
Which solution would you recommend? Or is there a better one (hopefully!)?
(Note: I made up this little example, my real use case concerns complex conditions on heterogeneous data, so don't focus on this concrete example and propose Collections.max(values) > maxValue ? "Out of range." : "All fine." :-).)

If you need more than a single value you should return a simple class instance instead. Here is an example of what we use in some cases:
public class Validation {
private String text = null;
private ValidationType type = ValidationType.OK;
public Validation(String text, ValidationType type) {
super();
this.text = text;
this.type = type;
}
public String getText() {
return text;
}
public ValidationType getType() {
return type;
}
}
This uses a simple Enumeration for the type:
public enum ValidationType {
OK, HINT, ERROR;
}
A validator method could look like this:
public Validation validateSomething() {
if (condition) {
return new Validation("msg.key", ValidationType.ERROR);
}
return new Validation(null, ValidationType.OK);
}
That's it.

The solution is simple: create a custom VerificationResult class. It can have a boolean status flag and a String message field, among other things you may want to add. Instead of returning either a String or a boolean, return a VerificationResult.
Also, depending on context, throwing an exception may actually end up being the right thing to do. This has to be considered on a case-by-case basis based on concrete scenarios, though.
Alternative solution: a last error query
Another option you can use is to have the verification return a boolean, and have a separate method e.g. String whatWentWrongLastTime() that a user can query in case false is returned. You'd have to be very careful with any concurrency issues etc. that may overwrite the "last" verification error.
This is the approach taken by e.g. java.util.Scanner, which does NOT throw any IOException (except for the constructors). To query if something "went wrong", you can query its ioException() method, which returns the last IOException, or null if there wasn't any.

IllegalArgumentException is the way to go if it really means that: You make some demands to the caller of the method (the contract) but they are ignored. In this case an IAE is appropriate.
If that doesn't reflect your use case, I'd use one of the solutions of the others.

Another approach - use a Status object:
public class Status {
public final static Status OK = new Status("OK");
private String message;
public Status(String message) { this.message = message; }
public String getMessage() { return message; }
}
To Verify, either return Status.OK if the input is valid or create a new Status message.
public Status validate(Integer input, int maxValue){
if (input > maxValue) {
return new Status(
String.format("%s value out of limits (maxValue=%s)", input, maxValue);
}
return Status.OK;
}
Using the verifier is simple as that:
Status status = validate(i, 512);
if (status != Status.OK) {
// handle the error
}

I think the best solution is to create your own exception that holds as much error description information as you want. It should not be a RuntimeException subclass; you want callers to have to deal with a failure to validate, because too many programmers fail to put in error handling. By making failure a checked exception, you force them (you?) to put at least something in, and code review can relatively easily pick up if they're being stupid about it. I know it's bureaucratic, but it improves code quality in the long run.
Once you've done that, consider whether you need to return a value on successful validation or not. Only return a value if that value contains information other than “oh, I've got here now” (which is obvious from the program flow). If you do need to return a result, and it needs to be a complex result, by all means use a custom class instance to hold it! To not do that is just refusing to use the facilities that the language gives you.

In this case, the method returning 'false' looks like a business logic result rather than a real Exception. So verifyLimits should return a result anyway rather than throwing an Exception when 'false'.
class VerifyLimitsResult{
//Ignore get, set methods
Integer maxValue;
Integer value;
public VerifyLimitsResult(Integer maxValue, Integer value) {
this.maxValue = maxValue;
this.value = value;
}
public boolean isOK(){
return value==null;
}
public String getValidationInfo(){
if(isOK()){
return "Fine";
}else{
return "The value " + value + " exceeds the maximum value/n"
}
}
}
....
VerifyLimitsResult verifyLimits4(Set<Integer> values, int maxValue) {
for (Integer value : values) {
if (value > maxValue) {
return new VerifyLimitsResult(maxValue, value);
}
}
return new VerifyLimitsResult(maxValue, null);
}

If you check a reasonable amount of items and be concerned about the number of objects you create to return the result, there's an alternative with interface.
First you create an interfaceto be called whenever the limit is violated:
// A simple listener to be implemented by the calling method.
public interface OutOfLimitListener {
// Called whenever a limit is violated.
public void outOfLimit(int value, int maxValue);
// ... Add additional results as parameters
// ... Add additional states as methods
}
You can add parameters and/or methods. For example the actual position of the violating value could be a parameter. As antother example add a method that is called at the end of each test with parameters for the number of checks and the number of violates.
An implementation of this interface is passed as argument to your checking method. It calls the listener every time one of the limits is violated:
private boolean verifyLimits(Set<Integer> values, int maxValue, OutOfLimitListener listener) {
boolean result = true; // Assume all values are OK
for (Integer value : values) {
if (value > maxValue) {
listener.outOfLimit(value, maxValue);
result = false; // At least one was out of limits
}
}
return result;
}
And finally you use this method just by implementening the interface:
#Test
public final void test() throws IOException, InterruptedException {
// Make up a test set of random numbers
Set<Integer> testSet = new HashSet<Integer>();
for(int i=0; i<10; i++) testSet.add((int) (Math.random() * 100));
// Implement the interface once with appropriate reaction to an out-of-limit condition
OutOfLimitListener listener = new OutOfLimitListener() {
#Override
public void outOfLimit(int value, int maxValue) {
System.out.printf("The value %d exceeds the maximum value %d\n", value, maxValue);
}
};
// Call verification
verifyLimits(testSet, 50, listener);
}
Android and other GUI Interfaces use this pattern heavily. For me, it got the prefered method when the result contains more then one value.

Create your own custom unchecked exception that extends from RuntimeException.

You can use simple Key-Value, by using HashMap, of course with predefined keys.
Return the HashMap for further processing.

I would vote for the second solution (either using IllegalArgumentException or defining a specific one).
Generally good practice is ensuring that any return value from a method can safely be ignored (because some day somebody will forget to check it anyway) and, in cases when ignoring a return value is unsafe, it's always better to throw/catch an exception.

You could return the flag as a boolean and log the results of tests that don't verify, you'll want to log them anyhow...
presuming you'll be checking millions of values.