I'm looking for a Google Collections method that returns the first result of a sequence of Suppliers that doesn't return null.
I was looking at using Iterables.find() but in my Predicate I would have to call my supplier to compare the result against null, and then have to call it again once the find method returned the supplier.
Given your comment to Calm Storm's answer (the desire not to call Supplier.get() twice), then what about:
private static final Function<Supplier<X>, X> SUPPLY = new Function<....>() {
public X apply(Supplier<X> in) {
// If you will never have a null Supplier, you can skip the test;
// otherwise, null Supplier will be treated same as one that returns null
// from get(), i.e. skipped
return (in == null) ? null : in.get();
}
}
then
Iterable<Supplier<X>> suppliers = ... wherever this comes from ...
Iterable<X> supplied = Iterables.transform(suppliers, SUPPLY);
X first = Iterables.find(supplied, Predicates.notNull());
note that the Iterable that comes out of Iterables.transform() is lazily-evaluated, therefore as Iterables.find() loops over it, you only evaluate as far as the first non-null-returning one, and that only once.
You asked for how to do this using Google Collections, but here's how you would do it without using Google Collections. Compare it to Cowan's answer (which is a good answer) -- which is easier to understand?
private static Thing findThing(List<Supplier<Thing>> thingSuppliers) {
for (Supplier<Thing> supplier : thingSuppliers) {
Thing thing = supplier.get();
if (thing != null) {
return thing;
}
}
// throw exception or return null
}
In place of the comment -- if this was the fault of the caller of your class, throw IllegalArgumentException or IllegalStateException as appropriate; if this shouldn't have ever happened, use AssertionError; if it's a normal occurrence your code that invokes this expects to have to check for, you might return null.
What is wrong with this?
List<Supplier> supplierList = //somehow get the list
Supplier s = Iterables.find(supplierList, new Predicate<Supplier>(){
boolean apply(Supplier supplier) {
return supplier.isSomeMethodCall() == null;
}
boolean equals(Object o) {
return false;
}
});
Are you trying to save some lines? The only optimisation I can think is to static import the find so you can get rid of "Iterables". Also the predicate is an anonymous inner class, if you need it in more than one place you can create a class and it would look as,
List<Supplier> supplierList = //somehow get the list
Supplier s = find(supplierList, new SupplierPredicateFinder());
Where SupplierPredicateFinder is another class.
UPDATE : In that case find is the wrong method. You actually need a custom function like this which can return two values. If you are using commons-collections then you can use a DefaultMapEntry or you can simply return an Object[2] or a Map.Entry.
public static DefaultMapEntry getSupplier(List<Supplier> list) {
for(Supplier s : list) {
Object heavyObject = s.invokeCostlyMethod();
if(heavyObject != null) {
return new DefaultMapEntry(s, heavyObject);
}
}
}
Replace the DefaultMapEntry with a List of size 2 or a hashmap of size 1 or an array of length 2 :)
Related
I have this situation many times in my code,
I have a method for example such as:
private Object doSomething(){
//Do something
doSomething ? return Object : return null;
}
This is just an example, then in the main body of my code I need to check that this doesn't return null before I do something else. For example:
if(doSomething() != null){
Object object = doSomething();
From a performance perspective this method is being asked to run twice, once to check it doesn't return null and next to assign the new variable as long as it returns a valid object.
Is there a way to develop this code where this double running doesn't have to take place. Bearing in mind that the check to make sure the object is valid is important in the code.
Just reverse the process. First assign the result of that call to a variable, then check if the variable is null.
Object object = doSomething();
if (object != null) {
// do whatever with object
} else {
// do something else
}
It is worth noting that the problem with multiple calls to doSomething may not only be a performance penalty. It could also be a problem if:
doSomething has side effects, for example if it inserts a row in a database, in which case calling it twice will insert two rows.
doSomething depends on some external state which may change between invocations.
Consider using Optional rather than returning null (introduced with Java 8).
public Optional<Object> doSomething() {
return Optional.ofNullable(someData);
}
When invoked, you have an Optional reference that may (or may not) have contents.
Optional<Object> maybeSomething = doSomething();
if (maybeSomething.isPresent()) {
Object someData = maybeSomething.get();
System.out.println("SomeData = "+someData);
}
Optional blends well with lambda so you could rewrite that as..
Optional<Object> maybeSomething = doSomething();
maybeSomething.ifPresent(someData -> System.out.println("SomeData = " + someData);
or, if you don't need to do more work with someData you could even do
doSomething().ifPresent(someData -> System.out.println("SomeData = " + someData);
I am currently using HibernateConstraintValidator to implement my validations. But my reviewer is not fine with having if/else in code or ! operators. Which design pattern can I use to remove the if/else in my validation logic?
public class SomeValidatorX implements ConstraintValidator<SomeAnnotation, UUID> {
#Autowired
SomeRepository someRepository;
#Override
public boolean isValid(UUID uuid, ConstraintValidationContext context) {
return !(uuid!=null && someRepository.existsById(uuid)); //The reviewer doesn't want this negation operator
}
}
And in below code, he doesn't want if/else
public class SomeValidatorY implements ConstraintValidator<SomeAnnotation, SomeClass> {
#Autowired
SomeRepository someRepository;
#Override
public boolean isValid(SomeClass someObject, ConstraintValidationContext context) {
if(someObject.getFieldA() != null) { //He doesn't want this if statement
//do some operations
List<Something> someList = someRepository.findByAAndB(someObject.getFieldA(),B);
return !someList.isEmpty(); //He doesn't want this ! operator
}
return false; // He was not fine with else statement in here as well
}
}
Side Note: We have to use Domain Driven Design (if it helps)
A long time ago, in the beginning of time. There was a guideline that said that methods should only have one exit point. To achieve that, developers had to track the local state and use if/else to be able to reach the end of the method.
Today we know better. By exiting a method as early as possible it's much easier to keep the entire flow in our head while reading the code. Easier code means less mistakes. Less mistakes equals less bugs.
In my opinion, that's why the reviewer doesn't like the code. It's not as easy to read as it could be.
Let's take the first example:
public boolean isValid(UUID uuid, ConstraintValidationContext context) {
return !(uuid!=null && someRepository.existsById(uuid)); //The reviewer doesn't want this negation operator
}
What the code says is "not this: (uuid should not be empty and it must exist)". Is that easy to understand? I think not.
The alternative: "Its OK if uuid do not exist, but if it do, the item may not exist".
Or in code:
if (uuid == null) return true;
return !someRepository.existsById(uuid);
Much easier to read, right? (I hope that I got the intention correct ;))
Second example
if(someObject.getFieldA() != null) { //He doesn't want this if statement
//do some operations
List<Something> someList = someRepository.findByAAndB(someObject.getFieldA(),B);
return !someList.isEmpty(); //He doesn't want this ! operator
}
return false; // He was not fine with else statement in here as well
Ok. Here you are saying:
If field A is not null:
Build a list where A and b is found
If that list is not empty fail, otherwise succeed.
Otherwise fail
A easier way to conclude that is to simply say:
It's ok if field A is not specified
If field A is specified it must exist in combination with B.
Translated to code:
if (someObject.getFieldA() == null)
return true;
return !someRepository.findByAAndB(someObject.getFieldA(),B).isEmpty();
In C# we have Any() which is opposite to isEmpty which I would prefer in this case as it removes the negation.
Sometimes negations are required. It doesn't make sense to write a new method in the repository to avoid it. However, if findByAAndB is only used by this I would rename it to ensureCombination(a,b) so that it can return true for the valid case.
Try to write code as you talk, it makes it much easier to create a mental picture of the code then. You aren't saying "Im not full, lets go to lunch", are you? ;)
You can check the Null-object pattern.
The general pattern is to ban null completely from your code. This eliminates the ugly null checks. In this point I agree with your code reviewer.
Following the below recommendations will result in:
public boolean isValid(SomeClass someObject, ConstraintValidationContext context) {
return someRepository.containsAAndB(someObject.getFieldA(), B);
}
Avoid null checks
Before introducing the Null-object pattern, simply apply the pattern or convention to enforce initialization of all references. This way you can be sure that there are no null references in your entire code.
So when you encounter a NullPointerException, you don't solve the issue by introducing a null check, but by initializing the reference (on construction) e.g., by using default values, empty collections or null objects.
Most modern languages support code analysis via annotations like #NonNull that checks references like arguments and will throw an exception, when a parameter is null/not initialized. javax.annotation for instance provides such annotations.
public void operation(#NonNull Object param) {
param.toString(); // Guaranteed to be not null
}
Using such annotations can guard library code against null arguments.
Null-Object Pattern
Instead of having null references, you initialize each reference with a meaningful value or a dedicated null-object:
Define the Null-object contract (not required):
interface NullObject {
public boolean getIsNull();
}
Define a base type:
abstract class Account {
private double value;
private List<Owner> owners;
// Getters/setters
}
Define the Null-object:
class NullAccount extends Account implements NullObject {
// Initialize ALL attributes with meaningful and *neutral* values
public NullAccount() {
setValue(0); //
setOwners(new ArrayList<Owner>())
#Override
public boolean getIsNull() {
return true;
}
}
Define the default implementation:
class AccountImpl extends Account implements NullObject {
#Override
public boolean getIsNull() {
return true;
}
}
Initialize all Account references using the NullAccount class:
class Employee {
private Account Account;
public Employee() {
setAccount(new NullAccount());
}
}
Or use the NullAccount to return a failed state instance (or default) instead of returning null:
public Account findAccountOf(Owner owner) {
if (notFound) {
return new NullAccount();
}
}
public void testNullAccount() {
Account result = findAccountOf(null); // Returns a NullAccount
// The Null-object is neutral. We can use it without null checking.
// result.getOwners() always returns
// an empty collection (NullAccount) => no iteration => neutral behavior
for (Owner owner : result.getOwners()) {
double total += result.getvalue(); // No side effect.
}
}
Try-Do Pattern
Another pattern you can use is the Try-Do pattern. Instead of testing the result of an operation you simply test the operation itself. The operation is responsible to return whether the operation was successful or not.
When searching a text for a string, it might be more convenient to return a boolean whether the result was found instead of returning an empty string or even worse null:
public boolean tryFindInText(String source, String searchKey, SearchResult result) {
int matchIndex = source.indexOf(searchKey);
result.setMatchIndex(matchIndex);
return matchIndex > 0;
}
public void useTryDo() {
SearchResult result = new Searchresult();
if (tryFindInText("Example text", "ample", result) {
int index = result.getMatchIndex();
}
}
In your special case, you can replace the findByAAndB() with an containsAAndB() : boolean implementation.
Combining the patterns
The final solution implements the Null-Object pattern and refactors the find method. The result of the original findByAAndB() was discarded before, since you wanted to test the existence of A and B. A alternative method public boolean contains() will improve your code.
The refactored implementation looks as followed:
abstract class FieldA {
}
class NullFieldA {
}
class FieldAImpl {
}
class SomeClass {
public SomeClass() {
setFieldA(new NullFieldA());
}
}
The improved validation:
public boolean isValid(SomeClass someObject, ConstraintValidationContext context) {
return someRepository.containsAAndB(someObject.getFieldA(), B);
}
You can try this
return Optional.ofNullable(uuid)
.map(someRepository::existsById)
.orElse(false);
I was refactoring some old code of mine that I've written and I stumbeled on this code:
List<OcmImageData> fullImagePool = new ArrayList<>();
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(style.getTestMH())) {
fullImagePool.addAll(style.getTestMH());
}
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(style.getTrousers())) {
fullImagePool.addAll(style.getTrousers());
}
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(style.getDetailRevers())) {
fullImagePool.addAll(style.getDetailRevers());
}
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(style.getDetailCuffs())) {
fullImagePool.addAll(style.getDetailCuffs());
}
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(style.getDetailInner())) {
fullImagePool.addAll(style.getDetailInner());
}
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(style.getDetailMaterial())) {
fullImagePool.addAll(style.getDetailMaterial());
}
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(style.getComposing())) {
fullImagePool.addAll(style.getComposing());
}
...
So basically I need to create an ArrayList which contains all Lists here referenced, because those can be null (they are fetched out of the database from an closed sourced framework, and unfortunately its null if he doesn't find anything), I need to check everytime if the collection is not null to add them into this pool which looks just weird.
Is there a library or Collection-Framework utility class that gives me the posibility to add a collection to another without performing the null-safe check?
In Java 8 Use below code:-
Optional.ofNullable(listToBeAdded).ifPresent(listToBeAddedTo::addAll)
listToBeAdded - The list whose elements are to be added.
listToBeAddedTo - The list to which you are adding elements using addAll.
Just write a small utility method:
public static <E> void addAllIfNotNull(List<E> list, Collection<? extends E> c) {
if (c != null) {
list.addAll(c);
}
}
so that you can write:
List<OcmImageData> fullImagePool = new ArrayList<>();
addAllIfNotNull(fullImagePool, style.getTestMH());
addAllIfNotNull(fullImagePool, style.getTrousers());
addAllIfNotNull(fullImagePool, style.getDetailRevers());
// ...etc
Using Java 8:
List<OcmImageData> fullImagePool = Stream.of(style.getTestMH(), /* etc */)
.filter(Objects::nonNull)
.flatMap(l -> l.stream())
.collect(Collectors.toList());
This refactors cleanly to
for (OcmImageData elem : new List<OcmImageData>[] { style.getTestMH(), style.getTrousers() /* etc */}) {
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(elem)) {
fullImagePull.addAll(elem);
}
}
To answer your original question, no, you will have to do your own null check. You can see Guava's methods will throw an NPE, and Apache's methods explicitly require the input to be not null.
In code we have got a lot of chain methods, for example obj.getA().getB().getC().getD(). I want to create helper class which will check if method getD() isn't null, but before that I need to check all previous getters. I can do it in this way:
try {
obj.getA().getB().getC().getD();
}
catch (NullPointerException e) {
// some getter is null
}
or (which is "silly")
if (obj!null && obj.getA()!=null && obj.getA().getB()!=null && ...) {
obj.getA().getB().getC().getD();
}
else {
// some getter is null
}
I don't want to check it every time using try{} catch() in my code. What is the best solution for this purpose?
I think that the best will be:
obj.getA().getB().getC().getD().isNull() - for this purpose I will need to change all of my getters, for example implement some interface which contains isNull() method.
NullObjectHelper.isNull(obj.getA().getB().getC().getD()); - this will be the best (I think so) but how to implement this?
As of Java 8 you can use methods like Optional.isPresent and Optional.orElse to handle null in getter chains:
boolean dNotNull = Optional.ofNullable(obj)
.map(Obj::getA)
.map(A::getB)
.map(B::getC)
.map(C::getD)
.isPresent();
While this is preferable to catching NullPointerException the downside of this approach is the object allocations for Optional instances.
It is possible to write your own static methods that perform similar operations without this overhead:
boolean dNotNull = Nulls.isNotNull(obj, Obj::getA, A::getB, B::getC, C::getD);
For a sample implementation, see the Nullifier type here.
No approach is likely to have greater runtime efficiency than nested if-not-null checks.
You can achieve the desired result with Option pattern. This enforces you to change a method signature, but basically if your method returns some type T, it guarantees it has some non-null value, and if it returnsOption<T> it means it either has value T, or null.
Java 7 had some feature called null safety, but it was removed from the final release. You could do:
obj?.getA()?.getB()?.getC()?.getD()
Moreover, Java 8 will add a feature called Optional so you would do it safely.
In fact, if you really want to use that now, try Null Object pattern. It means that instead of returning plain null you can return some sort of default value, which won't trigger NullPointerException. Though, you need add some changes to your getters
class Object {
A getA() {
// ...
return a == null ? A.NULL : a;
}
}
class A {
static A NULL = new A(); // some default behaviour
B getB() {
if (this == NULL) return B.NULL;
// ...
return b == null ? B.NULL : b;
}
}
EDIT: If you want utility to do it you can wrap it in some functional interface and then call it.
static boolean isNullResult(Callable call) throws Exception {
try {
return call.call() == null;
} catch (NullPointerException npe) {
return true;
}
}
Usage will be the following:
isNullResult(new Callable<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer call() throws Exception {
return new A().getB().getC().getInt();
}
});
It won't require you to change existing functionality
As already stated, the true solution is refactoring.
In the meantime, you could just wrap your first workaround in a function:
static D getD(MyClass obj) {
try {
return obj.getA().getB().getC().getD();
}
catch (NullPointerException e) {
return null; // Or even better, some default D
}
}
At the caller site:
D d = getD(obj);
At least you don't have to trash the caller with try-catch blocks. You still need to handle the errors somehow, when some of the intermediate getX() call returns a null and so d becomes null. The best would be to return some default D in the wrapper function.
I don't see how the two options you list at the end of your question would help if any of the intermediate getX() returns a null; you will get a NullPointerException.
Before calling a function of an object, I need to check if the object is null, to avoid throwing a NullPointerException.
What is the best way to go about this? I've considered these methods.
Which one is the best programming practice for Java?
// Method 1
if (foo != null) {
if (foo.bar()) {
etc...
}
}
// Method 2
if (foo != null ? foo.bar() : false) {
etc...
}
// Method 3
try {
if (foo.bar()) {
etc...
}
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
}
// Method 4 -- Would this work, or would it still call foo.bar()?
if (foo != null && foo.bar()) {
etc...
}
Method 4 is best.
if(foo != null && foo.bar()) {
someStuff();
}
will use short-circuit evaluation, meaning it ends if the first condition of a logical AND is false.
The last and the best one. i.e LOGICAL AND
if (foo != null && foo.bar()) {
etc...
}
Because in logical &&
it is not necessary to know what the right hand side is, the result must be false
Prefer to read :Java logical operator short-circuiting
Since java 8 you can use Objects.nonNull(Object obj)
if(nonNull(foo)){
//
}
Do not catch NullPointerException. That is a bad practice. It is better to ensure that the value is not null.
Method #4 will work for you. It will not evaluate the second condition, because Java has short-circuiting (i.e., subsequent conditions will not be evaluated if they do not change the end-result of the boolean expression). In this case, if the first expression of a logical AND evaluates to false, subsequent expressions do not need to be evaluated.
Method 4 is far and away the best as it clearly indicates what will happen and uses the minimum of code.
Method 3 is just wrong on every level. You know the item may be null so it's not an exceptional situation it's something you should check for.
Method 2 is just making it more complicated than it needs to be.
Method 1 is just method 4 with an extra line of code.
In Java 7, you can use Objects.requireNonNull().
Add an import of Objects class from java.util.
public class FooClass {
//...
public void acceptFoo(Foo obj) {
//If obj is null, NPE is thrown
Objects.requireNonNull(obj).bar(); //or better requireNonNull(obj, "obj is null");
}
//...
}
As others have said #4 is the best method when not using a library method. However you should always put null on the left side of the comparison to ensure you don't accidentally assign null to foo in case of typo. In that case the compiler will catch the mistake.
// You meant to do this
if(foo != null){
// But you made a typo like this which will always evaluate to true
if(foo = null)
// Do the comparison in this way
if(null != foo)
// So if you make the mistake in this way the compiler will catch it
if(null = foo){
// obviously the typo is less obvious when doing an equality comparison but it's a good habit either way
if(foo == null){
if(foo = null){
I would say method 4 is the most general idiom from the code that I've looked at. But this always feels a bit smelly to me. It assumes foo == null is the same as foo.bar() == false.
That doesn't always feel right to me.
Method 4 is my preferred method. The short circuit of the && operator makes the code the most readable. Method 3, Catching NullPointerException, is frowned upon most of the time when a simple null check would suffice.
Simple one line Code to check for null :
namVar == null ? codTdoForNul() : codTdoForFul();
Update
I created a java library(Maven Dependency) for the java developers to remove this NullPointerException Hell from their code.
Check out my repository.
NullUtil Repository
Generic Method to handle Null Values in Java
<script src="https://gist.github.com/rcvaram/f1a1b89193baa1de39121386d5f865bc.js"></script>
If that object is not null we are going to do the following things.
a. We can mutate the object (I)
b. We can return something(O) as output instead of mutating the object (I)
c. we can do both
In this case, We need to pass a function which needs to take the input param(I) which is our object If we take it like that, then we can mutate that object if we want. and also that function may be something (O).
If an object is null then we are going to do the following things
a. We may throw an exception in a customized way
b. We may return something.
In this case, the object is null so we need to supply the value or we may need to throw an exception.
I take two examples.
If I want to execute trim in a String then that string should not be null. In that case, we have to additionally check the null value otherwise we will get NullPointerException
public String trimValue(String s){
return s == null ? null : s.trim();
}
Another function which I want to set a new value to object if that object is not null otherwise I want to throw a runtime exception.
public void setTeacherAge(Teacher teacher, int age){
if (teacher != null){
teacher.setAge(age);
} else{
throw new RuntimeException("teacher is null")
}
}
With my Explanation, I have created a generic method that takes the value(value may be null), a function that will execute if the object is not null and another supplier function that will execute if the object is null.
GenericFunction
public <I, O> O setNullCheckExecutor(I value, Function<I, O> nonNullExecutor, Supplier<O> nullExecutor) {
return value != null ? nonNullExecutor.apply(value) : nullExecutor.get();
}
So after having this generic function, we can do as follow for the example methods
1.
//To Trim a value
String trimmedValue = setNullCheckExecutor(value, String::trim, () -> null);
Here, the nonNullExecutor Function is trim the value (Method Reference is used). nullExecutorFunction is will return null since It is an identity function.
2.
// mutate the object if not null otherwise throw a custom message runtime exception instead of NullPointerException
setNullCheckExecutor(teacher, teacher -> {
teacher.setAge(19);
return null;
}, () -> {
throw new RuntimeException("Teacher is null");
});
Correction: This is only true for C/C++ not for Java, sorry.
If at all you going to check with double equal "==" then check null with object ref like
if(null == obj)
instead of
if(obj == null)
because if you mistype single equal if(obj = null) it will return true (assigning object returns success (which is 'true' in value).
You also can use ObjectUtils.isNotEmpty() to check if an Object is not empty and not null.
If you control the API being called, consider using Guava's Optional class
More info here. Change your method to return an Optional<Boolean> instead of a Boolean.
This informs the calling code that it must account for the possibility of null, by calling one of the handy methods in Optional
if you do not have an access to the commons apache library, the following probably will work ok
if(null != foo && foo.bar()) {
//do something
}
Your last proposal is the best.
if (foo != null && foo.bar()) {
etc...
}
Because:
It is easier to read.
It is safe : foo.bar() will never be executed if foo == null.
It prevents from bad practice such as catching NullPointerExceptions (most of the time due to a bug in your code)
It should execute as fast or even faster than other methods (even though I think it should be almost impossible to notice it).
We can use Object.requireNonNull static method of Object class. Implementation is below
public void someMethod(SomeClass obj) {
Objects.requireNonNull(obj, "Validation error, obj cannot be null");
}
public <T, U> U defaultGet(T supplier, Function<T, U> mapper, U defaultValue) {
return Optional.ofNullable(supplier).map(mapper).orElse(defaultValue);
}
You can create this function if you prefer function programming
Allot of times I look for null when processing a function -
public static void doSomething(Object nullOrNestedObject) {
if (nullOrNestedObject == null || nullOrNestedObject.getNestedObject()) {
log.warn("Invalid argument !" );
return;
// Or throw an exception
// throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid argument!");
}
nullOrNestedObject.getNestedObject().process()
... // Do other function stuff
}
That way if it is null it just stops execution early, and you don't have to nest all of your logic in an if.