Develop Reference

Java records with nullable components

I really like the addition of records in Java 14, at least as a preview feature, as it helps to reduce my need to use lombok for simple, immutable "data holders". But I'm having an issue with the implementation of nullable components. I'm trying to avoid returning null in my codebase to indicate that a value might not be present. Therefore I currently often use something like the following pattern with lombok.
#Value
public class MyClass {
String id;
#Nullable String value;
Optional<String> getValue() { // overwrite the generated getter
return Optional.ofNullable(this.value);
}
}
When I try the same pattern now with records, this is not allowed stating incorrect component accessor return type.
record MyRecord (String id, #Nullable String value){
Optional<String> value(){
return Optional.ofNullable(this.value);
}
}
Since I thought the usage of Optionals as return types is now preferred, I'm really wondering why this restriction is in place. Is my understanding of the usage wrong? How can I achieve the same, without adding another accessor with another signature which does not hide the default one? Should Optional not be used in this case at all?

A record comprises attributes that primarily define its state. The derivation of the accessors, constructors, etc. is completely based on this state of the records.
Now in your example, the state of the attribute value is null, hence the access using the default implementation ends up providing the true state. To provide customized access to this attribute you are instead looking for an overridden API that wraps the actual state and further provides an Optional return type.
Of course, as you mentioned one of the ways to deal with it would be to have a custom implementation included in the record definition itself
record MyClass(String id, String value) {
Optional<String> getValue() {
return Optional.ofNullable(value());
}
}
Alternatively, you could decouple the read and write APIs from the data carrier in a separate class and pass on the record instance to them for custom accesses.
The most relevant quote from JEP 384: Records that I found would be(formatting mine):
A record declares its state -- the group of variables -- and commits
to an API that matches that state. This means that records give up a
freedom that classes usually enjoy -- the ability to decouple a
class's API from its internal representation -- but in return, records
become significantly more concise.

Due to restrictions placed on records, namely that canonical constructor type needs to match accessor type, a pragmatic way to use Optional with records would be to define it as a property type:
record MyRecord (String id, Optional<String> value){
}
A point has been made that this is problematic due to the fact that null might be passed as a value to the constructor. This can be solved by forbidding such MyRecord invariants through canonical constructor:
record MyRecord(String id, Optional<String> value) {
MyRecord(String id, Optional<String> value) {
this.id = id;
this.value = Objects.requireNonNull(value);
}
}
In practice most common libraries or frameworks (e.g. Jackson, Spring) have support for recognizing Optional type and translating null into Optional.empty() automatically so whether this is an issue that needs to be tackled in your particular instance depends on context. I recommend researching support for Optional in your codebase before cluttering your code possibly unnecessary.

Credits go to Holger! I really like his proposed way of questioning the actual need of null. Thus with a short example, I wanted to give his approach a bit more space, even if a bit convoluted for this use-case.
interface ConversionResult<T> {
String raw();
default Optional<T> value(){
return Optional.empty();
}
default Optional<String> error(){
return Optional.empty();
}
default void ifOk(Consumer<T> okAction) {
value().ifPresent(okAction);
}
default void okOrError(Consumer<T> okAction, Consumer<String> errorAction){
value().ifPresent(okAction);
error().ifPresent(errorAction);
}
static ConversionResult<LocalDate> ofDate(String raw, String pattern){
try {
var value = LocalDate.parse(raw, DateTimeFormatter.ofPattern(pattern));
return new Ok<>(raw, value);
} catch (Exception e){
var error = String.format("Invalid date value '%s'. Expected pattern '%s'.", raw, pattern);
return new Error<>(raw, error);
}
}
// more conversion operations
}
record Ok<T>(String raw, T actualValue) implements ConversionResult<T> {
public Optional<T> value(){
return Optional.of(actualValue);
}
}
record Error<T>(String raw, String actualError) implements ConversionResult<T> {
public Optional<String> error(){
return Optional.of(actualError);
}
}
Usage would be something like
var okConv = ConversionResult.ofDate("12.03.2020", "dd.MM.yyyy");
okConv.okOrError(
v -> System.out.println("SUCCESS: "+v),
e -> System.err.println("FAILURE: "+e)
);
System.out.println(okConv);
System.out.println();
var failedConv = ConversionResult.ofDate("12.03.2020", "yyyy-MM-dd");
failedConv.okOrError(
v -> System.out.println("SUCCESS: "+v),
e -> System.err.println("FAILURE: "+e)
);
System.out.println(failedConv);
which leads to the following output...
SUCCESS: 2020-03-12
Ok[raw=12.03.2020, actualValue=2020-03-12]
FAILURE: Invalid date value '12.03.2020'. Expected pattern 'yyyy-MM-dd'.
Error[raw=12.03.2020, actualError=Invalid date value '12.03.2020'. Expected pattern 'yyyy-MM-dd'.]
The only minor issue is that the toString prints now the actual... variants. And of course we do not NEED to use records for this.

Don't have the rep to comment, but I just wanted to point out that you've essentially reinvented the Either datatype. https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.14.0.0/docs/Data-Either.html or https://www.scala-lang.org/api/2.9.3/scala/Either.html. I find Try, Either, and Validation to be incredibly useful for parsing and there are a few java libraries with this functionality that I use: https://github.com/aol/cyclops/tree/master/cyclops and https://www.vavr.io/vavr-docs/#_either.
Unfortunately, I think your main question is still open (and I'd be interested in finding an answer).
doing something like
RecordA(String a)
RecordAandB(String a, Integer b)
to deal with an immutable data carrier with a null b seems bad, but wrapping recordA(String a, Integer b) to have an Optional getB somewhere else seems contra-productive. There's almost no point to the record class then and I think the lombok #Value is still the best answer. I'm just concerned that it won't play well with deconstruction for pattern matching.

Rest controller - Tyr to reduce the number of endpoint with parameters but get Ambiguous mapping error

I want to implement some simple endpoint in spring, trying to be as much Restful as possible and reduce the number of URL to use. Here are the GET url I want to call: (this is a simplified version)
GET /users
GET /users?id=123
GET /users?username=xyz
I used this controller:
#GetMapping()
public #ResponseBody
OutputUserDTO getUserByParameter(#RequestParam(required = false) String id,
#RequestParam(required = false) String username) {
if (id != null && !id.isEmpty()) {
return userService.getUserById(id);
}
if (username != null && !username.isEmpty()) {
return userService.getUserByUsername(username);
}
throw new MissingParameterException("...some message...");
}
#GetMapping()
public #ResponseBody
List<OutputUserDTO> getUsers() {
return userService.getUsers();
}
Of course I get an error, that is Ambiguous mapping.
I thought to always return a List so that I can merge the 2 endpoints and, in case you pass some parameters, return a Singleton... even though I don't know if it's a correct practice.
Or else, create one endpoint for each parameter, GET /users/{userId}, GET /users/{username}, ... but I don't like it neither (If I have 10 different way to get a user then I'll have to implement 10 endpoints :S)
What are some good practices in this case??
Thanks.

Replace MissingParameterException with return userService.getUsers();, and get rid of the other method, you know, the one with exactly the same mapping as the first method.
To make that work, you'd have to change return type to Object, which is not going to be a problem, since it's the actual object returned that controls the effect of #ResponseBody, not the declared type.
#GetMapping()
#ResponseBody
public Object getUserByParameter(#RequestParam(required = false) String id,
#RequestParam(required = false) String username) {
if (id != null && ! id.isEmpty()) {
return userService.getUserById(id);
}
if (username != null && ! username.isEmpty()) {
return userService.getUserByUsername(username);
}
return userService.getUsers();
}
FYI: #ResponseBody is a method-level annotation, so it should be listed before any keyword modifiers.
The Java Language Specification, section 8.3.1. Field Modifiers, says:
FieldModifier:
(one of)
Annotation public protected private
static final transient volatile
[...]
If two or more (distinct) field modifiers appear in a field declaration, it is customary, though not required, that they appear in the order consistent with that shown above in the production for FieldModifier.

It should be like #GetMapping("/users") on respective method
http://www.appsdeveloperblog.com/pathvariable-spring-mvc/

I suppose that the reason for that is, in getUserByParameter, both parameters are optional but if both the parameters are not passed it will conflict with your second getMapping.
more over, what is returned changes in the three scenarios. scenario 1 returns a list of DTOs while scenarios 2 & 3 return a single DTO
i dont think you can handle all three scenarios using your request path /users unless you want to wrap even a single DTO in a list, in which case you can simply merge your two methods. call getUsers() when both parameters are missing, in other cases, do what you currently do but wrap the response in a list.
if you want to keep them separate and return DTO or List, you should probably separate them out into /users and /user by specifying #GetMapping("/user") on method one and #GetMapping("/users") on method two
hope this helps

Solve Sonar issue in simple getter and setter methods with Date or List

I write this getter/setter to list from Eclipse source menu:
public Date getDate() {
return date;
}
public void setDate(Date date) {
this.date = date;
}
And Sonar reporting two issues:
Return a copy of "date" & Store a copy of "date"
with the explanation
"Mutable members should not be stored or returned directly"
and a example code:
public String [] getStrings() {
return strings.clone();}
public void setStrings(String [] strings) {
this.strings = strings.clone();}
I think if my Date is null, it will throw a NullPointerException. Then I've changed my code to:
public Date getDate() {
if (this.date != null) {
return new Date(this.date.getTime());
} else {
return null;
}
}
public void setDate(Date date) {
if (date != null) {
this.date = new Date(date.getTime());
} else {
this.date = null;
}
}
And now marks other issue:
"Assigning an Object to null is a code smell. Consider refactoring".
I've searched in internet and set or return a new array is not a solution for me, I want to preserve my list to null if the setter param is null to overwrite an existing previous list.
I've the same problem for List, and I want to return/preserve null instead of a new ArrayList for an empty List. And in this case, the setter marks one more issue:
"Return an empty collection instead of null.".
What is the solution for this issue?

If you are in Java 8 and do not want to handle empty date, then maybe usage of Optional would help you.
Edit: Example of your "POJO" class
public class Toto {
public Optional<Date> myDate;
public Optional<Date> getMyDate() {
return this.myDate;
}
public void setMyDate(final Date myDate) {
this.myDate = Optional.ofNullable(myDate);
}
}
Example of code usage:
Toto toto = new Toto();
toto.setMyDate(null);
System.out.println("Value is null ? " + toto.getMyDate().isPresent());
System.out.println("Value: " + toto.getMyDate().orElse(new Date()));
Try to change the toto.setMyDate(...) with concrete date value to see what happen.
If you don't know what is Optional or how to use it, you can find plenty of examples.
BUT : This is only a way to solve your violation issue and i totally agree with Brad's remark, Optional are not intent to be used as a type, but more like a contract for potential empty / null returns.
In general, you should not correct your code in a bad way just to fix a violation, if the violation is not correct. And in your case i think you should just ignore the violation (as most of Sonar's one unfortunatly)
If you really want to use Java 8 and Optional in your code, then you POJO class would be like this (usage of Optional as a contrat on the getter only)
public class Toto {
public Date myDate;
public Optional<Date> getMyDate() {
return Optional.ofNullable(this.myDate);
}
public void setMyDate(final Date myDate) {
this.myDate = myDate;
}
}
This way,
You bean stay serializable (Optional is not)
You still enable your "client" code to have the choice on how to behave to empty / null value of your property
Configure your Sonar violation as a false positive as it is what you want instead of changing your code

Generally, while using static analysis tools to verify the code is valuable, you should not blindly fix every warnings which popups on you. You need to analyze the issue which is triggered and check if it really applies in your context.
Now to address the issues you are mentioning
Return a copy of "date" & Store a copy of "date"
This seems to be valid one. It is good practice to be defensive and not expose mutable state via getters/setters. So creating a defensive copy in getter/setter should be done. This can be done the way you did it, or by using new Java Time API, which provides immutable objects.
Assigning an Object to null is a code smell. Consider refactoring
IMO dubious one. The issue is raised by PMD plugin (which is the tool analyzing the code, SonarQube is displaying the report). Issue is raised by this rule http://pmd.sourceforge.net/pmd-4.3.0/rules/controversial.html#NullAssignment , as you can see it is in controversial category. I don't think there is anything wrong with your code, and proper action might be to ignore this warning and mark the issue as "won't fix". You can also configure your SonarQube to not use this particular rule in your Quality Profile setting.
Return an empty collection instead of null.
You did not provide the code which is triggering it, but this seems to be a valid piece of advice. It is generally better to return empty collections rather than nulls.

You don't have to explcitly set null in your setter, just use the value being passed in like this...
public void setDate(Date date) {
if (date != null) {
this.date = new Date(date.getTime());
} else {
this.date = date;
}
}
Personally I would never allow null values into my Value objects where ever possible, but that is just my opinionated coding style.
My advice to anyone is to prefer immutable value objects where you set all the values in the constructor and don't allow nulls in. This style may not be appropriate for all 3rd party libraries that expect the java bean getter/setters so be aware where it can be used effectively to simplify your code.
Edit
If the above code still gives you the warning and you must have the "property is not set yet" functionality, another approach is to define a "null object" like this
public static final Date NO_DATE = new Date(Long.MIN_VALUE);
public void setDate(Date date) {
this.date = (date == null) ? NO_DATE : new Date(date.getTime());
}
Users of this class can refer to the NO_DATE object like this, which still makes for readable code
if(toto.getDate() != NO_DATE) ...
Or encapsulate this into another method so it's used like this
if(toto.hasDate()) ...
Of course this doens't add much benefit over the Java 8 Optional approach from #kij but it does work with any version of Java

Convert empty string to null using javax.validation annotations

I have the following variable annotated for data validation:
#Size(min=8, max=16, message="the size of the parameter must be between 8 and 16")
private String param;
However, the param can be null. It is required that it be 8-16 chars long only if it is not null. The problem I face is if the client app (JSON API) supplies an empty string, I want to treat it as though it were not supplied at all, i.e. is null. I was wondering if there is an elegant way to do this using the javax.validation annotations, i.e. convert an empty string to null, as opposed to the plain Java way the way I'm doing it right now:
public void setParameter(String _param) {
if(_param != null && !_param.trim().isEmpty()){
this.param = _param;
} else {
this.param = null;
}
}
I would like to have a very simple setter:
public void setParameter(String _param) {
this.param = _param;
}
and have the is-empty-string boilerplate done by an annotation. Is there a way to do it?

You could can implement your own custom constraint validator.
see here. I've used this many times and works like a charm.
https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/validator/5.0/reference/en-US/html/validator-customconstraints.html
You would just need to set this condition (if null return "" or vice-versa) in the isValid method.

can annotation get context object?

Maybe title "can annotation get context object?" is not correct, but I don't know how to give it a right and clear one.
I use Spring AOP + Java Annotation to save log, here is my code:
CategoryAction.java :
#ServiceTracker(methodDesp="save category, category name:"+this.category.getName())
public String save() throws Exception
{
this.categoryService.save(this.category);
this.setJsonDataSimply(null);
return "save";
}
TrackAdvice.java :
public Object trackAround(ProceedingJoinPoint point) throws Throwable
{
String log = "success";
ServiceTracker tracker = null;
Method method = null;
AbstractAction action = null;
try
{
Object result = point.proceed();
action = (AbstractAction) point.getTarget();
MethodSignature signature = (MethodSignature) point.getSignature();
method = signature.getMethod();
tracker = method.getAnnotation(ServiceTracker.class);
return result;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
log = e.getMessage();
throw e;
}
finally
{
if (tracker != null)
{
String userId = (String) ActionContext.getContext().getSession().get(Constant.USERID);
if (userId == null)
{
userId = "unknown";
}
TrackLog t = new TrackLog();
t.setWhen(new Date());
t.setUserId(userId);
t.setResult(log);
t.setMethodName(action.getClass().getCanonicalName() + "." + method.getName());
t.setMethodDesp(tracker.methodDesp());
this.trackService.save(t);
}
}
}
ServiceTracker is my own annotation, in my TrackAdvice class, I get the current executing method, if the method has a ServiceTracker annotation, then save the methodDesp in annotation to database.
Now the question is the methodDesp in annotation is dynamic, I want to get this object and retrieve its category property.
It seems that Java Annotation doesn't support this, maybe it supports but I don't know how.

What you can do is use some sort of expression language in the annotation value and then run some interpreter in your advice code. One example using SPEL could look like this:
#ServiceTracker(methodDesp="save category, category name: #{category.name}")
And in your advice code, you can then extract the expression token, make use of a SpelExpression and pass it the target reference as root object (you may want to check what's available out of the box in the SPEL API for supporting your use-case(s)).

It seems that Java Annotation doesn't support this
You are correct - there is no way to do this in pure java.
The reason is that because annotations are static metadata that is wired into classes and defined at compile-time (this start to exist only at run-time, not compile-time).
In other words there is no straightforward way to make methodDesp of some annotated method of some class dynamic, since it's value has to be resolved statically, at compile-time.
However, technically there is a way to do something like you want. What I talk about is using javassist to either manipulate or create your classes (and annotations applied to them) at runtime. But be warned that this is rather hacky way and I generally would not recommend to go there.