We Keep Coding

C# 6.0 null operator in a conditional statement

From what I gathered with the new null operator in C# 6.0 you can do something like this:
string name = people.FirstOrDefault()?.FullName;
And this is great, but one verification I often come across is something like this:
object name = null;
if(name != null) {
DoSomething();
} else {
DoSomethingElse();
}
Given the purpose of the new null operator, I would like something like this should be possible:
if(name?) {
DoSomething();
} else {
DoSomethingElse();
}
The problem here from what I understood is that when the value the ? is checking is in fact null, it returns null, and you need a bool condition for the if statement. Since you can't directly convert a null to a bool, is there a simpler way of checking this without doing if(name != null) using the new null operator in C# 6.0?

There's no point in doing this. You're not doing any null coalescing in your example - you're simply checking for null.
A better use would be if you wanted to check some member of the name object. For example:
if (name?.FirstName != null) ...
But as you can see, it's still a simple comparison for null - we just used null coalescing to avoid having to write something like this:
if (name != null && name.FirstName != null) ...

What does question mark and dot operator ?. mean in C# 6.0?

With C# 6.0 in the VS2015 preview we have a new operator, ?., which can be used like this:
public class A {
string PropertyOfA { get; set; }
}
...
var a = new A();
var foo = "bar";
if(a?.PropertyOfA != foo) {
//somecode
}
What exactly does it do?

It's the null conditional operator. It basically means:
"Evaluate the first operand; if that's null, stop, with a result of null. Otherwise, evaluate the second operand (as a member access of the first operand)."
In your example, the point is that if a is null, then a?.PropertyOfA will evaluate to null rather than throwing an exception - it will then compare that null reference with foo (using string's == overload), find they're not equal and execution will go into the body of the if statement.
In other words, it's like this:
string bar = (a == null ? null : a.PropertyOfA);
if (bar != foo)
{
...
}
... except that a is only evaluated once.
Note that this can change the type of the expression, too. For example, consider FileInfo.Length. That's a property of type long, but if you use it with the null conditional operator, you end up with an expression of type long?:
FileInfo fi = ...; // fi could be null
long? length = fi?.Length; // If fi is null, length will be null

It can be very useful when flattening a hierarchy and/or mapping objects. Instead of:
if (Model.Model2 == null
|| Model.Model2.Model3 == null
|| Model.Model2.Model3.Model4 == null
|| Model.Model2.Model3.Model4.Name == null)
{
mapped.Name = "N/A"
}
else
{
mapped.Name = Model.Model2.Model3.Model4.Name;
}
It can be written like (same logic as above)
mapped.Name = Model.Model2?.Model3?.Model4?.Name ?? "N/A";
DotNetFiddle.Net Working Example.
(the ?? or null-coalescing operator is different than the ? or null conditional operator).
It can also be used out side of assignment operators with Action. Instead of
Action<TValue> myAction = null;
if (myAction != null)
{
myAction(TValue);
}
It can be simplified to:
myAction?.Invoke(TValue);
DotNetFiddle Example:
using System;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Action<string> consoleWrite = null;
consoleWrite?.Invoke("Test 1");
consoleWrite = (s) => Console.WriteLine(s);
consoleWrite?.Invoke("Test 2");
}
}
Result:
Test 2
Basically, I have applied ?. operator after Model as well. I am trying to know that whether it can be applied directly to the model or does it only work with the navigation properties?
The ? or null conditional operator operators on the left value, regardless of the type of value. And the compiler doesn't care what the value is on the right. It's simple compiler magic (meaning it does something you can already do, just in a simplified why).
For example
var a = model?.Value;
is the same as saying
var a = model == null ? null : model.Value;
In the second case the evaluation of checking for null has no associate with the value returned. The null conditional operator basically just always return null if the left value is null.
The type of member (Method, Field, Property, Constructor) .Value is irrelevant.
The reason your DotNetFiddle example doesn't work is because the compiler being use for the .Net 4.7.2 isn't compatible with the c# version that support the null conditional operator. Changing it to .Net 5, works:
https://dotnetfiddle.net/7EWoO5

This is relatively new to C# which makes it easy for us to call the functions with respect to the null or non-null values in method chaining.
old way to achieve the same thing was:
var functionCaller = this.member;
if (functionCaller!= null)
functionCaller.someFunction(var someParam);
and now it has been made much easier with just:
member?.someFunction(var someParam);
I strongly recommend this doc page.

"Simplify conditional ternary expression"

var foo = context.FOOTABLE.FirstOrDefault();
var bar = foo != null ? foo.SomeBool : false;
Resharper tells me to Simplify conditional ternary expression. But I feel like a null check is necessary here, since FirstOrDefault() can return null.
So, who's wrong, me or Resharper?

First, a full example:
class Foo
{
public bool SomeBool { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var foo = MaybeFoo();
var bar = foo != null && foo.SomeBool;
}
static Foo MaybeFoo()
{
return new Random().Next() < 10 ? null : new Foo();
}
}
Here MaybeFoo is a method that sometimes returns null and sometimes returns a Foo. I've used Random so that R# doesn't automatically work out that it's always null or not-null.
Now, as you say on this line:
var bar = foo != null ? foo.SomeBool : false;
R# offers the inspection Simplify conditional operator. What does it mean by this? Well, as usual, we can Alt+Enter and accept the suggestion and see what it wants to replace it with, which in this case is:
var bar = foo != null && foo.SomeBool;
Now, as to your concern:
But I feel like a null check is necessary here, since FirstOrDefault() can return null.
So, who's wrong, me or Resharper?
Well, to put it shortly, you are. There's still a null check taking place here, and the && operator is short-circuiting, so the second operand (foo.SomeBool) will only be evaluated if the first one is true. So there won't be a NullReferenceException in the case when foo is null; the first check will fail and bar will be assigned false.
So the two lines
var bar = foo != null ? foo.SomeBool : false;
and
var bar = foo != null && foo.SomeBool;
are semantically equivalent, and R# as usual prefers the more concise version (in particular, explicit trues and falses in conditionals are often a mark of redundant code). You may not, in which case you could turn off this inspection.

ReSharper is suggesting to change your code to:
var bar = foo != null && foo.SomeBool;
Which does exactly the same as ternary operation, but looks better. The logic of your code won't change.

C# bool value as string is always null

I'm attempting to dump variable property information to a simple string but when it gets to my nullable bools, the as string always returns null --even if the actual value is true | false!
StringBuilder propertyDump = new StringBuilder();
foreach(PropertyInfo property in typeof(MyClass).GetProperties())
{
propertyDump.Append(property.Name)
.Append(":")
.Append(property.GetValue(myClassInstance, null) as string);
}
return propertyDump.ToString();
No exceptions are thrown; quick and the output is exactly what I want except any properties that are bool? are always false. If I quick watch and do .ToString() it works! But I can't guarantee other properties are not, in fact, null.
Can anyone explain why this is? and even better, a workaround?

A bool is not a string, so the as operator returns null when you pass it a boxed boolean.
In your case, you could use something like:
object value = property.GetValue(myClassInstance, null);
propertyDump.Append(property.Name)
.Append(":")
.Append(value == null ? "null" : value.ToString());
If you want to have null values just not append any text, you can just use Append(Object) directly:
propertyDump.Append(property.Name)
.Append(":")
.Append(property.GetValue(myClassInstance, null));
This will work, but leave null properties in your "propertyDump" output as missing entries.

The as operator returns a casted value if the instance is of that exact type, or null otherwise.
Instead, you just should .Append(property.GetValue(...)); Append() will automatically handle nulls and conversions.

The nicest solution would be, in my opinion:
.Append(property.GetValue(myClassInstance, null) ?? "null");
If the value is null, it will append "null", and if not - it will call the value's ToString and append that.
Combining that with Linq instead of a foreach loop, you can have a nice little something:
var propertyDump =
string.Join(Environment.NewLine,
typeof(myClass).GetProperties().Select(
pi => string.Format("{0}: {1}",
pi.Name,
pi.GetValue(myClassInstance, null) ?? "null")));
(Looks nicer in the wide screen of VS).
If you compare speeds, by the way, it turns out the string.Join is faster than Appending to a StringBuilder, so I thought you might want to see this solution.

That's because the type of the property is not string. Change it to:
Convert.ToString(property.GetValue(myClassInstance, null))
If it's null, it will retrieve null and that's ok. For non-null values it will return the string representation of the value of the property.

You cannot cast a bool to a string. You must use ToString()

Use the null coalesing operator to handle the Null situations:
void Main()
{
TestIt tbTrue = new TestIt() { BValue = true }; // Comment out assignment to see null
var result =
tbTrue.GetType()
.GetProperties()
.FirstOrDefault( prp => prp.Name == "BValue" )
.GetValue( tb, null ) ?? false.ToString();
Console.WriteLine ( result ); // True
}
public class TestIt
{
public bool? BValue { get; set; }
}

C# coalesce operator Throws

I have a class with a string property. I use the coalesce operator when reading from it as it might be null, but it still throws me an NullRefrenceExeption.
string name = user.Section.ParentSection.Name ?? string.Empty;
To be more specific, its the ".ParentSection" that's null so is it because it don't even have ".name" ? If that's the case should i test ".ParentSection" first with an if block?
I assume there are something about the Coalesce operator i dont understand, hope someone can shed some light on whats going wrong here.

To be more specific, its the ".ParentSection" that's null so is it
because it don't even have ".name" ?
Yes.
If that's the case should i test ".ParentSection" first with an if
block?
Yes.

You'll need to check if Section and ParentSection are null. You could use an if-statement for this or write an extension method like this:
public static class MaybeMonad
{
public static TOut With<TIn, TOut>(this TIn input, Func<TIn, TOut> evaluator)
where TIn : class
where TOut : class
{
if (input == null)
{
return null;
}
else
{
return evaluator(input);
}
}
}
You would use this method like so:
string name = user.With(u => u.Section)
.With(s => s.ParentSection)
.With(p => p.Name) ?? string.Empty;
I think it's a lot cleaner than an if-statement with a lot of &&.
Some further reading: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/109026/Chained-null-checks-and-the-Maybe-monad

You need to check if user, user.Section, or user.Section.ParentSection are null before you can use the null coalescing operator on a property of user.Section.ParentSection.

Nested property access is not safe if any of the objects accessed are null this will throw a NullReferenceException. You will have to explicitly test for the outer objects to be not null.
E.g.:
string name = string.Empty;
if(user!=null && user.Section!=null && user.Section.ParentSection !=null)
name = user.Section.ParentSection.Name ?? string.Empty;
In general I would try to avoid nested access to properties, you are violating the Law of Demeter. Some refactoring might make this unnecessary in the first place.

The ?? operator checks if the left side is null and if so returns the right one, if not the left one.
In your case the left-side is the "Name" property in the object user.Section.ParentSection and this is null.
In those cases either think on what might be null or do something like this:
string name = user == null
|| user.Section == null
|| user.ParentSection == null
|| user.Section.ParentSection.Name == null
? string.Empty
: user.Section.ParentSection.Name;
(yeah it's ugly I know)

Chances are user or user.Section or user.Section.ParentSection is a null value.
The ?? operator doesn't prevent checks like:
if (user != null && user.Section != null && user.Section.ParentSection != null){
Make sure that everything up to the string property is valid and exists, then you can use ??. You can't call (null).Name, no matter how many times you try.

Yes you need to check if Section or ParentSection are null before you check Name

It is probably best to do something like this:
if(user!=null && user.Section!=null && user.Section.ParentSection!=null)
{
string name = user.Section.ParentSection.Name ?? string.Empty;
}

The null coalescing operator takes a statement like:
a = b ?? c;
What this says is "evaluate b; if it has a non-null value then assign that to a. Otherwise assign the value of c to a".
However within your b you're using a user object which may be null that has a section object that may be null that has a parent section property that may be null that had a name property that may be null. If you wanted to check all of these (and typically you should) then you can do something like:
string name = string.Empty;
if (user != null &&
user.Section != null &&
user.Section.ParentSection != null)
{
name = user.Section.ParentSection.Name ?? string.Empty;
}
As soon as the IF check fails it will not check further and therefore you don't get a NullReferenceException when you assume an object is present and then try to access one of its properties.