I am writing a function that checks if an output is DBNull and returns null if the generic type is nullable. If not it simply throws the error.
Update: added all recommendations
public T Get<T>(string key)
{
int ordinal = reader.GetOrdinal(key);
if (reader.IsDBNull(ordinal))
{
if (typeof(T).GetTypeInfo().IsValueType && Nullable.GetUnderlyingType(typeof(T)) == null) // isn't a nullable field
throw new InvalidCastException();
else return default(T);
}
return reader.GetFieldValue<T>(ordinal);
}
However I am not sure if default(T) returns null for every nullable field. If now is there any other way to make it return null?
Yes, default(T) is the right kind of null-like value for every T that is actually a SomeType? / Nullable<SomeType>, so what you have should work fine.
You might want to consider things like string and byte[] though - these can also come from databases and can be null.
You might also want to think about what the error should be if someone simply makes a mistake and asks for <int> when the value is a <decimal>. That would cause InvalidCastException. There is an IsDBNull() method on IDataReader that might be more appropriate than using the exception.
Finally: prefer throw; to throw e;
In terms of computer resources, catching and handling an exception is an extremely expensive task. Your method is using the exception as part of its logic flow. This is an incorrect way of looking at the problem you are wanting to solve,.
In addition, you are catching specifically InvalidCastException exceptions. This exception can occur in other cases other than attempting to cast a null reference. You are hiding/misrepresenting a potentially valid error; something that can cost you many hours of frustrating, hair-pulling debugging.
The following should give you the same behavior as the original method, but without the overhead of unwinding the stack during the integrated error handling.
public T Get<T>(string key)
{
if(reader.IsDbNull(reader.GetOrdinal(key)))
{
//IF YOU SPECIFICALLY WANT TO THROW AN ERROR IF A VALUE TYPE
//if (typeof(T).IsValueType)
//{ throw new InvalidCastException(); }
return default(T);
}
return reader.GetFieldValue<T>(reader.GetOrdinal(key));
}
Right now I am working on a simple program, and this is a problem I've been thinking over many times. Many times I run my methods twice because of checking on the return value before running them, and I would like to know if there is a way I can prevent this, like using the returned value from the method I am checking against. It's quite hard to explain so here is a real life example from my program.
public class SFDBRepository
{
public static Domain.SF.SFObject GetSFOrder(string WorkOrd)
{
//As you can see here i'm checking on the output of this method, before trying to return it.
if (Domain.SF.SF.GetOrder(WorkOrd) != null)
{
//If the value is not null (My method returns null if no result), return the object
return Domain.SF.SF.GetOrder(WorkOrd);
}
//Same thing happens here. My method runs twice every time almost.
else if(Domain.Building_DeliveryPerformance.Building_DeliveryPerformance.GetObject(WorkOrd) != null)
{
return Domain.Building_DeliveryPerformance.Building_DeliveryPerformance.GetObject(WorkOrd);
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
}
You can simplify this down to the following code, which will only call those methods once and make the code much more readable:
public class ShopFloorDBRepository
{
public static Domain.ShopFloor.ShopFloorObject GetShopFloorOrder(string workOrd)
{
return Domain.ShopFloor.Shopfloor.GetOrder(workOrd) ??
Domain.DG9_DeliveryPerformance.DG9_DeliveryPerformance.GetObject(workOrd);
}
}
To explain why this works - the ?? operator (the null-coalescing operator!) basically says "if the returned value on the left hand side of the ?? is null, then return the value of the expression on the right hand side".
This way you only need to call your functions once.
public static Domain.ShopFloor.ShopFloorObject GetShopFloorOrder(string WorkOrd)
{
//As you can see here i'm checking on the output of this method, before trying to return it.
Domain.ShopFloor.ShopFloorObject wo = Domain.ShopFloor.Shopfloor.GetOrder(WorkOrd);
if (wo != null)
{
//If the value is not null (My method returns null if no result), return the object
return wo;
}
//Same thing happens here. My method runs twice every time almost.
Domain.ShopFloor.ShopFloorObject yowo = Domain.DG9_DeliveryPerformance.DG9_DeliveryPerformance.GetObject(WorkOrd);
if(yowo != null)
{
return yowo;
}
/* default return */
return null;
}
PS
You're kinda doing the "Factory Pattern"
See
http://www.dofactory.com/net/factory-method-design-pattern
Looks to me like you could be using a temporary variable to hold the result, which you can test and return.
public class ShopFloorDBRepository
{
public static Domain.ShopFloor.ShopFloorObject GetShopFloorOrder(string WorkOrd)
{
var result = Domain.ShopFloor.GetOrder(WorkOrd);
if (result != null) return result;
...
This is a common paradigm, especially when the method being called is expensive and/or has side effects you don't wish to incur twice.
Here, the "var" declaration sets the type of "result" to the type returned by the method being called; you could also use the name of the actual type.
If you wish to make two different kinds of tests like this, you'll need two different variables unless they have the same type (which in this case it appears they do).
An alternate mechanism that does require the full type, that you'll also see:
public static ShopFloorObject GetShopFloorOrder(string WorkOrd)
{
ShopFloorObject result;
if ( (result = Domain.ShopFloor.GetOrder(WorkOrd)) != null )
return result;
if ( (result = Domain.DG9_DeliveryPerformance.DG9_DeliveryPerformance.GetObject(WorkOrd)) != null)
return result;
return null;
Here you're explicitly declaring the type of the return value, then making the two calls you've indicated, testing the results against null, and returning the first non-null value.
when implementing/using methods that return or work with instances of objects, what is the most elegant approach to check the function parameters ?
Method to call:
someType GetSomething(object x)
{
if (x == null) {
return;
}
//
// Code...
//
}
or better:
someType GetSomething(object x)
{
if (x == null) {
throw new ArgumentNullException("x");
}
//
// Code...
//
}
Calling Method:
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
someType myType = GetSomething(someObject);
if (someType == null) {
return;
}
}
or better:
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
try {
someType myType = GetSomething(someObject);
} catch (ArgumentNullException) {
}
}
When browsing through similar questions, the reason not to use try/catch is performance. But IMHO the try-catch just looks better :).
So, which way is more "elegant"?
If passing in a null is not valid, throw an exception (i.e. - this is an exceptional situation that should never happen).
If a null parameter is valid, return a corresponding object.
In general, accepting null parameters is bad practice - it goes against the principle of least surprise and requires the caller to know it is valid.
As far as elegance is concerned, it's hard to top Code Contracts.
Contract.Requires(x != null);
You should only use exceptions for exceptional cases. If you expect the argument might be (legitimately) null, you should check it -- do not use exceptions for that. IMO you should check for null at the calling site (before the invocation) if it doesn't make sense to pass null to your method.
In your example GetSomthing is private. This means you can track down all of the callers and make sure that Null values don't get passed in e.g.
if (x != null)
someType myType = GetSomthing(x)
else
// Initialize x or throw an InvalidOperation or return whatever is correct
However if its not really private then you should do as Oded and others said. Check to see if its null and throw an ArguementExecption in most cases.
Note: This question was asked before the introduction of the .? operator in C# 6 / Visual Studio 2015.
We've all been there, we have some deep property like cake.frosting.berries.loader that we need to check if it's null so there's no exception. The way to do is is to use a short-circuiting if statement
if (cake != null && cake.frosting != null && cake.frosting.berries != null) ...
This is not exactly elegant, and there should perhaps be an easier way to check the entire chain and see if it comes up against a null variable/property.
Is it possible using some extension method or would it be a language feature, or is it just a bad idea?
We have considered adding a new operation "?." to the language that has the semantics you want. (And it has been added now; see below.) That is, you'd say
cake?.frosting?.berries?.loader
and the compiler would generate all the short-circuiting checks for you.
It didn't make the bar for C# 4. Perhaps for a hypothetical future version of the language.
Update (2014):
The ?. operator is now planned for the next Roslyn compiler release. Note that there is still some debate over the exact syntactic and semantic analysis of the operator.
Update (July 2015): Visual Studio 2015 has been released and ships with a C# compiler that supports the null-conditional operators ?. and ?[].
I got inspired by this question to try and find out how this kind of deep null checking can be done with an easier / prettier syntax using expression trees. While I do agree with the answers stating that it might be a bad design if you often need to access instances deep in the hierarchy, I also do think that in some cases, such as data presentation, it can be very useful.
So I created an extension method, that will allow you to write:
var berries = cake.IfNotNull(c => c.Frosting.Berries);
This will return the Berries if no part of the expression is null. If null is encountered, null is returned. There are some caveats though, in the current version it will only work with simple member access, and it only works on .NET Framework 4, because it uses the MemberExpression.Update method, which is new in v4. This is the code for the IfNotNull extension method:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
namespace dr.IfNotNullOperator.PoC
{
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static TResult IfNotNull<TArg,TResult>(this TArg arg, Expression<Func<TArg,TResult>> expression)
{
if (expression == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("expression");
if (ReferenceEquals(arg, null))
return default(TResult);
var stack = new Stack<MemberExpression>();
var expr = expression.Body as MemberExpression;
while(expr != null)
{
stack.Push(expr);
expr = expr.Expression as MemberExpression;
}
if (stack.Count == 0 || !(stack.Peek().Expression is ParameterExpression))
throw new ApplicationException(String.Format("The expression '{0}' contains unsupported constructs.",
expression));
object a = arg;
while(stack.Count > 0)
{
expr = stack.Pop();
var p = expr.Expression as ParameterExpression;
if (p == null)
{
p = Expression.Parameter(a.GetType(), "x");
expr = expr.Update(p);
}
var lambda = Expression.Lambda(expr, p);
Delegate t = lambda.Compile();
a = t.DynamicInvoke(a);
if (ReferenceEquals(a, null))
return default(TResult);
}
return (TResult)a;
}
}
}
It works by examining the expression tree representing your expression, and evaluating the parts one after the other; each time checking that the result is not null.
I am sure this could be extended so that other expressions than MemberExpression is supported. Consider this as proof-of-concept code, and please keep in mind that there will be a performance penalty by using it (which will probably not matter in many cases, but don't use it in a tight loop :-) )
I've found this extension to be quite useful for deep nesting scenarios.
public static R Coal<T, R>(this T obj, Func<T, R> f)
where T : class
{
return obj != null ? f(obj) : default(R);
}
It's an idea I derrived from the null coalescing operator in C# and T-SQL. The nice thing is that the return type is always the return type of the inner property.
That way you can do this:
var berries = cake.Coal(x => x.frosting).Coal(x => x.berries);
...or a slight variation of the above:
var berries = cake.Coal(x => x.frosting, x => x.berries);
It's not the best syntax I know, but it does work.
Besides violating the Law of Demeter, as Mehrdad Afshari has already pointed out, it seems to me you need "deep null checking" for decision logic.
This is most often the case when you want to replace empty objects with default values. In this case you should consider implementing the Null Object Pattern. It acts as a stand-in for a real object, providing default values and "non-action" methods.
Update: Starting with Visual Studio 2015, the C# compiler (language version 6) now recognizes the ?. operator, which makes "deep null checking" a breeze. See this answer for details.
Apart from re-designing your code, like
this deleted answer suggested,
another (albeit terrible) option would be to use a try…catch block to see if a NullReferenceException occurs sometime during that deep property lookup.
try
{
var x = cake.frosting.berries.loader;
...
}
catch (NullReferenceException ex)
{
// either one of cake, frosting, or berries was null
...
}
I personally wouldn't do this for the following reasons:
It doesn't look nice.
It uses exception handling, which should target exceptional situations and not something that you expect to happen often during the normal course of operation.
NullReferenceExceptions should probably never be caught explicitly. (See this question.)
So is it possible using some extension method or would it be a language feature, [...]
This would almost certainly have to be a language feature (which is available in C# 6 in the form of the .? and ?[] operators), unless C# already had more sophisticated lazy evaluation, or unless you want to use reflection (which probably also isn't a good idea for reasons of performance and type-safety).
Since there's no way to simply pass cake.frosting.berries.loader to a function (it would be evaluated and throw a null reference exception), you would have to implement a general look-up method in the following way: It takes in an objects and the names of properties to look up:
static object LookupProperty( object startingPoint, params string[] lookupChain )
{
// 1. if 'startingPoint' is null, return null, or throw an exception.
// 2. recursively look up one property/field after the other from 'lookupChain',
// using reflection.
// 3. if one lookup is not possible, return null, or throw an exception.
// 3. return the last property/field's value.
}
...
var x = LookupProperty( cake, "frosting", "berries", "loader" );
(Note: code edited.)
You quickly see several problems with such an approach. First, you don't get any type safety and possible boxing of property values of a simple type. Second, you can either return null if something goes wrong, and you will have to check for this in your calling function, or you throw an exception, and you're back to where you started. Third, it might be slow. Fourth, it looks uglier than what you started with.
[...], or is it just a bad idea?
I'd either stay with:
if (cake != null && cake.frosting != null && ...) ...
or go with the above answer by Mehrdad Afshari.
P.S.: Back when I wrote this answer, I obviously didn't consider expression trees for lambda functions; see e.g. #driis' answer for a solution in this direction. It's also based on a kind of reflection and thus might not perform quite as well as a simpler solution (if (… != null & … != null) …), but it may be judged nicer from a syntax point-of-view.
While driis' answer is interesting, I think it's a bit too expensive performance wise. Rather than compiling many delegates, I'd prefer to compile one lambda per property path, cache it and then reinvoke it many types.
NullCoalesce below does just that, it returns a new lambda expression with null checks and a return of default(TResult) in case any path is null.
Example:
NullCoalesce((Process p) => p.StartInfo.FileName)
Will return an expression
(Process p) => (p != null && p.StartInfo != null ? p.StartInfo.FileName : default(string));
Code:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var converted = NullCoalesce((MethodInfo p) => p.DeclaringType.Assembly.Evidence.Locked);
var converted2 = NullCoalesce((string[] s) => s.Length);
}
private static Expression<Func<TSource, TResult>> NullCoalesce<TSource, TResult>(Expression<Func<TSource, TResult>> lambdaExpression)
{
var test = GetTest(lambdaExpression.Body);
if (test != null)
{
return Expression.Lambda<Func<TSource, TResult>>(
Expression.Condition(
test,
lambdaExpression.Body,
Expression.Default(
typeof(TResult)
)
),
lambdaExpression.Parameters
);
}
return lambdaExpression;
}
private static Expression GetTest(Expression expression)
{
Expression container;
switch (expression.NodeType)
{
case ExpressionType.ArrayLength:
container = ((UnaryExpression)expression).Operand;
break;
case ExpressionType.MemberAccess:
if ((container = ((MemberExpression)expression).Expression) == null)
{
return null;
}
break;
default:
return null;
}
var baseTest = GetTest(container);
if (!container.Type.IsValueType)
{
var containerNotNull = Expression.NotEqual(
container,
Expression.Default(
container.Type
)
);
return (baseTest == null ?
containerNotNull :
Expression.AndAlso(
baseTest,
containerNotNull
)
);
}
return baseTest;
}
One option is to use the Null Object Patten, so instead of having null when you don’t have a cake, you have a NullCake that returns a NullFosting etc. Sorry I am not very good at explaining this but other people are, see
An example of the Null Object Patten usage
The wikipedai write up on the Null Object Patten
I too have often wished for a simpler syntax! It gets especially ugly when you have method-return-values that might be null, because then you need extra variables (for example: cake.frosting.flavors.FirstOrDefault().loader)
However, here's a pretty decent alternative that I use: create an Null-Safe-Chain helper method. I realize that this is pretty similar to #John's answer above (with the Coal extension method) but I find it's more straightforward and less typing. Here's what it looks like:
var loader = NullSafe.Chain(cake, c=>c.frosting, f=>f.berries, b=>b.loader);
Here's the implementation:
public static TResult Chain<TA,TB,TC,TResult>(TA a, Func<TA,TB> b, Func<TB,TC> c, Func<TC,TResult> r)
where TA:class where TB:class where TC:class {
if (a == null) return default(TResult);
var B = b(a);
if (B == null) return default(TResult);
var C = c(B);
if (C == null) return default(TResult);
return r(C);
}
I also created several overloads (with 2 to 6 parameters), as well as overloads that allow the chain to end with a value-type or default. This works really well for me!
There is Maybe codeplex project that Implements
Maybe or IfNotNull using lambdas for deep expressions in C#
Example of use:
int? CityId= employee.Maybe(e=>e.Person.Address.City);
The link was suggested in a similar question How to check for nulls in a deep lambda expression?
As suggested in John Leidegren's answer, one approach to work-around this is to use extension methods and delegates. Using them could look something like this:
int? numberOfBerries = cake
.NullOr(c => c.Frosting)
.NullOr(f => f.Berries)
.NullOr(b => b.Count());
The implementation is messy because you need to get it to work for value types, reference types and nullable value types. You can find a complete implementation in Timwi's answer to What is the proper way to check for null values?.
Or you may use reflection :)
Reflection function:
public Object GetPropValue(String name, Object obj)
{
foreach (String part in name.Split('.'))
{
if (obj == null) { return null; }
Type type = obj.GetType();
PropertyInfo info = type.GetProperty(part);
if (info == null) { return null; }
obj = info.GetValue(obj, null);
}
return obj;
}
Usage:
object test1 = GetPropValue("PropertyA.PropertyB.PropertyC",obj);
My Case(return DBNull.Value instead of null in reflection function):
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("CustomerContactEmail", GetPropValue("AccountingCustomerParty.Party.Contact.ElectronicMail.Value", eInvoiceType));
Try this code:
/// <summary>
/// check deep property
/// </summary>
/// <param name="obj">instance</param>
/// <param name="property">deep property not include instance name example "A.B.C.D.E"</param>
/// <returns>if null return true else return false</returns>
public static bool IsNull(this object obj, string property)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(property) || string.IsNullOrEmpty(property.Trim())) throw new Exception("Parameter : property is empty");
if (obj != null)
{
string[] deep = property.Split('.');
object instance = obj;
Type objType = instance.GetType();
PropertyInfo propertyInfo;
foreach (string p in deep)
{
propertyInfo = objType.GetProperty(p);
if (propertyInfo == null) throw new Exception("No property : " + p);
instance = propertyInfo.GetValue(instance, null);
if (instance != null)
objType = instance.GetType();
else
return true;
}
return false;
}
else
return true;
}
I posted this last night and then a friend pointed me to this question. Hope it helps. You can then do something like this:
var color = Dis.OrDat<string>(() => cake.frosting.berries.color, "blue");
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
namespace DeepNullCoalescence
{
public static class Dis
{
public static T OrDat<T>(Expression<Func><T>> expr, T dat)
{
try
{
var func = expr.Compile();
var result = func.Invoke();
return result ?? dat; //now we can coalesce
}
catch (NullReferenceException)
{
return dat;
}
}
}
}
Read the full blog post here.
The same friend also suggested that you watch this.
I slightly modified the code from here to make it work for the question asked:
public static class GetValueOrDefaultExtension
{
public static TResult GetValueOrDefault<TSource, TResult>(this TSource source, Func<TSource, TResult> selector)
{
try { return selector(source); }
catch { return default(TResult); }
}
}
And yes, this is probably not the optimal solution due to try/catch performance implications but it works :>
Usage:
var val = cake.GetValueOrDefault(x => x.frosting.berries.loader);
Where you need to achieve this, do this:
Usage
Color color = someOrder.ComplexGet(x => x.Customer.LastOrder.Product.Color);
or
Color color = Complex.Get(() => someOrder.Customer.LastOrder.Product.Color);
Helper class implementation
public static class Complex
{
public static T1 ComplexGet<T1, T2>(this T2 root, Func<T2, T1> func)
{
return Get(() => func(root));
}
public static T Get<T>(Func<T> func)
{
try
{
return func();
}
catch (Exception)
{
return default(T);
}
}
}
I like approach taken by Objective-C:
"The Objective-C language takes another approach to this problem and does not invoke methods on nil but instead returns nil for all such invocations."
if (cake.frosting.berries != null)
{
var str = cake.frosting.berries...;
}