We Keep Coding

Elegant way to return variable before new variable assignment?

This might sound like a dumb question, because it might be no other way to do this. After designing my own list, this sort of "issue" came up in multiple occasions. To clarify, I have a problem with returning a cached variable after assigning new value to the original variable. Here's an example:
public T next() {
final Node<T> thisNode = posNode;
posNode = posNode.getNext();
return thisNode.getData();
}
This might seem like a non-issue, but occasionally multiple variables has to be cached before returning a valid value. I do not really like it, because personally I think it reduces the code's readability, especially when caching multiple variables.
Is there another way to write this code while maintaining its functionality? Basically a way to assign a new value to a variable after the return statement:
public T next() {
return posNode.getData();
posNode = posNode.getNext();
}
Thanks! :)

The second way is not possible as the code is not reachable after return. And your first way is the best way far you to achieve what you are looking for and it is not code smell. Often they refer as temp variables. Use them and better convey a message to the code reader by better naming convention. For ex tempPosNode

An elegant (but with some cognitive dissonance) option is a dummy method.
public static <T> T first(T first, Object... theRest) {
return first;
}
public T next() {
return first(posNode.getData(), posNode = posNode.getNext());
}

You can use a finally block to execute it, but it will execute even after exceptions:
public T next() {
try {
return posNode.getData();
} finally {
posNode = posNode.getNext();
}
}

Java class: limit instance variable to one of several possible values, depending on other instance variables

I am sorry for the vague question. I am not sure what I'm looking for here.
I have a Java class, let's call it Bar. In that class is an instance variable, let's call it foo. foo is a String.
foo cannot just have any value. There is a long list of strings, and foo must be one of them.
Then, for each of those strings in the list I would like the possibility to set some extra conditions as to whether that specific foo can belong in that specific type of Bar (depending on other instance variables in that same Bar).
What approach should I take here? Obviously, I could put the list of strings in a static class somewhere and upon calling setFoo(String s) check whether s is in that list. But that would not allow me to check for extra conditions - or I would need to put all that logic for every value of foo in the same method, which would get ugly quickly.
Is the solution to make several hundred classes for every possible value of foo and insert in each the respective (often trivial) logic to determine what types of Bar it fits? That doesn't sound right either.
What approach should I take here?
Here's a more concrete example, to make it more clear what I am looking for. Say there is a Furniture class, with a variable material, which can be lots of things, anything from mahogany to plywood. But there is another variable, upholstery, and you can make furniture containing cotton of plywood but not oak; satin furniture of oak but not walnut; other types of fabric go well with any material; et cetera.

I wouldn't suggest creating multiple classes/templates for such a big use case. This is very opinion based but I'll take a shot at answering as best as I can.
In such a case where your options can be numerous and you want to keep a maintainable code base, the best solution is to separate the values and the logic. I recommend that you store your foo values in a database. At the same time, keep your client code as clean and small as possible. So that it doesn't need to filter through the data to figure out which data is valid. You want to minimize dependency to data in your code. Think of it this way: tomorrow you might need to add a new material to your material list. Do you want to modify all your code for that? Or do you want to just add it to your database and everything magically works? Obviously the latter is a better option. Here is an example on how to design such a system. Of course, this can vary based on your use case or variables but it is a good guideline. The basic rule of thumb is: your code should have as little dependency to data as possible.
Let's say you want to create a Bar which has to have a certain foo. In this case, I would create a database for BARS which contains all the possible Bars. Example:
ID NAME FOO
1 Door 1,4,10
I will also create a database FOOS which contains the details of each foo. For example:
ID NAME PROPERTY1 PROPERTY2 ...
1 Oak Brown Soft
When you create a Bar:
Bar door = new Bar(Bar.DOOR);
in the constructor you would go to the BARS table and query the foos. Then you would query the FOOS table and load all the material and assign them to the field inside your new object.
This way whenever you create a Bar the material can be changed and loaded from DB without changing any code. You can add as many types of Bar as you can and change material properties as you goo. Your client code however doesn't change much.
You might ask why do we create a database for FOOS and refer to it's ids in the BARS table? This way, you can modify the properties of each foo as much as you want. Also you can share foos between Bars and vice versa but you only need to change the db once. cross referencing becomes a breeze. I hope this example explains the idea clearly.

You say:
Is the solution to make several hundred classes for every possible
value of foo and insert in each the respective (often trivial) logic
to determine what types of Bar it fits? That doesn't sound right
either.
Why not have separate classes for each type of Foo? Unless you need to define new types of Foo without changing the code you can model them as plain Java classes. You can go with enums as well but it does not really give you any advantage since you still need to update the enum when adding a new type of Foo.
In any case here is type safe approach that guarantees compile time checking of your rules:
public static interface Material{}
public static interface Upholstery{}
public static class Oak implements Material{}
public static class Plywood implements Material{}
public static class Cotton implements Upholstery{}
public static class Satin implements Upholstery{}
public static class Furniture<M extends Material, U extends Upholstery>{
private M matrerial = null;
private U upholstery = null;
public Furniture(M matrerial, U upholstery){
this.matrerial = matrerial;
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
public M getMatrerial() {
return matrerial;
}
public U getUpholstery() {
return upholstery;
}
}
public static Furniture<Plywood, Cotton> cottonFurnitureWithPlywood(Plywood plywood, Cotton cotton){
return new Furniture<>(plywood, cotton);
}
public static Furniture<Oak, Satin> satinFurnitureWithOak(Oak oak, Satin satin){
return new Furniture<>(oak, satin);
}

It depends on what you really want to achieve. Creating objects and passing them around will not magically solve your domain-specific problems.
If you cannot think of any real behavior to add to your objects (except the validation), then it might make more sense to just store your data and read them into memory whenever you want. Even treat rules as data.
Here is an example:
public class Furniture {
String name;
Material material;
Upholstery upholstery;
//getters, setters, other behavior
public Furniture(String name, Material m, Upholstery u) {
//Read rule files from memory or disk and do all the checks
//Do not instantiate if validation does not pass
this.name = name;
material = m;
upholstery = u;
}
}
To specify rules, you will then create three plain text files (e.g. using csv format). File 1 will contain valid values for material, file 2 will contain valid values for upholstery, and file 3 will have a matrix format like the following:
upholstery\material plywood mahogany oak
cotton 1 0 1
satin 0 1 0
to check if a material goes with an upholstery or not, just check the corresponding row and column.
Alternatively, if you have lots of data, you can opt for a database system along with an ORM. Rule tables then can be join tables and come with extra nice features a DBMS may provide (like easy checking for duplicate values). The validation table could look something like:
MaterialID UpholsteryID Compatability_Score
plywood cotton 1
oak satin 0
The advantage of using this approach is that you quickly get a working application and you can decide what to do as you add new behavior to your application. And even if it gets way more complex in the future (new rules, new data types, etc) you can use something like the repository pattern to keep your data and business logic decoupled.
Notes about Enums:
Although the solution suggested by #Igwe Kalu solves the specific case described in the question, it is not scalable. What if you want to find what material goes with a given upholstery (the reverse case)? You will need to create another enum which does not add anything meaningful to the program, or add complex logic to your application.

This is a more detailed description of the idea I threw out there in the comment:
Keep Furniture a POJO, i.e., just hold the data, no behavior or rules implemented in it.
Implement the rules in separate classes, something along the lines of:
interface FurnitureRule {
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException;
}
class ValidMaterialRule implements FurnitureRule {
// this you can load in whatever way suitable in your architecture -
// from enums, DB, an XML file, a JSON file, or inject via Spring, etc.
private Set<String> validMaterialNames;
#Overload
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
if (!validMaterialNames.contains(furniture.getMaterial()))
throws new FurnitureRuleException("Invalid material " + furniture.getMaterial());
}
}
class UpholsteryRule implements FurnitureRule {
// Again however suitable to implement/config this
private Map<String, Set<String>> validMaterialsPerUpholstery;
#Overload
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
Set<String> validMaterialNames = validMaterialsPerUpholstery.get(furniture.getUpholstery();
if (validMaterialNames != null && !validMaterialNames.contains(furniture.getMaterial()))
throws new FurnitureRuleException("Invalid material " + furniture.getMaterial() + " for upholstery " + furniture.getUpholstery());
}
}
// and more complex rules if you need to
Then have some service along the lines of FurnitureManager. It's the "gatekeeper" for all Furniture creation/updates:
class FurnitureManager {
// configure these via e.g. Spring.
private List<FurnitureRule> rules;
public void updateFurniture(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
rules.forEach(rule -> rule.validate(furniture))
// proceed to persist `furniture` in the database or whatever else you do with a valid piece of furniture.
}
}

material should be of type Enum.
public enum Material {
MAHOGANY,
TEAK,
OAK,
...
}
Furthermore you can have a validator for Furniture that contains the logic which types of Furniture make sense, and then call that validator in every method that can change the material or upholstery variable (typically only your setters).
public class Furniture {
private Material material;
private Upholstery upholstery; //Could also be String depending on your needs of course
public void setMaterial(Material material) {
if (FurnitureValidator.isValidCombination(material, this.upholstery)) {
this.material = material;
}
}
...
private static class FurnitureValidator {
private static boolean isValidCombination(Material material, Upholstery upholstery) {
switch(material) {
case MAHOGANY: return upholstery != Upholstery.COTTON;
break;
//and so on
}
}
}
}

We often are oblivious of the power inherent in enum types. The Java™ Tutorials clearly states "you should use enum types any time you need to represent a fixed set of constants."
How do you simply make the best of enum in resolving the challenge you presented? - Here goes:
public enum Material {
MAHOGANY( "satin", "velvet" ),
PLYWOOD( "leather" ),
// possibly many other materials and their matching fabrics...
OAK( "some other fabric - 0" ),
WALNUT( "some other fabric - 0", "some other fabric - 1" );
private final String[] listOfSuitingFabrics;
Material( String... fabrics ) {
this.listOfSuitingFabrics = fabrics;
}
String[] getListOfSuitingFabrics() {
return Arrays.copyOf( listOfSuitingFabrics );
}
public String toString() {
return name().substring( 0, 1 ) + name().substring( 1 );
}
}
Let's test it:
public class TestMaterial {
for ( Material material : Material.values() ) {
System.out.println( material.toString() + " go well with " + material.getListOfSuitingFabrics() );
}
}

Probably the approach I'd use (because it involves the least amount of code and it's reasonably fast) is to "flatten" the hierarchical logic into a one-dimensional Set of allowed value combinations. Then when setting one of the fields, validate that the proposed new combination is valid. I'd probably just use a Set of concatenated Strings for simplicity. For the example you give above, something like this:
class Furniture {
private String wood;
private String upholstery;
/**
* Set of all acceptable values, with each combination as a String.
* Example value: "plywood:cotton"
*/
private static final Set<String> allowed = new HashSet<>();
/**
* Load allowed values in initializer.
*
* TODO: load allowed values from DB or config file
* instead of hard-wiring.
*/
static {
allowed.add("plywood:cotton");
...
}
public void setWood(String wood) {
if (!allowed.contains(wood + ":" + this.upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.wood = wood;
}
public void setUpholstery(String upholstery) {
if (!allowed.contains(this.wood + ":" + upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
public void setMaterials(String wood, String upholstery) {
if (!allowed.contains(wood + ":" + upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.wood = wood;
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
// getters
...
}
The disadvantage of this approach compared to other answers is that there is no compile-time type checking. For example, if you try to set the wood to plywoo instead of plywood you won’t know about your error until runtime. In practice this disadvantage is negligible since presumably the options will be chosen by a user through a UI (or through some other means), so you won’t know what they are until runtime anyway. Plus the big advantage is that the code will never have to be changed so long as you’re willing to maintain a list of allowed combinations externally. As someone with 30 years of development experience, take my word for it that this approach is far more maintainable.
With the above code, you'll need to use setMaterials before using setWood or setUpholstery, since the other field will still be null and therefore not an allowed combination. You can initialize the class's fields with default materials to avoid this if you want.

Method reference and boolean

So I have been having a go with using the method reference in Java 8 (Object::Method). What I am attempting to do, which I have done before but have forgotten (last time I used this method reference was about 4 months ago), is find the amount of players that != online using the Method Reference.
public static Set<Friend> getOnlineFriends(UUID playerUUID)
{
Set<Friend> friends = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(ZMFriends.getFriends(playerUUID)));
return friends.stream().filter(Friend::isOnline).collect(Collectors.toSet());
}
public static Set<Friend> getOfflineFriends(UUID playerUUID)
{
Set<Friend> friends = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(ZMFriends.getFriends(playerUUID)));
return friends.stream().filter(Friend::isOnline).collect(Collectors.toSet());
As you can see I managed to so it when the player (friend) is online but I cannot figure out how to filter though the Set and collect the offline players. I'm missing something obvious, but what is it?!?!
Thanks,
Duke.

In you code
public static Set<Friend> getOnlineFriends(UUID playerUUID)
{
Set<Friend> friends = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(ZMFriends.getFriends(playerUUID)));
return friends.stream().filter(Friend::isOnline).collect(Collectors.toSet());
}
you are creating a List view to the array returned by ZMFriends.getFriends(playerUUID), copy its contents to a HashSet, just to call stream() on it.
That’s a waste of resources, as the source type is irrelevant to the subsequent stream operation. You don’t need to have a Set source to get a Set result. So you can implement your operation simply as
public static Set<Friend> getOnlineFriends(UUID playerUUID)
{
return Arrays.stream(ZMFriends.getFriends(playerUUID))
.filter(Friend::isOnline).collect(Collectors.toSet());
}
Further, you should consider whether you really need both, getOnlineFriends and getOfflineFriends in your actual implementation. Creating utility methods in advance, just because you might need them, rarely pays off. See also “You aren’t gonna need it”.
But if you really need both operations, it’s still an unnecessary code duplication. Just consider:
public static Set<Friend> getFriends(UUID playerUUID, boolean online)
{
return Arrays.stream(ZMFriends.getFriends(playerUUID))
.filter(f -> f.isOnline()==online).collect(Collectors.toSet());
}
solving both tasks. It still wastes resource, if the application really needs both Sets, as the application still has to perform the same operation twice to get both Sets. Consider:
public static Map<Boolean,Set<Friend>> getOnlineFriends(UUID playerUUID)
{
return Arrays.stream(ZMFriends.getFriends(playerUUID))
.collect(Collectors.partitioningBy(Friend::isOnline, Collectors.toSet()));
}
This provides you both Sets at once, the online friends being associated to true, the offline friends being associated to false.

There are 2 ways I can think of:
friends.stream().filter(i -> !i.isOnline()).collect(Collectors.toSet());
But I guess that's not what you want, since it's not using a method reference. So maybe something like this:
public static <T> Predicate<T> negation(Predicate<T> predicate) {
return predicate.negate();
}
...
friends.stream().filter(negation(Friend::isOnline)).collect(Collectors.toSet());

java enum string matching

I have an enum as follows:
public enum ServerTask {
HOOK_BEFORE_ALL_TASKS("Execute"),
COPY_MASTER_AND_SNAPSHOT_TO_HISTORY("Copy master db"),
PROCESS_CHECKIN_QUEUE("Process Check-In Queue"),
...
}
I also have a string (lets say string = "Execute") which I would like to make into an instance of the ServerTask enum based on which string in the enum that it matches with. Is there a better way to do this than doing equality checks between the string I want to match and every item in the enum? seems like this would be a lot of if statements since my enum is fairly large

At some level you're going to have to iterate over the entire set of enumerations that you have, and you'll have to compare them to equal - either via a mapping structure (initial population) or through a rudimentary loop.
It's fairly easy to accomplish with a rudimentary loop, so I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to go this route. The code snippet below assumes the field is named friendlyTask.
public static ServerTask forTaskName(String friendlyTask) {
for (ServerTask serverTask : ServerTask.values()) {
if(serverTask.friendlyTask.equals(friendlyTask)) {
return serverTask;
}
}
return null;
}
The caveat to this approach is that the data won't be stored internally, and depending on how many enums you actually have and how many times you want to invoke this method, it would perform slightly worse than initializing with a map.
However, this approach is the most straightforward. If you find yourself in a position where you have several hundred enums (even more than 20 is a smell to me), consider what it is those enumerations represent and what one should do to break it out a bit more.

Create static reverse lookup map.
public enum ServerTask {
HOOK_BEFORE_ALL_TASKS("Execute"),
COPY_MASTER_AND_SNAPSHOT_TO_HISTORY("Copy master db"),
PROCESS_CHECKIN_QUEUE("Process Check-In Queue"),
...
FINAL_ITEM("Final item");
// For static data always prefer to use Guava's Immutable library
// http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git/javadoc/com/google/common/collect/ImmutableMap.html
static ImmutableMap< String, ServerTask > REVERSE_MAP;
static
{
ImmutableMap.Builder< String, ServerTask > reverseMapBuilder =
ImmutableMap.builder( );
// Build the reverse map by iterating all the values of your enum
for ( ServerTask cur : values() )
{
reverseMapBuilder.put( cur.taskName, cur );
}
REVERSE_MAP = reverseMapBuilder.build( );
}
// Now is the lookup method
public static ServerTask fromTaskName( String friendlyName )
{
// Will return ENUM if friendlyName matches what you stored
// with enum
return REVERSE_MAP.get( friendlyName );
}
}

If you have to get the enum from the String often, then creating a reverse map like Alexander suggests might be worth it.
If you only have to do it once or twice, looping over the values with a single if statement might be your best bet (like Nizil's comment insinuates)
for (ServerTask task : ServerTask.values())
{
//Check here if strings match
}
However there is a way to not iterate over the values at all. If you can ensure that the name of the enum instance and its String value are identical, then you can use:
ServerTask.valueOf("EXECUTE")
which will give you ServerTask.EXECUTE.
Refer this answer for more info.
Having said that, I would not recommend this approach unless you're OK with having instances have the same String representations as their identifiers and yours is a performance critical application which is most often not the case.

You could write a method like this:
static ServerTask getServerTask(String name)
{
switch(name)
{
case "Execute": return HOOK_BEFORE_ALL_TASKS;
case "Copy master db": return COPY_MASTER_AND_SNAPSHOT_TO_HISTORY;
case "Process Check-In Queue": return PROCESS_CHECKIN_QUEUE;
}
}
It's smaller, but not automatic like #Alexander_Pogrebnyak's solution. If the enum changes, you would have to update the switch.

How to refactor a big function with many if constructs?

We have App A as main app. Now we build from it App B which uses a subset of App A's functionality.
App A stays like it is whereas app B only uses a subset of A
So I want to refactor the function without or with as little dublication as possible and with maximum readability.
So the function looks like this (it is actually longer, this is an excerpt):
class SomeClass {
Data prepareData() {
if (this.bothId==1 || this.appAid=2 /*or only relevant for appA*/) {
if(this.data==null) { /*appA*/
appAdoSmth(); /*appA*/
}
boolean merge=false; /*appA*/
if (this.data==null) { /*appA*/
merge=appAanalyze(data); /*appA*/
}
bothPrepare(merge);
} else if (bothIsRelevant()) {
if(appArelevant()) { /*appA*/
data=appAprepare(); /*appA*/
} else {
data=prepareBoth();
}
bothUpdateSomeValue();
}
}
How would you do it?

Other Answers address the general question of how to refactor code. They offer good advice, but I don't think it is what you are asking.
I think you are asking about possible refactorings of the code in your question.
It is hard to give an answer that is generally applicable, or even specifically applicable. (The sample code isn't your real code, and it is a little difficult to understand what it actually "means").
AndreasD gives one approach: break the big complicated nested if into separate methods.
Another approach is to use the Stragegy design pattern. Separate the code that is specific to each app into strategy classes. For example:
interface Strategy {
Data prepareData();
}
class GeneralStrategy implements Strategy {
Data prepareData() {
// do general preparation
}
}
class App1Strategy extends GeneralStrategy {
Data prepareData() {
// do app1-specific preparation
super.prepareData();
// do more app1-specific preparation
}
}
and so on.

I ideal world develop unit test that validates that existing implementation of your function works.
Then start changing code incrementally and run your test after every change.
It is hard to give your formal recommendation without knowing your code structure. But generally try to find duplicate code fragments, write methods that implement this logic with parameters and replace the duplicate fragments to your new method. Etc, etc.
Good luck.

Readbility can be improved by extracting some logic in separate methods. That is a refactoring method.
Data prepareData() {
if (this.bothId==1 || this.appAid=2 ) {
handleCase1(); // <- you'll find better names for the methods
} else if (bothIsRelevant()) {
handleCase2();
}
}
private void handleCase1() {
if(this.data==null) {
appAdoSmth();
}
boolean merge=false;
if (this.data==null) {
merge=appAanalyze(data);
}
bothPrepare(merge);
}
private handleCase2() {
if(appArelevant()) {
data=appAprepare();
} else {
data=prepareBoth();
}
bothUpdateSomeValue();
}
This doesn't reduce the number of if/else, of course, but it keeps the "main" method simple.

If I were you I would run a coverage report on this class. (e.g. http://ecobertura.johoop.de/ or http://www.eclemma.org/) This way Eclipse can show covered lines green and this helps you to identify the cases. With this aid it's much easier to separate green lines and pull them into methods.