We Keep Coding

Avoiding `NullPointerExceptions` from `toString` from `hashmap`

I'm trying to avoid a NullPointerException in some code that tries to compare with a string from a HashMap.
The HashMap is well defined but there may or may not be a corresponding entry in the HashMap so I believe this may be where my NPE and the associated Android Studio warning may be coming from.
My code is:
if (region_ids !=null && source_region != null && selected_id != null) {
if (source_region.equals("it") && region_ids.containsKey("it") && !selected_id.equals(region_ids.get("it").toString())) {
// Do stuff for mismatched region
}
}
Where region_ids is the HashMap.
Am I doing enough to prevent NullPointerExceptions?
If so, why is Android Studio still giving me the warning in the IDE?
(Note that the Android-Studio tag is included intentionally because of the last part of this question which is AS specific.)
Update
Based on Code-Apprentice's comment and Nosyara's answer I now have the following two variations on the if statement but still get the NPE warning on the toString() method:
if ( region_ids_string != null && spin_region_id != null && source_region != null && selected_id != null && assoc_ids != null) {
if ( region_ids_string.size() > spin_region_id.getSelectedItemPosition()) {
if (source_region.equals("com_mx") && assoc_ids.get("com_mx") != null && assoc_ids.containsKey("com_mx") && !selected_id.equals(assoc_ids.get("com_mx").toString())) {
return true;
} else if ("com_au".equals(source_region) && assoc_ids.containsKey("com_au") && assoc_ids.get("com_au") != null && !assoc_ids.get("com_au").toString().equals(selected_id)) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
} else {
return false;
}
} else {
return false;
}
So I believe I am now checking for null, "", and whether the Key exists in the HashMap but AS still believes it is possible for the statements to generate an NPE...

If you reverse condition with constant to the left, you'll automatically check it for NULLs. Like so:
if ("it".equals(source_region) &&
region_ids.containsKey("it") &&
!(region_ids.get("it").toString().equals(selected_id))) {
// Do stuff for mismatched region
}

Check which combinations of parameters are null in Java

I am new to Java. I am facing an issue now in which I couldn't find the easiest and cleanest way of solving it.
Suppose I have 3 parameters(string) passed to a function(could be a Hashmap too).I want to check if individual variable or combination of variables is not Null and act accordingly.
For example one way to do this is using if-else this way
if(a!=null && b == null && c == null) {
//doSomething
}
else if(a==null && b!= null && c == null ) {
//doSomething
}
else if(a==null && b0= null && c != null) {
//doSomething
}
......
//Similarly combination of two variables
if(a!=null && b != null && c == null) {
//doSomething
}
else if(a!=null && b== null && c != null) {
//doSomething
}
else if(a==null && b!= null && c != null) {
//doSomething
}
......
//and so on
//Similarly combination of three variables
if(a!=null && b != null && c != null) {
//doSomething
}
....
How to achieve this kind of situation. I found similar question, but didn't make the code clean. Any help will be appreciated

Write these utility functions and you can compare n terms easily.
public static boolean areAllNull(Object... objects) {
return Stream.of(objects).allMatch(Objects::isNull);
}
public static boolean areAllNotNull(Object... objects) {
return Stream.of(objects).allMatch(Objects::nonNull);
}
you can use these functions for n comparisons.
if(areAllNotNull(a) && areAllNull(b,c)) {
//doSomething
}
else if(areAllNotNull(b) && areAllNull(a,c)) {
//doSomething
}
else if(areAllNotNull(c) && areAllNull(b,a)) {
//doSomething
}

This is my solution. Note, that you have multiple if...else in one single method. And then you add doSomething. This is going to be terrible to ready and later to realize.
What about to move one single condition into separate method and name it with relative name. Then, lets encapsulate it into Consumer and all of it into a predefined list. Later, if your doSomething will be huge, then you can move from single method to single class, not modifying client code.
This is class, to collect required variable for conditions:
final class Data {
private final String a;
private final String b;
private final String c;
}
Then define one Consumer per on if statement:
Consumer<Data> wonderfulConsumer = data -> {
if (a != null && b == null && c == null) {
// do something for wonderful consumer
}
};
Consumer<Data> badLuckConsumer = data -> {
if (a == null && b != null && c == null) {
// do something for bad luck consumer
}
};
Note, all these consumers could be modified separately (even be in the different classes).
Then in the client code, define list of all known consumers: List<Consumer<Data>> consumers = Arrays.asList(wonderfulConsumer, badLuckConsumer).
And finally your method will be like this and you do not need to change it when you decide to modify or add consumers.
Data data = new Data(a, b, c);
consumers.forEach(consumer -> consumer.accept(data));

If I had to do this , i will do it in the same way that you have done.
but if you dont like that and if you think it is not readable you can do it in this way, i expect lot of negative comments to this answer because this is a bad solution.
public static void yourMethod(Object a,Object b,Object c)
{
int evaluation = howManyNotNull(a,b,c);
if(evaluation == 0) // all are nulls
{
// your code
}
else if(evaluation == 1) // only one is not null
{
if(a!=null)
{
}
else if(b!=null)
{
}
else
{
// c not null
}
}
else if(evaluation == 2) // two variables are not null but other one is null
{
if(a==null)
{
}
else if(b == null)
{
}
else
{
// c is null, a and b not null
}
}
else
{
// all abc not null
}
}
private static int howManyNotNull(Object a, Object b, Object c)
{
return (a==null?0:1) + (b==null?0:1) + (c==null?0:1);
}
There is extended version of this , assign 3 prime values for a, b , c (example :a=2,b=3,c=5), then use a supportive method like this
private static int convertAvailabilityToInt(Object a, Object b, Object c)
{
return (a==null?1:2) * (b==null?1:3) * (c==null?1:5);
}
if the answer is 1 ,then all are not null .

You can use for example a 3 digit string simulating 3 flags.
You first set it to "000".
Then you check each variable for null, if it is not you will replace the 0 with 1.
Then you could use switch cases to treat each case.

You are doing everything right but you have to remember that primitive data types cannot be null. For example string is not null, but empty string "", or int cannot be null, its by default sets to 0. In conclusion Objects like Map , ArrayList or Integer.. you can check for null, but primitive data types cannot be null, so you cannot check them for it. For deeper understanding just learn about primitive and advanced data types.
I hope I got your problem right :)

SonarQube Refactor this method to reduce its Cognitive Complexity

I have the below utility method and I am using multiple if statements and getting cognitive complexity issue. I went through some links, but I am not able to understand how should I change my code without affecting users of this method.
public static boolean isWrapperValid(WrapperClass wrapper, boolean isTechnicalToken){
String key=null;
boolean isValidWrapper = false;
if (wrapper != null && wrapper.length() > 7
&& wrapper.substring(0, 6).equalsIgnoreCase("XYZ"))
{
wrapper= wrapper.substring(7, wrapper.lastIndexOf('.')+1);
}
if(wrapper != null && wrapper.equalsIgnoreCase("TFR")) {
isValidWrapper=Boolean.TRUE;
}
try {
key = wrapper.getKey();
}
catch (Exception exception) {
return isValidWrapper;
}
if(key!=null) {
Date tokenExpiryTime = key.getExpiresAt();
if(tokenExpiryTime!=null) {
return isValidWrapper;
}
String algorithm=key.getAlgorithm();
if(!DESIRED_ALGO.equals(algorithm)) {
return isValidWrapper;
}
String value6=key.getType();
if(!DESIRED_TYPE.equals(value6)) {
return isValidWrapper;
}
if(key.getValue1()!=null && key.getValue2().size()>0 && key.getValue3()!=null && key.getValue4()!=null && key.getValue5()!=null) {
isValidWrapper=Boolean.TRUE;
}
}
return isValidWrapper;
}
Please share your suggestions to refactor this code.

I don't think that merging many if conditions to one or simply do a code clean up, for example by changing the order of some instructions, can solve your problem.
Your code does not match the single responsibility principle. You should refactor this big method to smaller parts. Due to this it will testable, easier to maintain and read. I spent some time and did this:
public static boolean isWrapperValid(WrapperClass wrapper, boolean isTechnicalToken) {
final WrapperClass unpackedWrapper = unpackWrapper(wrapper);
boolean wrapperValid = isUnpackedWrapperValid(unpackedWrapper);
Key key = null;
try {
key = unpackedWrapper.getKey();
} catch (final Exception exception) {
return wrapperValid;
}
if (key != null) {
if (doesKeyMeetsBasicConditions(key)) {
return wrapperValid;
}
if (doesKeyMeetsValueConditions(key)) {
return true;
}
}
return wrapperValid;
}
protected static WrapperClass unpackWrapper(final WrapperClass wrapper) {
if (wrapper != null && wrapper.length() > 7 && wrapper.substring(0, 6).equalsIgnoreCase("XYZ")) {
return wrapper.substring(7, wrapper.lastIndexOf('.') + 1);
}
return wrapper;
}
protected static boolean isUnpackedWrapperValid(final WrapperClass wrapper) {
return wrapper != null && wrapper.equalsIgnoreCase("TFR");
}
protected static boolean doesKeyMeetsBasicConditions(final Key key) {
Date tokenExpiryTime = key.getExpiresAt();
if (tokenExpiryTime != null) {
return true;
}
String algorithm = key.getAlgorithm();
if (!DESIRED_ALGO.equals(algorithm)) {
return true;
}
String value6 = key.getType();
return !DESIRED_TYPE.equals(value6);
}
protected static boolean doesKeyMeetsValueConditions(final Key key) {
return key.getValue1() != null && key.getValue2().size() > 0
&& key.getValue3() != null && key.getValue4() != null
&& key.getValue5() != null;
}
I don't know the domain logic, so some of my methods have stupid names etc. As you can see, now you have a lot of smaller methods with not many branches (if conditions) - easier to test (a static code is not nice, but you can mock it by using for example PowerMock).

A bit of rewriting delivered a simplification, that still could be improved upon.
public static boolean isWrapperValid(WrapperClass wrapper, boolean isTechnicalToken){
if (wrapper != null && wrapper.length() > 7
&& wrapper.substring(0, 6).equalsIgnoreCase("XYZ"))
{
wrapper = wrapper.substring(7, wrapper.lastIndexOf('.')+1);
}
boolean isValidWrapper = wrapper != null && wrapper.equalsIgnoreCase("TFR");
try {
String key = wrapper.getKey();
if (key != null && key.getExpiresAt() == null
&& DESIRED_ALGO.equals(key.getAlgorithm())
&& DESIRED_TYPE.equals(key.getType())
&& key.getValue1() != null && !key.getValue2().isEmpty()
&& key.getValue3() != null && key.getValue4() != null
&& key.getValue5() != null) {
isValidWrapper = true;
}
}
catch (Exception exception) {
// DO NOTHING
}
return isValidWrapper;
}
After comment: here I catch any exception for all calls.

First of all, Sonar should give you more flags: reusing the wrapper parameter is usually a bad practice, NPE where invoking wrapper.getKey because wrapper can be null, but anyway, not the point...
Try reducing the number of if statements by creating local boolean variables (or possibly 1 big if statement if you have less than 5 or 6 tests, but often less readable). Once it's done, you should only have 1 block testing these boolean variables, and have one return statement, like the example above (not necessarily accurate!):
boolean expired = tokenExpiryTime != null;
boolean desiredAlgo = DESIRED_ALGO.equals(key.getAlgorithm());
boolean desiredType = DESIRED_TYPE.equals(value6);
if (expired || !desiredAlgo || !desiredType) {
return isValidWrapper;
}
However, your Cognitive complexity level seems pretty low if this kind of algorithm triggers it...
Another big way to reduce an algorithm complexity is to turn sub-blocks of code (loops, if and try-catch) into private methods. In your example, it could be something like a checkWrapperValidity method, responsible for every test returning isValidWrapper

How to write an recursive instance method to check whether a binary tree is structurally identical to another binary tree?

So today my data structures final had an exam question that asked this:
"Consider the BinaryTree class and add two recursive methods (independent from each other) named compBT to compare two binary trees. If the two binary trees are structurally identical (i.e., they look the same when the objects stored in the nodes are ignored), each of the two methods returns true; otherwise, each returns false. The first method should be an instance method and the second method should be a class method. Do not access the underlying data structure directly. Note: each method should not take more than 6 lines and be properly indented."
I was able to produce this for the class method:
public static boolean compareTrees(BinaryTree t1, BinaryTree t2) {
if (t1 == null && t2 == null) return true;
if ((t1 == null && t2 != null) || (t1 != null && t2 == null)) return false;
return compareTrees(t1.left, t2.left) && compareTrees(t1.right, t2.right);
}
I felt pretty confident about this answer, but writing the instance method had me totally stumped, especially since it had to be independent from the class method. All I was able to produce was the following:
public boolean compareTrees(BinaryTree t) {
if (t == null) return false;
return (compareTrees(this.left) && (t.left)) && (compareTrees(this.right) && compareTrees(t.right));
}
I know the method is incorrect since it will always return false because there is only one base case which will always be met. My thought process behind that particular base case is that if the parameter is null, then return false since there is a structural inequality because the caller cannot be null (only non-null references can call instance methods). But I didn't know what else to do from there.
Can anyone chime in? I thought this problem was pretty interesting.
Edit: adding in BinaryTree class.
Here's what the BinaryTree class looked like:
class BinaryTree {
public int value;
public BinaryTree left;
public BinaryTree right;
public BinaryTree(int x) { value = x;}
}

For instance method, all that changes is that check is before recursion, no in it:
public boolean compareTrees(BinaryTree other) {
if (left == null) != (other.left == null) return false;
if (right == null) != (other.right == null) return false;
if (left != null && !left.compareTrees(other.left)) return false;
if (right != null && !right.compareTrees(other.right)) return false;
return true;
}

I think you've recognized the basic problem. In your static method, you can pass null for both child trees when you call the method recursively. But in your instance method, you can only do that for the parameter. You can't do that for the instance method, since you can't call an instance method on null.
Well, if you can't call the instance method recursively on a null child, you have to handle the null child case before the recursive call. That's the key here, the realization that you will have to rearrange your logic. So your logic will need to be something like this:
If the parameter is null, return false (like you already did)
If the instance's left child is null, then:
2.1 If the parameter's left child is not null, return false
2.2 If the parameter's left child is null, keep going with step 4
If the instance's left child is not null, then call recursively on the left child (it doesn't matter if the parameter's left child is null, because that will be caught be #1), and return false if the recursive call returns false
4-5. Same steps for the right child
If we've gotten this far, and no check has failed, then we can return true
So the code looks something like this:
public boolean compareTrees(BinaryTree t) {
if (t == null) return false;
if (this.left == null) {
if (t.left != null) {
return false;
}
}
else if (!this.left.compareTrees(t.left)) {
return false;
}
if (this.right == null) {
if (t.right != null) {
return false;
}
}
else if (!this.right.compareTrees(t.right)) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
EDIT: I just now noticed the requirement that the method not be more than 6 lines. So I guess my answer won't work. On the other hand, I could make it work by compressing a bunch of stuff onto a few lines.
public boolean compareTrees(BinaryTree t) {
if (t == null) return false;
if (this.left == null && t.left != null) return false;
if (this.left != null && !this.left.compareTrees(t.left)) return false;
if (this.right == null && t.right != null) return false;
if (this.right != null && !this.right.compareTrees(t.right)) return false;
return true;
}
I could make it even shorter by combining the last two lines into one. But
if your professor is going to reward compressed, harder-to-read code such as this, and fail cleaner code like I had in my earlier example, shame on him.
More: OK, if your professor measures code quality by a smaller number of lines, this should make him ecstatic, even though all my colleagues would blast it in a code review:
public boolean compareTrees(BinaryTree t) {
return !((t == null) || (this.left == null && t.left != null) || (this.left != null && !this.left.compareTrees(t.left)) || (this.right == null && t.right != null) || (this.right != null && !this.right.compareTrees(t.right)) );
}

Simplify java if statement

Can I simplify this java if construct? It seems too verbose to me, I'd like to have it shorter.
A is persistent Object, which will be null if it's context is accessed first time. Than A is instatniated and given content, and if this fails, some backup content is given to A.
if (A == null) {
A = staticGetMethod();
if (A == null) A = new BackupAContent() { ... };
}

Update: Or you could simply remove the nesting as it will still behave the same way.
if (A == null) {
A = staticGetMethod();
}
if (A == null) {
new BackupAContent() { ... };
}
Should work:
if (A == null && (A = staticGetMethod()) == null) {
new BackupAContent() { ... };
}

Put your building logic in factory method
if (objA == null) {
objA = getAInstance();
}
encapsulate the code suggested by Charles into a method to implement Factory_method_pattern

You can use a ternary operator instead of the if statements:
a = a ? a : staticGetMethod();
a = a ? a : new BackupAContent();
That said, I'd stick with what you've got, to be honest -- except that I would add a block for the second conditional rather than putting the statement inline with it.

This is Charles Goodwin's code with a slight change:
if (A == null && (A = staticGetMethod()) == null) {
new BackupAContent() { ... };
}
I used an AND instead of an OR

I think this is the best way to do it:
if(A == null)
{
if((A = staticGetMethod()) == null) A = new BackupAContent() { ... };
}