We Keep Coding

Method returning alternative data structures based on execution result

Say I have a function that looks at a file and returns two results: recognized and unrecognized. When it returns the recognized result, I want the result to also contain a message but when it is unrecognized, no message is necessary.
public Result checkFile(File file) {
...
}
There are two ways I can think of to accomplish this...
Have the Result class like so:
class Result {
private Type type;
private String message;
enum Type {
RECOGNIZED, UNRECOGNIZED
}
}
Or do it like so:
class Result {
}
class Unrecognized extends Result {
}
class Recognized extends Result {
private String message;
}
I'm inclined to use the second method, even though I'd have to check the result using instanceof and I've read that instanceof should be avoided whenever possible, but doing this avoids having a null message when the result is unrecognized. For this example a null message wouldn't be much of an issue, but what if there is a lot more data associated with a recognized result? It seems like worse practice to me to instantiate a class that could have all null fields.
What is the best practice to handle this situation? Is there some standard method or pattern?

Two classes might be overkill, because of it being one and the same class of object. Also an enum with two values which merely reassemble true and false is not required. One class Result should suffice and this would also remove the demand for a common interface. I'd be all for "no complexity beyond necessary" ...
class RecognitionResult {
private String message = "default message";
private boolean recognized = false;
public Result() {}
public Result(boolean value) {
this.setRecognised(value);
}
public boolean setRecognised(boolean value) {
this.recognized = value;
}
public boolean setMessage(#NonNull String value) {
this.message = value;
}
public boolean getRecognised() {
return this.recognized;
}
#Nullable
public String getMessage() {
return this.recognized ? this.message : null;
}
}
then one can simply do:
return new RecognitionResult(true);
an interface for asynchronous callbacks might look alike this:
interface Recognition {
void OnComplete(RecognitionResult result);
}
or if you really want to optimize:
interface Recognition {
void OnSuccess(RecognitionResult result);
void OnFailure(RecognitionException e);
}

Of course there's no 'correct' design here - it's going to be a matter of opinion which way you go. However my view is that the modern trend in OOD is to minimise the use of extension and to use delegation and implementation of interfaces wherever possible.
As a general rule, whenever you think of using instanceof, reconsider your design.
This would be my suggestion:
interface Result {
boolean isRecognised();
String getMessage();
}
class RecognisedResult implements Result {
private final String message;
public boolean isRecognised() {
return true;
}
public String getMessage() {
return message;
}
}
class UnrecognisedResult implements Result {
public boolean isRecognised() {
return false;
}
public String getMessage() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("No message for unrecognised results");
}
}

you can look at the way Retrofit implement your concept of "recognised" and "message"
https://square.github.io/retrofit/2.x/retrofit/retrofit2/Response.html. it is similar to your first method.
what they did is to have a class called Response, containing a method called isSuccessful(), and a method called body() containing the payload if it's successful (or null if it is unsuccessful.
you can try some thing like the following
class Result {
private Type type;
private String message;
public bool isSuccessful(){
return type == RECOGNIZED;
}
public String getMessage(){
return message; //null if unrecognized.
}
enum Type {
RECOGNIZED, UNRECOGNIZED
}
}

The functional way to do this would be to use an Either type, which doesn’t come with the JDK, but is available in vavr library. Based on your comments on this thread, it appears you don’t clearly understand how type inheritance works. In that case, a functional solution may be overkill, and I’d suggest going with #sprinter’s solution.

How can we test an Enum like is valueOf()?

G'day, errata ... My plan was as shown below. This update is to clarify and apologise for a late night question. The compile error was due to a problem elsewhere in the file.
Clarification: a simple Java enum, like this:
public enum ServiceSource
{
NONE,
URL,
FILE;
}
Want to checking like, isURL():
public boolean isURL(){
return (URL == this);
}
This works (and compiles) ... There's no question -- Correctly answered by: dasblinkenlight and Elliott Frisch. Thank you very much for your time.
see also:
Lookup enum by string value
How to test enum types?

Since this is an instance method, you need to check that this is equal to URL, like this:
public boolean isURL(){
return (URL == this);
}
Demo on ideone.

If you want to have methods that are polymorphic - i.e. exhibit different behaviour for different instances (values) of your enum class, my preference is to override a common method:
public enum ServiceSource {
NONE("no_value"),
URL("url"){
#Override
public boolean isURL() {
return true;
}
},
FILE("file");
private final String val;
private ServiceSource(String val) {
this.val = val;
}
public boolean isURL() {
return false;
}
}
But for methods that check whether this is specific enum value then adding an isXXX method for each constant seems very wasteful. Really, the very reason to use an enum, is so that you can write
if(thing == ServiceSource.URL)
Elsewhere in your code.

If I understand your question, the correct method in your enum is to use this like so,
public enum ServiceSource
{
NONE( "no_value" ),
URL( "url" ),
FILE( "file" );
ServiceSource(String v) {
text =v;
}
private String text;
public boolean isURL() {
return this == URL;
}
}

You can make a method on your Enum to check the value of itself like this:
public boolean isURL(){
return (URL == this);
}
But it's hard to see the value in this approach since every Object has a built in equals() method that accomplishes the same thing.
if (serviceSource.equals(ServiceSource.URL)) { ... }
This would be a more common and obvious way to check the assigned value of an Enum variable (or any variable for that matter). Taking the first approach would require you to have a new isX() method on your Enum; every time you add an Enum constant, you would probably want a new method to accompany it.

Why does eclipse give me an error with my return statement?

I am trying to make the method selectVMwareServer return a VMwareServer object when the key is is present in the HashMap. But eclipse does not like the where I am placing my return statement. Why is this? Is it because the method HAS TO return an object?
Here is my code;
package configFS;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class Config {
private Map <String, Object> config;
public Config() {
/*
* This will create a new configuration everytime we create a new instance of Config.class
* By using the generics of String and Object I can link a name tag to any object needed.
*/
config = new HashMap <String, Object> ();
}
public void addVMwareServer(String par1) {
config.put(par1, new VMwareServer());
}
public void removeVMwareServer(String par1) {
config.remove(par1);
}
public VMwareServer selectVMwareServer(String par1) {
if (config.containsKey(par1)) {
return (VMwareServer) config.get(par1);
}
return null;
}
}
NOTE: This is very much a work in progress!
To silence eclipse I let it add the "return null;"

A method should always have a return statement if it has a return type.
According to your code, if the "if" condition is not satisfied then it will never get into that condition and that return statement will never get executed.
That is why you have to have return statement outside the "if" condition.

You specify what to return in case your if statement (contains the key). Think about what to do in case when your if statement does not hold true and is ignored. The method has to return something, that is where your "Null" return statement comes in handy. for example:
public boolean selectVMwareServer(String par1) {
if (config.containsKey(par1)) {
return true; //(VMwareServer) config.get(par1);
}
return false; // If I dont have this in place, Java has no idea what to do hence it HAS to return something.
}
Better solution may be along the lines of:
create new field say X,
public void selectVMwareServer(String par1) {
if (config.containsKey(par1)) {
X = (VMwareServer) config.get(par1);
}
else//do nothing,
}
After this you can use X however you need to solve your problem. Hope its somewhat clear..

Is it because the method HAS TO return an object?
Basically, yes.
Or more precisely, every "normal termination" path for the program has to return a value that can be assigned to the method's return type.
Note that it is actually possible to implement a non-void method without a return statement at all; e.g.
public int test() {
throw new SomeUncheckedException(...);
}
... but this is not generally useful. The compiler's path analysis code can figure out that the test method cannot go past the throw statement ... and hence that a return statement following it is not necessary. (Indeed it would be a compilation error to add one.)

Letting the code try different things until it succeeds, neatly

This is the second time I found myself writing this kind of code, and decided that there must be a more readable way to accomplish this:
My code tries to figure something out, that's not exactly well defined, or there are many ways to accomplish it. I want my code to try out several ways to figure it out, until it succeeds, or it runs out of strategies. But I haven't found a way to make this neat and readable.
My particular case: I need to find a particular type of method from an interface. It can be annotated for explicitness, but it can also be the only suitable method around (per its arguments).
So, my code currently reads like so:
Method candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
if (candidateMethod == null) {
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz);
}
if (candidateMethod == null) {
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz);
}
if (candidateMethod == null) {
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
}
There must be a better way…
Edit: The methods return a method if found, null otherwise. I could switch that to try/catch logic, but that hardly makes it more readable.
Edit2: Unfortunately, I can accept only one answer :(

To me it is readable and understandable. I'd simply extract the ugly part of the code to a separate method (following some basic principles from "Robert C.Martin: Clean Code") and add some javadoc (and apologies, if necessary) like that:
//...
try {
Method method = MethodFinder.findMethodIn(clazz);
catch (NoSuitableMethodException oops) {
// handle exception
}
and later on in MethodFinder.java
/**
* Will find the most suitable method in the given class or throw an exception if
* no such method exists (...)
*/
public static Method findMethodIn(Class<?> clazz) throws NoSuitableMethodException {
// all your effort to get a method is hidden here,
// protected with unit tests and no need for anyone to read it
// in order to understand the 'main' part of the algorithm.
}

I think for a small set of methods what you're doing is fine.
For a larger set, I might be inclined to build a Chain of Responsibility, which captures the base concept of trying a sequence of things until one works.

I don't think that this is such a bad way of doing it. It is a bit verbose, but it clearly conveys what you are doing, and is easy to change.
Still, if you want to make it more concise, you can wrap the methods getMethod* into a class which implements an interface ("IMethodFinder") or similar:
public interface IMethodFinder{
public Method findMethod(...);
}
Then you can create instances of you class, put them into a collection and loop over it:
...
Method candidateMethod;
findLoop:
for (IMethodFinder mf: myMethodFinders){
candidateMethod = mf.findMethod(clazz);
if (candidateMethod!=null){
break findLoop;
}
}
if (candidateMethod!=null){
// method found
} else {
// not found :-(
}
While arguably somewhat more complicated, this will be easier to handle if you e.g. need to do more work between calling the findMethods* methods (such as more verification that the method is appropriate), or if the list of ways to find methods is configurable at runtime...
Still, your approach is probably OK as well.

I'm sorry to say, but the method you use seems to be the widely accepted one. I see a lot of code like that in the code base of large libraries like Spring, Maven etc.
However, an alternative would be to introduce a helper interface that can convert from a given input to a given output. Something like this:
public interface Converter<I, O> {
boolean canConvert(I input);
O convert(I input);
}
and a helper method
public static <I, O> O getDataFromConverters(
final I input,
final Converter<I, O>... converters
){
O result = null;
for(final Converter<I, O> converter : converters){
if(converter.canConvert(input)){
result = converter.convert(input);
break;
}
}
return result;
}
So then you could write reusable converters that implement your logic. Each of the converters would have to implement the canConvert(input) method to decide whether it's conversion routines will be used.
Actually: what your request reminds me of is the Try.these(a,b,c) method in Prototype (Javascript).
Usage example for your case:
Let's say you have some beans that have validation methods. There are several strategies to find these validation methods. First we'll check whether this annotation is present on the type:
// retention, target etc. stripped
public #interface ValidationMethod {
String value();
}
Then we'll check whether there's a method called "validate". To make things easier I assume, that all methods define a single parameter of type Object. You may choose a different pattern. Anyway, here's sample code:
// converter using the annotation
public static final class ValidationMethodAnnotationConverter implements
Converter<Class<?>, Method>{
#Override
public boolean canConvert(final Class<?> input){
return input.isAnnotationPresent(ValidationMethod.class);
}
#Override
public Method convert(final Class<?> input){
final String methodName =
input.getAnnotation(ValidationMethod.class).value();
try{
return input.getDeclaredMethod(methodName, Object.class);
} catch(final Exception e){
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
}
}
// converter using the method name convention
public static class MethodNameConventionConverter implements
Converter<Class<?>, Method>{
private static final String METHOD_NAME = "validate";
#Override
public boolean canConvert(final Class<?> input){
return findMethod(input) != null;
}
private Method findMethod(final Class<?> input){
try{
return input.getDeclaredMethod(METHOD_NAME, Object.class);
} catch(final SecurityException e){
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
} catch(final NoSuchMethodException e){
return null;
}
}
#Override
public Method convert(final Class<?> input){
return findMethod(input);
}
}
// find the validation method on a class using the two above converters
public static Method findValidationMethod(final Class<?> beanClass){
return getDataFromConverters(beanClass,
new ValidationMethodAnnotationConverter(),
new MethodNameConventionConverter()
);
}
// example bean class with validation method found by annotation
#ValidationMethod("doValidate")
public class BeanA{
public void doValidate(final Object input){
}
}
// example bean class with validation method found by convention
public class BeanB{
public void validate(final Object input){
}
}

You may use Decorator Design Pattern to accomplish different ways of finding out how to find something.
public interface FindMethod
{
public Method get(Class clazz);
}
public class FindMethodByAnnotation implements FindMethod
{
private final FindMethod findMethod;
public FindMethodByAnnotation(FindMethod findMethod)
{
this.findMethod = findMethod;
}
private Method findByAnnotation(Class clazz)
{
return getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
}
public Method get(Class clazz)
{
Method r = null == findMethod ? null : findMethod.get(clazz);
return r == null ? findByAnnotation(clazz) : r;
}
}
public class FindMethodByOnlyMethod implements FindMethod
{
private final FindMethod findMethod;
public FindMethodByOnlyMethod(FindMethod findMethod)
{
this.findMethod = findMethod;
}
private Method findByOnlyMethod(Class clazz)
{
return getMethodOnlyMethod(clazz);
}
public Method get(Class clazz)
{
Method r = null == findMethod ? null : findMethod.get(clazz);
return r == null ? findByOnlyMethod(clazz) : r;
}
}
Usage is quite simple
FindMethod finder = new FindMethodByOnlyMethod(new FindMethodByAnnotation(null));
finder.get(clazz);

... I could switch that to try/catch logic, but that hardly makes it more readable.
Changing the signature of the get... methods so you can use try / catch would be a really bad idea. Exceptions are expensive and should only be used for "exceptional" conditions. And as you say, the code would be less readable.

What is bothering you is the repeating pattern used for flow control--and it should bother you--but there isn't too much to be done about it in Java.
I get really annoyed at repeated code & patterns like this, so for me it would probably be worth it to extract the repeated copy & paste control code and put it in it's own method:
public Method findMethod(Class clazz)
int i=0;
Method candidateMethod = null;
while(candidateMethod == null) {
switch(i++) {
case 0:
candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
break;
case 1:
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz);
break;
case 2:
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz);
break;
default:
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
}
return clazz;
}
Which has the disadvantage of being unconventional and possibly more verbose, but the advantage of not having as much repeated code (less typos) and reads easier because of there being a little less clutter in the "Meat".
Besides, once the logic has been extracted into it's own class, verbose doesn't matter at all, it's clarity for reading/editing and for me this gives that (once you understand what the while loop is doing)
I do have this nasty desire to do this:
case 0: candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz); break;
case 1: candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz); break;
case 2: candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz); break;
default: throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
To highlight what's actually being done (in order), but in Java this is completely unacceptable--you'd actually find it common or preferred in some other languages.
PS. This would be downright elegant (damn I hate that word) in groovy:
actualMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz) ?:
getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz) ?:
getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz) ?:
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz) ;
The elvis operator rules. Note, the last line may not actually work, but it would be a trivial patch if it doesn't.

Check chains of "get" calls for null

Let's say I'd like to perform the following command:
house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor().getDoorknob();
To avoid a NullPointerException, I'd have to do the following if:
if (house != null && house.getFloor(0) && house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST) != null
&& house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor() != null) ...
Is there a way or an already existing Utils class that does this more elegantly, let's say something like the following?
checkForNull(house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor().getDoorknob());

In case you can't avoid breaking Law of Demeter (LoD) as stated in the chosen answer, and with Java 8 introducing Optional, it would be probably the best practice to handle nulls in chains of gets such as yours.
The Optional type will enable you to pipe multiple map operations (which contain get calls) in a row. Null checks are automatically handled under the hood.
For example, when the objects aren't initialized, no print() will be made and no Exceptions will be thrown. It all we be handled gently under the hood. When objects are initialized, a print will be made.
System.out.println("----- Not Initialized! -----");
Optional.ofNullable(new Outer())
.map(out -> out.getNested())
.map(nest -> nest.getInner())
.map(in -> in.getFoo())
.ifPresent(foo -> System.out.println("foo: " + foo)); //no print
System.out.println("----- Let's Initialize! -----");
Optional.ofNullable(new OuterInit())
.map(out -> out.getNestedInit())
.map(nest -> nest.getInnerInit())
.map(in -> in.getFoo())
.ifPresent(foo -> System.out.println("foo: " + foo)); //will print!
class Outer {
Nested nested;
Nested getNested() {
return nested;
}
}
class Nested {
Inner inner;
Inner getInner() {
return inner;
}
}
class Inner {
String foo = "yeah!";
String getFoo() {
return foo;
}
}
class OuterInit {
NestedInit nested = new NestedInit();
NestedInit getNestedInit() {
return nested;
}
}
class NestedInit {
InnerInit inner = new InnerInit();
InnerInit getInnerInit() {
return inner;
}
}
class InnerInit {
String foo = "yeah!";
String getFoo() {
return foo;
}
}
So, with your getters chain it will look like this:
Optional.ofNullable(house)
.map(house -> house.getFloor(0))
.map(floorZero -> floorZero.getWall(WEST))
.map(wallWest -> wallWest.getDoor())
.map(door -> wallWest.getDoor())
The return of it will be something like Optional<Door> which will allow you much safer work without worrying of null exceptions.

In order to check a chain of gets for null you may need to call your code from a closure. The closure call code will look like this:
public static <T> T opt(Supplier<T> statement) {
try {
return statement.get();
} catch (NullPointerException exc) {
return null;
}
}
And you call it using the following syntax:
Doorknob knob = opt(() -> house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor().getDoorknob());
This code is also type safe and in general works as intended:
Returns an actual value of the specified type if all the objects in the chain are not null.
Returns null if any of the objects in the chain are null.
You may place opt method into shared util class and use it everywhere in your application.

The best way would be to avoid the chain. If you aren't familiar with the Law of Demeter (LoD), in my opinion you should. You've given a perfect example of a message chain that is overly intimate with classes that it has no business knowing anything about.
Law of Demeter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Demeter

You could of course simply wrap the whole expression up in a try-catch block, but that's a bad idea. Something cleaner is the Null object pattern. With that, if your house doesn't have floor 0, it just returns a Floor that acts like a regular Floor, but has no real content; Floors, when asked for Walls they don't have, return similar "Null" Walls, etc, down the line.

Make sure things that can't logically be null are not. For example - a house always has a West wall. In order to avoid such exceptions in state, you can have methods to check whether the state you expect is present:
if (wall.hasDoor()) {
wall.getDoor().etc();
}
This is essentially a null-check, but might not always be.
The point is that you should do something in case you have a null. For example - return or throw an IllegalStateException
And what you shouldn't do - don't catch NullPointerException. Runtime exceptions are not for catching - it is not expected that you can recover from them, nor it is a good practice to rely on exceptions for the logic flow. Imagine that you actually don't expect something to be null, and you catch (and log) a NullPointerException. This will not be very useful information, since many things can be null at that point.

Better solution for me is to use java.util.Optional.map(..) to chain these checks : https://stackoverflow.com/a/67216752/1796826

There is no checkForNull method that you can write that will facilitate this (that's simply not how method invokation and argument evaluation works in Java).
You can break down the chained statements into multiple statements, checking at every step. However, perhaps a better solution is to not have these methods return null in the first place. There is something called the Null Object Pattern that you may want to use instead.
Related questions
How to avoid != null statements in Java?

You could potentially have a generic method like below:
public static <T> void ifPresentThen(final Supplier<T> supplier, final Consumer<T> consumer) {
T value;
try {
value = supplier.get();
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
// Don't consume "then"
return;
}
consumer.accept(value);
}
So now you would be able to do
ifPresentThen(
() -> house.getFloor(0).getWall(WEST).getDoor().getDoorknob(),
doorKnob -> doSomething());

implementing nullPointer try/catch with a Supplier you can send it all chain of get
public static <T> T getValue(Supplier<T> getFunction, T defaultValue) {
try {
return getFunction.get();
} catch (NullPointerException ex) {
return defaultValue;
}
}
and then call it in this way.
ObjectHelper.getValue(() -> object1.getObject2().getObject3().getObject4()));

Very old question, but still adding my suggestion:
I would suggest instead of getting the DoorKnob from deep within the House in one method call chain, you should try to let the DoorKnob be provided to this class from the calling code, or by creating a central lookup facility specifically for this purpose (e.g. a DoorKnob service)
Simplified example of design with loose coupling:
class Architect {
FloorContractor floorContractor;
void build(House house) {
for(Floor floor: house.getFloors()) {
floorContractor.build(floor);
}
}
}
class FloorContractor {
DoorMaker doorMaker;
void build(Floor floor) {
for(Wall wall: floor.getWalls()) {
if (wall.hasDoor()) {
doorMaker.build(wall.getDoor());
}
}
}
}
class DoorMaker {
Tool tool;
void build(Door door) {
tool.build(door.getFrame());
tool.build(door.getHinges());
tool.build(door.getDoorKnob());
}
}

// Example
LazyObject.from(curr).apply(A.class, A::getB).apply(B.class, B::getC).apply(C.class, C::getD).to(String.class);
// LazyObject.java
public class LazyObject {
private Object value;
private LazyObject(Object object) {
this.value = object;
}
public <F, T> LazyObject apply(Class<F> type, Function<F, T> func) {
Object v = value;
if (type.isInstance(v)) {
value = func.apply(type.cast(v));
} else {
value = null; // dead here
}
return this;
}
public <T> void accept(Class<T> type, Consumer<T> consumer) {
Object v = value;
if (type.isInstance(v)) {
consumer.accept(type.cast(v));
}
}
public <T> T to(Class<T> type) {
Object v = value;
if (type.isInstance(v)) {
return type.cast(v);
}
return null;
}
public static LazyObject from(Object object) {
return new LazyObject(object);
}
}