I've made a large program that opens and closes files and databases, perform writes and reads on them etc among other things. Since there no such thing as "exception handling in go", and since I didn't really know about "defer" statement and "recover()" function, I applied error checking after every file-open, read-write, database entry etc. E.g.
_,insert_err := stmt.Run(query)
if insert_err != nil{
mylogs.Error(insert_err.Error())
return db_updation_status
}
For this, I define db_updation_status at the beginning as "false" and do not make it "true" until everything in the program goes right.
I've done this in every function, after every operation which I believe could go wrong.
Do you think there's a better way to do this using defer-panic-recover? I read about these here http://golang.org/doc/articles/defer_panic_recover.html, but can't clearly get how to use them. Do these constructs offer something similar to exception-handling? Am I better off without these constructs?
I would really appreciate if someone could explain this to me in a simple language, and/or provide a use case for these constructs and compare them to the type of error handling I've used above.
It's more handy to return error values - they can carry more information (advantage to the client/user) than a two valued bool.
What concerns panic/recover: There are scenarios where their use is completely sane. For example, in a hand written recursive descent parser, it's quite a PITA to "bubble" up an error condition through all the invocation levels. In this example, it's a welcome simplification if there's a deferred recover at the top most (API) level and one can report any kind of error at any invocation level using, for example
panic(fmt.Errorf("Cannot %v in %v", foo, bar))
If an operation can fail and returns an error, than checking this error immediately and handling it properly is idiomatic in go, simple and nice to check if anything gets handled properly.
Don't use defer/recover for such things: Needed cleanup actions are hard to code, especially if stuff gets nested.
The usual way to report an error to a caller is to return an error as an extra return value. The canonical Read method is a well-known instance; it returns a byte count and an error.
But what if the error is unrecoverable? Sometimes the program simply cannot continue.
For this purpose, there is a built-in function panic that in effect creates a run-time error that will stop the program (but see the next section). The function takes a single argument of arbitrary type—often a string—to be printed as the program dies. It's also a way to indicate that something impossible has happened, such as exiting an infinite loop.
http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#errors
How do I call the SAP report (for example RSPARAM) with help JCo?
What RFC may be used to remotely call SA38 transaction with RSPARAM (e.t.c.) as parameter and then return results for later work ?
RFC is for calling function modules, not programs. It's possible to use some generic function module to start a report, but since you'll usually want to process the results of the program and the program does not know that it was meant to deliver its results in a machine-readable way, you probably won't get too far this was. What exactly are you trying to do?
With the nearly infinite possible results of calling a transaction, i don't think there is a RFC to execute such an operation and return a result. What would be the result in case of an ALV display, or if the program then wait for some interactions ?
You can display a transaction in SAP portal using transactions Iviews. You're then using the portal page as a HTMLGui for your transaction.
also, some FM can sometime be used to perform operations instead of a full program (ie HR_INFOTYPE_OPERATION instead of pa30).
regards
Guillaume
Edition : since you want the result of RRSPARAM, you could encapsulate the "important" part (form SHOW_ACTUAL_PAR_VALUES_ALV) in a module function accessible by RFC, and returning a table of CST_RSPFPAR_ALV (ie the same structure that is displayed in the report)
regards
If You don't find a function to call, just create one by yourself. Tag it as callable from outside via RFC and in the coding, perform such things as "submit report xyz with param1 = value1 ... and return ... exporting list to memory". Then you can even return list output from this. Define the interface of the freshly created function module as you need (that means, report name as input, list output as a table of strings, e.g.). Attention, there is of course a big security risk, having an remote function accepting variable reportnames. But I am sure You know :-)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I've heard some voices saying that checking for a returned null value from methods is bad design. I would like to hear some reasons for this.
pseudocode:
variable x = object.method()
if (x is null) do something
The rationale behind not returning null is that you do not have to check for it and hence your code does not need to follow a different path based on the return value. You might want to check out the Null Object Pattern which provides more information on this.
For example, if I were to define a method in Java that returned a Collection I would typically prefer to return an empty collection (i.e. Collections.emptyList()) rather than null as it means my client code is cleaner; e.g.
Collection<? extends Item> c = getItems(); // Will never return null.
for (Item item : c) { // Will not enter the loop if c is empty.
// Process item.
}
... which is cleaner than:
Collection<? extends Item> c = getItems(); // Could potentially return null.
// Two possible code paths now so harder to test.
if (c != null) {
for (Item item : c) {
// Process item.
}
}
Here's the reason.
In Clean Code by Robert Martin he writes that returning null is bad design when you can instead return, say, empty array. Since expected result is an array, why not? It'll enable you to iterate over result without any extra conditions. If it's an integer, maybe 0 will suffice, if it's a hash, empty hash. etc.
The premise is to not force calling code to immediately handle issues. Calling code may not want to concern itself with them. That's also why in many cases exceptions is better than nil.
Good uses of returning null:
If null is a valid functional result, for example: FindFirstObjectThatNeedsProcessing() can return null if not found and the caller should check accordingly.
Bad uses: Trying to replace or hide exceptional situations such as:
catch(...) and return null
API dependency initialization failed
Out of disk space
Invalid input parameters (programming error, inputs must be sanitized by the caller)
etc
In those cases throwing an exception is more adequate since:
A null return value provides no meaningful error info
The immediate caller most likely cannot handle the error condition
There is no guarantee that the caller is checking for null results
However, Exceptions should not be used to handle normal program operation conditions such as:
Invalid username/password (or any user-provided inputs)
Breaking loops or as non-local gotos
Yes, returning NULL is a terrible design, in object-oriented world. In a nutshell, NULL usage leads to:
ad-hoc error handling (instead of exceptions)
ambiguous semantic
slow instead of fast failing
computer thinking instead of object thinking
mutable and incomplete objects
Check this blog post for a detailed explanation: http://www.yegor256.com/2014/05/13/why-null-is-bad.html. More in my book Elegant Objects, Section 4.1.
Who says this is bad design?
Checking for nulls is a common practice, even encouraged, otherwise you run the risk of NullReferenceExceptions everywhere. Its better to handle the error gracefully than throw exceptions when you don't need to.
Based on what you've said so far, I think there's not enough information.
Returning null from a CreateWidget()method seems bad.
Returning null from a FindFooInBar() method seems fine.
Its inventor says it is a billion dollar mistake!
It depends on the language you're using. If you're in a language like C# where the idiomatic way of indicating the lack of a value is to return null, then returning null is a good design if you don't have a value. Alternatively, in languages such as Haskell which idiomatically use the Maybe monad for this case, then returning null would be a bad design (if it were even possible).
If you read all the answers it becomes clear the answer to this question depends on the kind of method.
Firstly, when something exceptional happens (IOproblem etc), logically exceptions are thrown. When exactly something is exceptional is probably something for a different topic..
Whenever a method is expected to possibly have no results there are two categories:
If it is possible to return a neutral value, do so.
Empty enumrables, strings etc are good examples
If such a neutral value does not exist, null should be returned.
As mentioned, the method is assumed to possibly have no result, so it is not exceptional, hence should not throw an exception. A neutral value is not possible (for example: 0 is not especially a neutral result, depending on the program)
Untill we have an official way to denote that a function can or cannot return null, I try to have a naming convention to denote so.
Just like you have the TrySomething() convention for methods that are expected to fail, I often name my methods SafeSomething() when the method returns a neutral result instead of null.
I'm not fully ok with the name yet, but couldn't come up with anything better. So I'm running with that for now.
I have a convention in this area that served me well
For single item queries:
Create... returns a new instance, or throws
Get... returns an expected existing instance, or throws
GetOrCreate... returns an existing instance, or new instance if none exists, or throws
Find... returns an existing instance, if it exists, or null
For collection queries:
Get... always returns a collection, which is empty if no matching[1] items are found
[1] given some criteria, explicit or implicit, given in the function name or as parameters.
Exceptions are for exceptional circumstances.
If your function is intended to find an attribute associated with a given object, and that object does has no such attribute, it may be appropriate to return null. If the object does not exist, throwing an exception may be more appropriate. If the function is meant to return a list of attributes, and there are none to return, returning an empty list makes sense - you're returning all zero attributes.
It's not necessarily a bad design - as with so many design decisions, it depends.
If the result of the method is something that would not have a good result in normal use, returning null is fine:
object x = GetObjectFromCache(); // return null if it's not in the cache
If there really should always be a non-null result, then it might be better to throw an exception:
try {
Controller c = GetController(); // the controller object is central to
// the application. If we don't get one,
// we're fubar
// it's likely that it's OK to not have the try/catch since you won't
// be able to really handle the problem here
}
catch /* ... */ {
}
It's fine to return null if doing so is meaningful in some way:
public String getEmployeeName(int id){ ..}
In a case like this it's meaningful to return null if the id doesn't correspond to an existing entity, as it allows you to distinguish the case where no match was found from a legitimate error.
People may think this is bad because it can be abused as a "special" return value that indicates an error condition, which is not so good, a bit like returning error codes from a function but confusing because the user has to check the return for null, instead of catching the appropriate exceptions, e.g.
public Integer getId(...){
try{ ... ; return id; }
catch(Exception e){ return null;}
}
For certain scenarios, you want to notice a failure as soon as it happens.
Checking against NULL and not asserting (for programmer errors) or throwing (for user or caller errors) in the failure case can mean that later crashes are harder to track down, because the original odd case wasn't found.
Moreover, ignoring errors can lead to security exploits. Perhaps the null-ness came from the fact that a buffer was overwritten or the like. Now, you are not crashing, which means the exploiter has a chance to execute in your code.
What alternatives do you see to returning null?
I see two cases:
findAnItem( id ). What should this do if the item is not found
In this case we could: Return Null or throw a (checked) exception (or maybe create an item and return it)
listItemsMatching (criteria) what should this return if nothing is found?
In this case we could return Null, return an empty list or throw an Exception.
I believe that return null may be less good than the alternatives becasue it requires the client to remember to check for null, programmers forget and code
x = find();
x.getField(); // bang null pointer exception
In Java, throwing a checked exception, RecordNotFoundException, allows the compiler to remind the client to deal with case.
I find that searches returning empty lists can be quite convenient - just populate the display with all the contents of the list, oh it's empty, the code "just works".
Make them call another method after the fact to figure out if the previous call was null. ;-) Hey, it was good enough for JDBC
Well, it sure depends of the purpose of the method ... Sometimes, a better choice would be to throw an exception. It all depends from case to case.
Sometimes, returning NULL is the right thing to do, but specifically when you're dealing with sequences of different sorts (arrays, lists, strings, what-have-you) it is probably better to return a zero-length sequence, as it leads to shorter and hopefully more understandable code, while not taking much more writing on API implementer's part.
The base idea behind this thread is to program defensively. That is, code against the unexpected.
There is an array of different replies:
Adamski suggests looking at Null Object Pattern, with that reply being up voted for that suggestion.
Michael Valenty also suggests a naming convention to tell the developer what may be expected.
ZeroConcept suggests a proper use of Exception, if that is the reason for the NULL.
And others.
If we make the "rule" that we always want to do defensive programming then we can see that these suggestions are valid.
But we have 2 development scenarios.
Classes "authored" by a developer: The Author
Classes "consumed" by another(maybe) developer: the Developer
Regardless of whether a class returns NULL for methods with a return value or not,
the Developer will need to test if the object is valid.
If the developer cannot do this, then that Class/method is not deterministic.
That is, if the "method call" to get the object does not do what it "advertises" (eg getEmployee) it has broken the contract.
As an author of a class, I always want to be as kind and defensive ( and deterministic) when creating a method.
So given that either NULL or the NULL OBJECT (eg if(employee as NullEmployee.ISVALID)) needs to be checked
and that may need to happen with a collection of Employees, then the null object approach is the better approach.
But I also like Michael Valenty's suggestion of naming the method that MUST return null eg getEmployeeOrNull.
An Author who throws an exception is removing the choice for the developer to test the object's validity,
which is very bad on a collection of objects, and forces the developer into exception handling
when branching their consuming code.
As a developer consuming the class, I hope the author gives me the ability to avoid or program for the null situation
that their class/methods may be faced with.
So as a developer I would program defensively against NULL from a method.
If the author has given me a contract that always returns a object (NULL OBJECT always does)
and that object has a method/property by which to test the validity of the object,
then I would use that method/property to continue using the object, else the object is not valid
and I cannot use it.
Bottom line is that the Author of the Class/Methods must provide mechanisms
that a Developer can use in their defensive programming. That is, a clearer intention of the method.
The Developer should always use defensive programming to test the validity of the objects returned
from another class/method.
regards
GregJF
Other options to this, are:
returning some value that indicates success or not (or type of an error), but if you just need boolean value that will indicate success / fail, returning null for failure, and an object for success wouldn't be less correct, then returning true/false and getting the object through parameter.
Other approach would to to use exception to indicates failures, but here - there are actually many more voices, that say this is a BAD practice (as using exceptions may be convenient but has many disadvantages).
So I personally don't see anything bad in returning null as indication that something went wrong, and checking it later (to actually know if you have succeeded or not). Also, blindly thinking that your method will not return NULL, and then base your code on it, may lead to other, sometimes hard to find, errors (although in most cases it will just crash your system :), as you will reference to 0x00000000 sooner or later).
Unintended null functions can arise during the development of a complex programs, and like dead code, such occurrences indicate serious flaws in program structures.
A null function or method is often used as the default behavior of a revectorable function or overrideable method in an object framework.
Null_function #wikipedia
If the code is something like:
command = get_something_to_do()
if command: # if not Null
command.execute()
If you have a dummy object whose execute() method does nothing, and you return that instead of Null in the appropriate cases, you don't have to check for the Null case and can instead just do:
get_something_to_do().execute()
So, here the issue is not between checking for NULL vs. an exception, but is instead between the caller having to handle special non-cases differently (in whatever way) or not.
For my use case I needed to return a Map from method and then looking for a specific key. But if I return an empty Map, then it will lead to NullPointerException and then it wont be much different returning null instead of an empty Map.
But from Java8 onward we could use Optional. The above is the very reason Optional concept was introduced.
G'day,
Returning NULL when you are unable to create a new object is standard practise for many APIs.
Why the hell it's bad design I have no idea.
Edit: This is true of languages where you don't have exceptions such as C where it has been the convention for many years.
HTH
'Avahappy,
Ok, I was rooting around in one of our company apps which is done in VB.net. I'm not familiar with VB.net (I do stuff in C#) so I'm asking this question: Does the code after the clean up comment execute?
Public Function DoesUserHavePermission(ByVal UserID As Integer, ByVal ActionID As Integer) As Boolean
' some extra code re: getting data
Return UserHasPermission
'-Clean Up-
MySqlCommand.Dispose()
MySqlConnection.Dispose()
RowCount = Nothing
End Function
It is my understanding once you say return, you give the calling function control again. Is this a VB.Net oddity which I have to accept or a giant WTF?
The statements after the Clean up comment will not execute. This is a candidate for enclosure within Try/Catch/Finally.
Not unless there's some control logic you omitted in your example
The code should be (the clean up that is) wrapped inside of a finally statement by using a try catch exception:
pseudo:
try
'make conn
catch exception
finally
mysqlCmd.Dispose
....
end try
Is it possible it will still run..possibly...I used to write VB.net and it has been quite some time but I do remember oddities like that. I can't give you a sure answer as this is / was very bad practice. What you can do is clean it up and set some break points in y our code and debug. See if the code comes back to it...
Short answer: The code below the return will never execute.
That looks like translated code. Like someone took a C# snippet from the web and tried to write it in VB for VS 2003 (before VB supported the USING statement, but while C# did).
where the MySqlConnection and MySqlCommand are new'd up should be put in USING blocks and the Dispose() lines turned into END USING.
Where possible, use USING over TRY/FINALLY to ensure cleanup of IDisposable objects.
using mySqlConnection as New SqlConnection(connectionString)
mySqlConnection.Open
using mySqlCommand as New SqlCommand(commandString, mySqlConnection)
'do something that may fail'
return UserHasPermission
end using 'disposes mySqlCommand'
end using 'closes/disposes mySqlConnection'
You can use this pattern for SqlTransactions too. (Place after mySqlConnection.Open)
using myTerribleVariableName as SqlTransaction = mySqlConnection.BeginTransaction
'do something that may fail - multiple SqlCommands maybe'
'be sure to reference the transaction context in the SqlCommand'
myTerribleVariableName.Commit
end using 'disposes. rollsback if not commited'
Oh, and you can delete the RowCount = Nothing statement.
That to me is a giant WTF and a very difficult thing to miss, normally peer code review can catch that, I do not understand why a return from the function is placed earlier on prior to the cleanup. That could have been done during the testing of the code where the programmer was wanting to test the function first and decided to ignore the cleanup code by returning from it quickly enough, I suspect the cleanup code could be lengthy, ie. maybe it is throwing an exception that is not properly caught and wanted to ignore it hence a need to return immediately...That is an (un) intentional side effect of introducing a leak as the resource is not cleaned up properly thereby masking the real problem...that's my take on it.
Hope this helps,
Best regards,
Tom.
The code as presented will not do anything after the return statement. VB.NET and C# are similar in that fashion.
Its possible that this code was written by a VB6 programmer, trusting in old paradigms, or possibly this was the work of the upgrade tool, porting code from VB6 to VB.NET.
I'm having some problems updating the database using Linq...
Public Shared Function Save(ByRef appointment As MyLinq.Appointment, ByRef db As MyEntities) As Boolean
If appointment.id = 0 Then
db.AddToAppointments(appointment)
Else
db.AttachTo("Appointments", appointment)
'db.ApplyPropertyChanges("Appointments", appointment)
End If
Return db.SaveChanges() > 0
End Function
So Insert works fine, i have tryed both lines of code for the update with no sucesss... The first one goes ok but no update is performed, the second one throws an exception...
Can someone point out what i am missing?
EDIT:
Sorry for the late reply... I had some internet connection problems...
I had to "make it work", so now my update code is fecthing the record from the database, updating and then executing "SaveChanges" method. It works but I am not happy having to query the database to perform an Update... If you have any idea how I could do this without an update I would appreciate :)
Chris: It was a nice try, but my refresh method only allows me to choose "RefreshMode.ClientWins" or "RefreshMode.StoreWins" I tried with ClientWins with no success...
Razzie: I am sorry but i did not save the exception and it no longer occurs... It was saying that my record did not have a key associated (or something similar)
Jon Skeet: In Vb.Net we have to specify if the parameter goes ByVal or ByRef, we can't omit like in C#
The code you have doesn't look exactly like what I'm used to (linq to sql), but it does look a little similar; Is this Entity Framework?
I know with Linq to SQL, simply attaching an object to the data context isn't enough, you also have to make sure that the data context knows what the original values are so it knows which columns to update. In Linq to SQL that can be achieved like this:
db.Refresh(RefreshMode.KeepCurrentValues, appointment)
Maybe look around and see if you can achieve something similar in whatever framework you are using.
The ApplyPropertyChanges() call is important otherwise the item you are attaching is assumed to be in an unchanged state. However... for ApplyPropertyChanges to work properly the original object must exist in the ObjectContext which means either querying for it again (which I think you are now doing) or using the same object context that you originally pulled the item from.
Some more info here - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.objects.objectcontext.applypropertychanges.aspx