Do you check for data validity in every constructor, or do you just assume the data is correct and throw exceptions in the specific function that has a problem with the parameter?
A constructor is a function too - why differentiate?
Creating an object implies that all the integrity checks have been done. It's perfectly reasonable to check parameters in a constructor and throw an exception once an illegal value has been detected.
Among all this simplifies debugging. When your program throws exception in a constructor you can observe a stack trace and often immediately see the cause. If you delay the check you'll then have to do more investigation to detect what earlier event causes the current error.
It's always better to have a fully-constructed object with all the invariants "satisfied" from the very beginning. Beware, however, of throwing exceptions from constructor in non-managed languages since that may result in a memory leak.
I always coerce values in constructors. If the users can't be bothered to follow the rules, I just silently enforce them without telling them.
So, if they pass a value of 107%, I'll set it to 100%. I just make it clear in the documentation that that's what happens.
Only if there's no obvious logical coercion do I throw an exception back to them. I like to call this the "principal of most astonishment to those too lazy or stupid to read the documentation".
If you throw in the constructor, the stack trace is more likely to show where the wrong values are coming from.
I agree with sharptooth in the general case, but there are sometimes objects that can have states in which some functions are valid and some are not. In these situations it's better to defer checks to the functions with these particular dependencies.
Usually you'll want to validate in a constructor, if only because that means your objects will always be in a valid state. But some kinds of objects need function-specific checks, and that's OK too.
This is a difficult question. I have changed my habit related to this question several times in the last years, so here are some thoughts coming to my mind :
Checking the arguments in the constructor is like checking the arguments for a traditional method... so I would not differentiate here...
Checking the arguments of a method of course does help to ensure parameters passed are correct, but also introduces a lot of more code you have to write, which not always pays off in my opinion... Especially when you do write short methods which delegate quite frequently to other methods, I guess you would end up with 50 % of your code just doing parameter checks...
Furthermore consider that very often when you write a unit test for your class, you don't want to have to pass in valid parameters for all methods... Quite often it does make sense to only pass those parameters important for the current test case, so having checks would slow you down in writing unit tests...
I think this really depends on the situation... what I ended up is to only write parameter checks when I know that the parameters do come from an external system (like user input, databases, web services, or something like that...). If data comes from my own system, I don't write tests most of the time.
I always try to fail as early as possible. So I definitively check the parameters in the constructor.
In theory, the calling code should always ensure that preconditions are met, before calling a function. The same goes for constructors.
In practice, programmers are lazy, and to be sure it's best to still check preconditions. Asserts come in handy there.
Example. Excuse my non-curly brace syntax:
// precondition b<>0
function divide(a,b:double):double;
begin
assert(b<>0); // in case of a programming error.
result := a / b;
end;
// calling code should be:
if foo<>0 then
bar := divide(1,0)
else
// do whatever you need to do when foo equals 0
Alternatively, you can always change the preconditions. In case of a constructor this is not really handy.
// no preconditions.. still need to check the result
function divide(a,b:double; out hasResult:boolean):double;
begin
hasResult := b<>0;
if not hasResult then
Exit;
result := a / b;
end;
// calling code:
bar := divide(1,0,result);
if not result then
// do whatever you need to do when the division failed
Always fail as soon as possible. A good example of this practice is exhibited by the runtime ..
* if you try and use an invalid index for an array you get an exception.
* casting fails immediately when attempted not at some later stage.
Imagine what a disaster code be if a bad cast remained in a reference and everytime you tried to use that you got an exception. The only sensible approach is to fail as soon as possible and try and avoid bad / invalid state asap.
Related
For example, in the case of "The array index out of bound" exception, why don't we check the array length in advance:
if(array.length < countNum)
{
//logic
}
else
{
//replace using exception
}
My question is, why choose to use an exception? and when to use an exception, instead of if-else
Thanks.
It depends on acceptable practices for a given language.
In Java, the convention is to always check conditions whenever possible and not to use exceptions for flow control. But, for example, in Python not only using exception in this manner is acceptable, but it is also a preferred practice.
They are used to inform the code that calls your code an exceptional condition occurred. Exceptions are more expensive than well formed if/else logic so you use them in exceptional circumstances such as reaching a condition in your code you cannot handle locally, or to support giving the caller of your code the choice of how to handle the error condition.
Usually if you find yourself throwing and catching exceptions in your own function or method, you can probably find a more efficient way of doing it.
There are many answers to that question. As a single example, from Java, when you are using multiple threads, sometimes you need to interrupt a thread, and the thread will see this when an InterruptedException is thrown.
Other times, you will be using an API that throws certain exceptions. You won't be able to avoid it. If the API throws, for example, an IOException, then you can catch it, or let it bubble up.
Here's an example where it would actually be better to use an exception instead of a conditional.
Say you had a list of 10,000 strings. Now, you only want those items which are integers. Now, you know that a very small number of them won't be integers (in string form). So should you check to see if every string is an integer before trying to convert them? Or should you just try to convert them and throw and catch an exception if you get one that isn't an integer? The second way is more efficient, but if they were mostly non-integers then it would be more efficient to use an if-statement.
Most of the time, however, you should not use exceptions if you can replace them with a conditional.
As someone has already said, 'Exceptions' in programming languages are for exceptional cases and not to set logical flow of your program. For example, in the case of given code snippet of your question, you have to see what the enclosing method's or function's intention is. Is checking array.length < countNum part of the business logic or not. If yes, then putting a pair of if/else there is the way to go. If that condition is not part of the business logic and the enclosing method's intention is something else, then write code for that something else and throw exception instead of going the if/else way. For example you develop an application for a school and in your application you have a method GetClassTopperGrades which is responsible for the business logic part which requires to return the highest marks of the student in a certain class. the method/function definition would be something like this:
int GetClassTopperGrades(string classID)
In this case the method's intention is to return the grades, for a valid class, which will always be a positive integer, according to the business logic of the application. Now if someone calls your method and passes a garbage string or null, what should it do? If should throw an exception e.g. ArgumentException or 'ArgumentNullException' because this was an exceptional case in this particular context. The method assumed that always a valid class ID will be passed and NULL or empty string is NOT a valid class ID (a deviation from the business logic).
Apart from that, in some conditions there is no prior knowledge about the outcome of a given code and no defined way to prevent an exceptional situation. For example, querying some remote database, if the network goes down, you don't have any other option there apart from throwing an exception. Would you check network connectivity before issuing every SQL query to the remote database?
There is strong and indisputable reason why to use exceptions - no matter of language. I strongly believe that decision about if to use exceptions or not have nothing to do with particular language used.
Using exceptions is universal method to notify other part of code that something wrong happened in kind of loosely coupled way. Let imagine that if you would like to handle some exceptional condition by using if.. nad else.. you need to insert into different part of your code some arbitrary variables and other stuff which probably would easily led to have spaghetti code soon after.
Let next imagine that you are using any external library/package and it's author decided to put in his/her code other arbitrary way to handle wrong states - it would force you to adjust to its way of dealing with it - for example you would need to check if particular methods returns true or false or whatever. Using exceptions makes handling errors much more easy - you just assume that if something goes wrong - the other code will throw exception, so you just wrap the code in try block and handle possible exception on your own way.
I'm having a hard time choosing whether I should "enforce" a condition or "assert" a condition in D. (This is language-neutral, though.)
Theoretically, I know that you use assertions to find bugs, and you enforce other conditions in order to check for atypical conditions. E.g. you might say assert(count >= 0) for an argument to your method, because that indicates that there's a bug with the caller, and that you would say enforce(isNetworkConnected), because that's not a bug, it's just something that you're assuming that could very well not be true in a legitimate situation beyond your control.
Furthermore, assertions can be removed from code as an optimization, with no side effects, but enforcements cannot be removed because they must always execute their condition code. Hence if I'm implementing a lazy-filled container that fills itself on the first access to any of its methods, I say enforce(!empty()) instead of assert(!empty()), because the check for empty() must always occur, since it lazily executes code inside.
So I think I know that they're supposed to mean. But theory is easier than practice, and I'm having a hard time actually applying the concepts.
Consider the following:
I'm making a range (similar to an iterator) that iterates over two other ranges, and adds the results. (For functional programmers: I'm aware that I can use map!("a + b") instead, but I'm ignoring that for now, since it doesn't illustrate the question.) So I have code that looks like this in pseudocode:
void add(Range range1, Range range2)
{
Range result;
while (!range1.empty)
{
assert(!range2.empty); //Should this be an assertion or enforcement?
result += range1.front + range2.front;
range1.popFront();
range2.popFront();
}
}
Should that be an assertion or an enforcement? (Is it the caller's fault that the ranges don't empty at the same time? It might not have control of where the range came from -- it could've come from a user -- but then again, it still looks like a bug, doesn't it?)
Or here's another pseudocode example:
uint getFileSize(string path)
{
HANDLE hFile = CreateFile(path, ...);
assert(hFile != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE); //Assertion or enforcement?
return GetFileSize(hFile); //and close the handle, obviously
}
...
Should this be an assertion or an enforcement? The path might come from a user -- so it might not be a bug -- but it's still a precondition of this method that the path should be valid. Do I assert or enforce?
Thanks!
I'm not sure it is entirely language-neutral. No language that I use has enforce(), and if I encountered one that did then I would want to use assert and enforce in the ways they were intended, which might be idiomatic to that language.
For instance assert in C or C++ stops the program when it fails, it doesn't throw an exception, so its usage may not be the same as what you're talking about. You don't use assert in C++ unless you think that either the caller has already made an error so grave that they can't be relied on to clean up (e.g. passing in a negative count), or else some other code elsewhere has made an error so grave that the program should be considered to be in an undefined state (e.g. your data structure appears corrupt). C++ does distinguish between runtime errors and logic errors, though, which may roughly correspond but I think are mostly about avoidable vs. unavoidable errors.
In the case of add you'd use a logic error if the author's intent is that a program which provides mismatched lists has bugs and needs fixing, or a runtime exception if it's just one of those things that might happen. For instance if your function were to handle arbitrary generators, that don't necessarily have a means of reporting their length short of destructively evaluating the whole sequence, you'd be more likely consider it an unavoidable error condition.
Calling it a logic error implies that it's the caller's responsibility to check the length before calling add, if they can't ensure it by the exercise of pure reason. So they would not be passing in a list from a user without explicitly checking the length first, and in all honesty should count themselves lucky they even got an exception rather than undefined behavior.
Calling it a runtime error expresses that it's "reasonable" (if abnormal) to pass in lists of different lengths, with the exception indicating that it happened on this occasion. Hence I think an enforcement rather than an assertion.
In the case of filesize: for the existence of a file, you should if possible treat that as a potentially recoverable failure (enforcement), not a bug (assertion). The reason is simply that there is no way for the caller to be certain that a file exists - there's always someone with more privileges who can come along and remove it, or unmount the entire fielsystem, in between a check for existence and a call to filesize. It's therefore not necessarily a logical flaw in the calling code when it doesn't exist (although the end-user might have shot themselves in the foot). Because of that fact it's likely there will be callers who can treat it as just one of those things that happens, an unavoidable error condition. Creating a file handle could also fail for out-of-memory, which is another unavoidable error on most systems, although not necessarily a recoverable one if for example over-committing is enabled.
Another example to consider is operator[] vs. at() for C++'s vector. at() throws out_of_range, a logic error, not because it's inconceivable that a caller might want to recover, or because you have to be some kind of numbskull to make the mistake of accessing an array out of range using at(), but because the error is entirely avoidable if the caller wants it to be - you can always check the size() before access if you have no other way of knowing whether your index is good or not. And so operator[] doesn't guarantee any checks at all, and in the name of efficiency an out of range access has undefined behavior.
assert should be considered a "run-time checked comment" indicating an assumption that the programmer makes at that moment. The assert is part of the function implementation. A failed assert should always be considered a bug at the point where the wrong assumption is made, so at the code location of the assert. To fix the bug, use a proper means to avoid the situation.
The proper means to avoid bad function inputs are contracts, so the example function should have a input contract that checks that range2 is at least as long as range1. The assertion inside the implementation could then still remain in place. Especially in longer more complex implementations, such an assert may inprove understandability.
An enforce is a lazy approach to throwing runtime exceptions. It is nice for quick-and-dirty code because it is better to have a check in there rather then silently ignoring the possibility of a bad condition. For production code, it should be replaced by a proper mechanism that throws a more meaningful exception.
I believe you have partly answered your question yourself. Assertions are bound to break the flow. If your assertion is wrong, you will not agree to continue with anything. If you enforce something you are making a decision to allow something to happen based on the situation. If you find that the conditions are not met, you can enforce that the entry to a particular section is denied.
Occasionally I'll have a situation where I've written some code and, based on its logic, a certain path is impossible. For example:
activeGames = [10, 20, 30]
limit = 4
def getBestActiveGameStat():
if not activeGames: return None
return max(activeGames)
def bah():
if limit == 0: return "Limit is 0"
if len(activeGames) >= limit:
somestat = getBestActiveGameStat()
if somestat is None:
print "The universe has exploded"
#etc...
What would go in the universe exploding line? If limit is 0, then the function returns. If len(activeGames) >= limit, then there must be at least one active game, so getBestActiveGameStat() can't return None. So, should I even check for it?
The same also happens with something like a while loop which always returns in the loop:
def hmph():
while condition:
if foo: return "yep"
doStuffToMakeFooTrue()
raise SingularityFlippedMyBitsError()
Since I "know" it's impossible, should anything even be there?
If len(activeGames) >= limit, then
there must be at least one active
game, so getBestActiveGameStat() can't
return None. So, should I even check
for it?
Sometimes we make mistakes. You could have a program error now -- or someone could create one later.
Those errors might result in exceptions or failed unit tests. But debugging is expensive; it's useful to have multiple ways to detect errors.
A quickly written assert statement can express an expected invariant to human readers. And when debugging, a failed assertion can pinpoint an error quickly.
Sutter and Alexandrescu address this issue in "C++ Coding Standards." Despite the title, their arguments and guidelines are are language agnostic.
Assert liberally to document internal assumptions and invariants
... Use assert or an equivalent liberally to document assumptions internal to a module ... that must always be true and otherwise represent programming errors.
For example, if the default case in a switch statement cannot occur, add the case with assert(false).
IMHO, the first example is really more a question of how catastrophic failures are presented to the user. In the event that someone does something really silly and sets activeGames to none, most languages will throw a NullPointer/InvalidReference type of exception. If you have a good system for catching these kinds of errors and handling them elegantly, then I would argue that you leave these guards out entirely.
If you have a decent set of unit tests, they will ensure with huge amounts of certainty that this kind of problem does not escape the developers machine.
As for the second one, what you're really guarding against is a race condition. What if the "doStuffToMakeFooTrue()" method never makes foo true? This code will eventually run itself into the ground. Rather than risk that, I'll usually put code like this on a timer. If your language has closures or function pointers (honestly not sure about Python...), you can hide the implementation of the timing logic in a nice helper method, and call it this way:
withTiming(hmph, 30) // run for 30 seconds, then fail
If you don't have closures or function pointers, you'll have to do it the long way everywhere:
stopwatch = new Stopwatch(30)
stopwatch.start()
while stopwatch.elapsedTimeInSeconds() < 30
hmph()
raise OperationTimedOutError()
I have been doing some work with python-couchdb and desktopcouch. In one of the patches I submitted I wrapped the db.update function from couchdb. For anyone that is not familiar with python-couchdb the function is the following:
def update(self, documents, **options):
"""Perform a bulk update or insertion of the given documents using a
single HTTP request.
>>> server = Server('http://localhost:5984/')
>>> db = server.create('python-tests')
>>> for doc in db.update([
... Document(type='Person', name='John Doe'),
... Document(type='Person', name='Mary Jane'),
... Document(type='City', name='Gotham City')
... ]):
... print repr(doc) #doctest: +ELLIPSIS
(True, '...', '...')
(True, '...', '...')
(True, '...', '...')
>>> del server['python-tests']
The return value of this method is a list containing a tuple for every
element in the `documents` sequence. Each tuple is of the form
``(success, docid, rev_or_exc)``, where ``success`` is a boolean
indicating whether the update succeeded, ``docid`` is the ID of the
document, and ``rev_or_exc`` is either the new document revision, or
an exception instance (e.g. `ResourceConflict`) if the update failed.
If an object in the documents list is not a dictionary, this method
looks for an ``items()`` method that can be used to convert the object
to a dictionary. Effectively this means you can also use this method
with `schema.Document` objects.
:param documents: a sequence of dictionaries or `Document` objects, or
objects providing a ``items()`` method that can be
used to convert them to a dictionary
:return: an iterable over the resulting documents
:rtype: ``list``
:since: version 0.2
"""
As you can see, this function does not raise the exceptions that have been raised by the couchdb server but it rather returns them in a tuple with the id of the document that we wanted to update.
One of the reviewers went to #python on irc to ask about the matter. In #python they recommended to use sentinel values rather than exceptions. As you can imaging just an approach is not practical since there are lots of possible exceptions that can be received. My questions is, what are the cons of using Exceptions over sentinel values besides that using exceptions is uglier?
I think it is ok to return the exceptions in this case, because some parts of the update function may succeed and some may fail. When you raise the exception, the API user has no control over what succeeded already.
Raising an Exception is a notification that something that was expected to work did not work. It breaks the program flow, and should only be done if whatever is going on now is flawed in a way that the program doesn't know how to handle.
But sometimes you want to raise a little error flag without breaking program flow. You can do this by returning special values, and these values can very well be exceptions.
Python does this internally in one case. When you compare two values like foo < bar, the actual call is foo.__lt__(bar). If this method raises an exception, program flow will be broken, as expected. But if it returns NotImplemented, Python will then try bar.__ge__(foo) instead. So in this case returning the exception rather than raising it is used to flag that it didn't work, but in an expected way.
It's really the difference between an expected error and an unexpected one, IMO.
exceptions intended to be raised. It helps with debugging, handling causes of the errors and it's clear and well-established practise of other developers.
I think looking at the interface of the programme, it's not clear what am I supposed to do with returned exception. raise it? from outside of the chain that actually caused it? it seems a bit convoluted.
I'd suggest, returning docid, new_rev_doc tuple on success and propagating/raising exception as it is. Your approach duplicates success and type of 3rd returned value too.
Exceptions cause the normal program flow to break; then exceptions go up the call stack until they're intercept, or they may reach the top if they aren't. Hence they're employed to mark a really special condition that should be handled by the caller. Raising an exception is useful since the program won't continue if a necessary condition has not been met.
In languages that don't support exceptions (like C) you're often forced to check return values of functions to verify everything went on correctly; otherwise the program may misbehave.
By the way the update() is a bit different:
it takes multiple arguments; some may fail, some may succeed, hence it needs a way to communicate results for each arg.
a previous failure has no relation with operations coming next, e.g. it is not a permanent error
In that situation raising an exception would NOT be usueful in an API. On the other hand, if the connection to the db drops while executing the query, then an exception is the way to go (since it's a permament error and would impact all operations coming next).
By the way if your business logic requires all operations to complete successfully and you don't know what to do when an update fails (i.e. your design says it should never happen), feel free to raise an exception in your own code.
I'm rewriting a series of PHP functions to a container class. Many of these functions do a bit of processing, but in the end, just echo content to STDOUT.
My question is: should I have a return value within these functions? Is there a "best practice" as far as this is concerned?
In systems that report errors primarily through exceptions, don't return a return value if there isn't a natural one.
In systems that use return values to indicate errors, it's useful to have all functions return the error code. That way, a user can simply assume that every single function returns an error code and develop a pattern to check them that they follow everywhere. Even if the function can never fail right now, return a success code. That way if a future change makes it possible to have an error, users will already be checking errors instead of implicitly silently ignoring them (and getting really confused why the system is behaving oddly).
Can the processing fail? If so, should the caller know about that? If either of these is no, then I don't see value in a return. However, if the processing can fail, and that can make a difference to the caller, then I'd suggest returning a status or error code.
Do not return a value if there is no value to return. If you have some value you need to convey to the caller, then return it but that doesn't sound like the case in this instance.
I will often "return: true;" in these cases, as it provides a way to check that the function worked. Not sure about best practice though.
Note that in C/C++, the output functions (including printf()) return the number of bytes written, or -1 if this fails. It may be worth investigating this further to see why it's been done like this. I confess that
I'm not sure that writing to stdout could practically fail (unless you actively close your STDOUT stream)
I've never seen anyone collect this value, let alone do anything with it.
Note that this is distinct from writing to file streams - I'm not counting stream redirection in the shell.
To do the "correct" thing, if the point of the method is only to print the data, then it shouldn't return anything.
In practice, I often find that having such functions return the text that they've just printed can often be useful (sometimes you also want to send an error message via email or feed it to some other function).
In the end, the choice is yours. I'd say it depends on how much of a "purist" you are about such things.
You should just:
return;
In my opinion the SRP (single responsibility principle) is applicable for methods/functions as well, and not only for objects. One method should do one thing, if it outputs data it shouldn't do any data processing - if it doesn't do processing it shouldn't return data.
There is no need to return anything, or indeed to have a return statement. It's effectively a void function, and it's comprehensible enough that these have no return value. Putting in a 'return;' solely to have a return statement is noise for the sake of pedantry.