rspec/rules/S3553/java/rule.adoc

The Java language authors have been quite frank that ``++Optional++`` was intended for use only as a return type, as a way to convey that a method may or may not return a value.


And for that, it's valuable but using ``++Optional++`` on the input side increases the work you have to do in the method without really increasing the value. With an ``++Optional++`` parameter, you go from having 2 possible inputs: null and not-null, to three: null, non-null-without-value, and non-null-with-value. Add to that the fact that overloading has long been available to convey that some parameters are optional, and there's really no reason to have ``++Optional++`` parameters.


The rule also checks for Guava's ``++Optional++``, as it was the inspiration for the JDK ``++Optional++``. Although it is different in some aspects (serialization, being recommended for use as collection elements), using it as a parameter type causes exactly the same problems as for JDK ``++Optional++``.


== Noncompliant Code Example

[source,java]
----
public String sayHello(Optional<String> name) {  // Noncompliant
  if (name == null || !name.isPresent()) {
    return "Hello World";
  } else {
    return "Hello " + name;
  }
}
----


== Compliant Solution

[source,java]
----
public String sayHello(String name) {
  if (name == null) {
    return "Hello World";
  } else {
    return "Hello " + name;
  }
}
----

== Exceptions

No issues will be raised if a method is overriding, as the developer has no control over the signature at this point.

[source,java]
----
@Override
public String sayHello(Optional<String> name) {
  if (name == null || !name.isPresent()) {
    return "Hello World";
  } else {
    return "Hello " + name;
  }
}
----

ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

include::message.adoc[]

include::highlighting.adoc[]

endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]