== Why is this an issue?

Using ``++string.Equals++`` to determine if a string is empty is significantly slower than using ``++string.IsNullOrEmpty()++`` or checking for ``++string.Length == 0++``. ``++string.IsNullOrEmpty()++`` is both clear and concise, and therefore preferred to laborious, error-prone, manual null- and emptiness-checking.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
"".Equals(name); // Noncompliant
!name.Equals(""); // Noncompliant
name.Equals(string.Empty); // Noncompliant
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,csharp]
----
name != null && name.Length > 0 // Compliant but more error prone
!string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)
string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)
----


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

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

=== Message

Use "string.IsNullOrEmpty()" instead of comparing to empty string.


'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

=== on 8 Jul 2015, 18:20:38 Ann Campbell wrote:
FYI [~nicolas.peru]. In C#, this is a built-in function. Didn't know if you would want this rule since it requires a library in Java.

=== on 20 Jul 2015, 11:41:57 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] LGTM

=== on 22 Jul 2015, 07:15:37 Nicolas Peru wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Not applicable for java IMO. At least not until we provide some ways to suggest fix depending on what is in the classpath.

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