rspec/rules/S3824/java/rule.adoc

65 lines
1.6 KiB
Plaintext

== Why is this an issue?
It's a common pattern to test the result of a ``++java.util.Map.get()++`` against ``++null++`` or calling ``++java.util.Map.containsKey()++`` before proceeding with adding or changing the value in the map. However the ``++java.util.Map++`` API offers a significantly better alternative in the form of the ``++computeIfPresent()++`` and ``++computeIfAbsent()++`` methods. Using these instead leads to cleaner and more readable code.
*Note* that this rule is automatically disabled when the project's ``++sonar.java.source++`` is not 8.
=== Noncompliant code example
[source,java]
----
V value = map.get(key);
if (value == null) { // Noncompliant
value = V.createFor(key);
if (value != null) {
map.put(key, value);
}
}
if (!map.containsKey(key)) { // Noncompliant
value = V.createFor(key);
if (value != null) {
map.put(key, value);
}
}
return value;
----
=== Compliant solution
[source,java]
----
return map.computeIfAbsent(key, k -> V.createFor(k));
----
=== Exceptions
This rule will not raise an issue when trying to add ``++null++`` to a map, because ``++computeIfAbsent++`` will not add the entry if the value returned by the function is ``++null++``.
== Resources
=== Related rules
* S6104 - Map "computeIfAbsent()" and "computeIfPresent()" should not be used to add "null" values.
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)
include::message.adoc[]
include::highlighting.adoc[]
'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)
include::comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]