views:

444

answers:

9

I have a method which never returns a null object. I want to make it clear so that any user that is using my API don't have write code like this:

if(Getxyz() != null) { // do stuff }

How can I show this intent?

+6  A: 

Unless you are using a type based on System.ValueType, I think you are out of luck. Its probably best to document this clearly in the XML/metadata comment for the function.

Jason Jackson
A: 

If your users have your source code using a standard design by contract API like: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/designbycontract.aspx can make things clear.

Otherwise your best bet is through documentation.

JoshBerke
A: 

Either document it well (maybe with .NET standard documentation system) or you have to use some Contract API. Here are some: http://geekswithblogs.net/Podwysocki/archive/2008/01/22/118770.aspx http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/designbycontract.aspx

Stefano Driussi
+7  A: 

Unforutnately there is no way built in to C#

You can document this fact, but this won't be automatically checked.

If you are using resharper, then it can be set up to check this properly when the method is marked with a [NotNull] attribute.

Otherwise you can use the Microsoft Contracts library and add something similar to the following to your method, but this is quite a lot of extra verbiage for such a simple annotation.

Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<string>() != null)

Spec# solved this problem by allowing a ! after the type to mark it as a non-null type, eg

string! foo

but Spec# can only be used to target .NET2, and has been usurped by the Code Contracts library.

Oliver Hallam
Uh, but this is wrong...you can guarantee that a method does not return null. See any of the other answers...
Robert P
Using a struct does not help if you want to return a non-null string. You could return a not-null struct containing a string that may be null, but how is that any better?
Oliver Hallam
@Oliver: the syntax is wrong on your Contracts example. The `Result` should be a method call: `Contract.Result<string>()`
Porges
@Porges: fixed.
Oliver Hallam
A: 

You could include a Debug.Assert() method. While this certainly won't enforce the condition, it should make it clear (along with documentation) that a null value isn't acceptable.

Otis
+2  A: 

I don't know that there is a best practice for doing so from an API as I would still program defensively and check for null as the consumer. I think that this is still the best practice in this case as I tend to not want to trust other code to always do the right thing.

Brawndo
A: 

Document it and provide the source code.

Tundey
+1  A: 

I like to think of it the other way around: if my function could return a null value I better make sure that the function's user knows about it.

Joel Coehoorn
+1  A: 

The only type-checked way to ensure that a C# object never returns null is to use a struct. Structs can have members that contain null values, but can never be null themselves.

All other C# objects can be null.

Example code:

public struct StructExample
{
    public string Val;
}

public class MyClass
{
    private StructExamle example;

    public MyClass()
    {
        example = null; // will give you a 'Cannot convert to null error
    }

    public StructExample GetXyz()
    {
        return null; // also gives the same error
    }
}

The above example will not compile. If using a struct is acceptable (it becomes a value type, gets passed around on the stack, can't be subclassed) then this might work for you.

Robert P