precondition constructor

[long violet]

is it a common practice to have preconditions in constructors to make sure your object is in a valid state?

[terse scarab]

<@&987246399047479336> please have a look, thanks.

[terse scarab]

While you are waiting for getting help, here are some tips to improve your experience:

Code is much easier to read if posted with syntax highlighting and proper formatting.

If nobody is calling back, that usually means that your question was not well asked and hence nobody feels confident enough answering. Try to use your time to elaborate, provide details, context, more code, examples and maybe some screenshots. With enough info, someone knows the answer for sure.

Don't forget to close your thread using the command </help-thread close:1027500463647621170> when your question has been answered, thanks.

[inland hedge]

yes

[long violet]

i don't see a precondition for non null that often. is there any reason? i see nullable way more often

[inland hedge]

wdym

[long violet]

like a you have a class like this. B can be null

public class A {
   private final B;

   public A(B b) {
   
   }
}

[terse scarab]

Detected code, here are some useful tools:

[inland hedge]

and what do you want to check ?

[mortal rapids]

its always common practice in ur constructors, setters and all other methods to validate ur arguments

dont assume, fail-fast

if u have a setAge method, put some code like if (age < 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Age must be positive, was :" + age); in it

for nullability, there are tools

such as @NotNull and @Nullable

and also a way to put former per-default implicitly

for actual verification, u have Objects.requireNonNull(foo)

or just invoking any method on it foo.bar() would trigger an exception immediately as well

any "proper real project" would do these checks everywhere

otherwise people are just lazy and maybe dont know the benefits of fail-fast

[lethal lily]

💯