Skip to main content

Javascript null check - or is it?

I'm back to the blog! After so many years it seems that the fire is still there and I felt the need to share little something. Without further rumble, let's jump into one of the situations that I find a lot on the job: checking for null on Javascript.
Here is the kind of code that has caused me much pain:

 The intent of this is to only do stuff if shipType has a value. I always try to avoid this piece of code and use something more explicit, even when I know there is no problem with the code now.

But why so picky? Checking for null this way has a few problems. Here is a snippet demonstrating:


Notice how, if the value of shipType is a number and is 0, it is never printed. This kind of bug becomes very common because C# uses integers by default as an underlying type for enums, and 0 is the default value for it.

The reason is that null is a falsy value - if you force it to be evaluated as a boolean it will return false. Falsy values are what allows you to write that syntax in the first place. Well, guess what? 0 is also a falsy value! So is the empty string value "". 

So, next time you want to check for null, do so explicitly to avoid these kinds of bugs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

From crappy to happy - dependency what, now?

Following the introduction on this series on a previous post, we will now talk about dependency injection and how it has the effect of allowing for more testable code. Sometimes when I talk about this concept it is difficult to explain the effect that applying it might have on the tests. For that reason I think it is better to demonstrate with a near-real-world situation. Obviously, keep in mind this is not real code, so don't worry about the design or implementation details that don't contribute to the point being discussed. The code As you can see, it is simple. There's a class called ShipManager (what else?) that receives position updates for the ships. It keeps the last position reported from each ship and does some calculation to see how much the ship moved. It assigns some values to the update and finally it persists the final version of the update. How do we start testing? When you think about it, tests are dead simple. A test either passes or it doesn...
Post a Comment
Read more

The repository's repository

Ever since I started delving into architecture,  and specifically service oriented architecture, there has been one matter where opinions get divided. Let me state the problem first, and then take a look at both sides of the barricade. Given that your service layer needs to access persistent storage, how do you model that layer? It is almost common knowledge what to do here: use the Repository design pattern. So we look at the pattern and decide that it seems simple enough! Let's implement the shit out of it! Now, let's say that you will use an ORM - here comes trouble. Specifically we're using EF, but we could be talking about NHibernate or really any other. The real divisive theme is this question: should you be using the repository pattern at all when you use an ORM? I'll flat out say it: I don't think you should... except with good reason. So, sharpen your swords, pray to your gods and come with me to fight this war... or maybe stay in the couch? ...
2 comments
Read more

Follow up: improving the Result type from feedback

This post is a follow up on the previous post. It presents an approach on how to return values from a method. I got some great feedback both good and bad from other people, and with that I will present now the updated code taking that feedback into account. Here is the original: And the modified version: Following is some of the most important feedback which led to this. Make it an immutable struct This was a useful one. I can't say that I have ever found a problem with having the Result type as a class, but that is just a matter of scale. The point of this is that now we avoid allocating memory in high usage scenarios. This was a problem of scale, easily solvable. Return a tuple instead of using a dedicated Result type The initial implementation comes from a long time ago, when C# did not have (good) support for tuples and deconstruction wasn't heard of. You would have to deal with the Tuple type, which was a bit of a hassle. I feel it would complicate the ...
Post a Comment
Read more