Javascript null check

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

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?

The evolution of C# - Part III - C# 2.0 - Iterators

It's been a while since i wrote the last post, but i did not forget my purpose of creating a series that shows the evolution of C#. Today i came here to talk about one of the most useful features of C#, even if you dont know you're using it. Let's talk about iterators ! What is an iterator? For those of you who didn't read about the iterator pattern somewhere in the internet or in the "Gang of Four" book, you can read a description here . The iterator is a class/object/whatever which knows how to traverse a structure. So, if you have a list or collection of objects, an iterator would have the knowledge of how to traverse that collection and access each element that it contains. The iterator is a well known design pattern and is behind many of the wonderful that we have nowadays in .NET (Linq comes to mind). Why is it a feature? Truth be told, an iterator is a concept well known way before .NET even existed. Being an OO Design Pattern, the iterator has

My simplest and most useful type

I have been doing some introspection on the way I write code to find ways that I need to improve. I consider this a task that one must do periodically so that we keep organized. There is a very, very simple problem that occurs in every application I know: How to return the results of an operation to the user? I've seen many implementations. Some return strings, some throw exceptions, some use out parameters, reuse the domain classes and have extra properties in there, etc. There is a myriad of ways of accomplishing this. This is the one I use. I don't like throwing exceptions. There are certainly cases where you have no choice, but I always avoid that. Throughout my architectures there is a single prevalent type that hasn't changed for years now, and I consider that a sign of stability. It is so simple, yet so useful everywhere. The name may shock you, take a look: Yes, this is it. Take a moment to compose yourself. Mind you, this is used everywhere , in every

Left fold

Search This Blog