Null check chain vs catching NullPointerException

Question

A web service returns a huge XML and I need to access deeply nested fields of it. For example:

return wsObject.getFoo().getBar().getBaz().getInt()

The problem is that getFoo(), getBar(), getBaz() may all return null.

However, if I check for null in all cases, the code becomes very verbose and hard to read. Moreover, I may miss the checks for some of the fields.

if (wsObject.getFoo() == null) return -1;
if (wsObject.getFoo().getBar() == null) return -1;
// maybe also do something with wsObject.getFoo().getBar()
if (wsObject.getFoo().getBar().getBaz() == null) return -1;
return wsObject.getFoo().getBar().getBaz().getInt();

Is it acceptable to write

try {
    return wsObject.getFoo().getBar().getBaz().getInt();
} catch (NullPointerException ignored) {
    return -1;
}

or would that be considered an antipattern?

Answer 1

Catching NullPointerException is a really problematic thing to do since they can happen almost anywhere. It's very easy to get one from a bug, catch it by accident and continue as if everything is normal, thus hiding a real problem. It's so tricky to deal with so it's best to avoid altogether. (For example, think about auto-unboxing of a null Integer.)

I suggest that you use the Optional class instead. This is often the best approach when you want to work with values that are either present or absent.

Using that you could write your code like this:

public Optional<Integer> m(Ws wsObject) {
    return Optional.ofNullable(wsObject.getFoo()) // Here you get Optional.empty() if the Foo is null
        .map(f -> f.getBar()) // Here you transform the optional or get empty if the Bar is null
        .map(b -> b.getBaz())
        .map(b -> b.getInt());
        // Add this if you want to return null instead of an empty optional if any is null
        // .orElse(null);
        // Or this if you want to throw an exception instead
        // .orElseThrow(SomeApplicationException::new);
}

---

Why optional?

Using Optionals instead of null for values that might be absent makes that fact very visible and clear to readers, and the type system will make sure you don't accidentally forget about it.

You also get access to methods for working with such values more conveniently, like map and orElse.

---

Is absence valid or error?

But also think about if it is a valid result for the intermediate methods to return null or if that is a sign of an error. If it is always an error then it's probably better throw an exception than to return a special value, or for the intermediate methods themselves to throw an exception.

---

Maybe more optionals?

If on the other hand absent values from the intermediate methods are valid, maybe you can switch to Optionals for them also?

Then you could use them like this:

public Optional<Integer> mo(Ws wsObject) {
    return wsObject.getFoo()
        .flatMap(f -> f.getBar())
        .flatMap(b -> b.getBaz())
        .flatMap(b -> b.getInt());        
}

---

Why not optional?

The only reason I can think of for not using Optional is if this is in a really performance critical part of the code, and if garbage collection overhead turns out to be a problem. This is because a few Optional objects are allocated each time the code is executed, and the VM might not be able to optimize those away. In that case your original if-tests might be better.