Null check chain vs catching NullPointerException

Question

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.

I suggest considering Objects.requireNonNull(T obj, String message). You might build chains with a detailed message for each exception, like

requireNonNull(requireNonNull(requireNonNull(
    wsObject, "wsObject is null")
        .getFoo(), "getFoo() is null")
            .getBar(), "getBar() is null");

I would suggest you not to use special return-values, like -1. That's not a Java style. Java has designed the mechanism of exceptions to avoid this old-fashioned way which came from the C language.

Throwing NullPointerException is not the best option too. You could provide your own exception (making it checked to guarantee that it will be handled by a user or unchecked to process it in an easier way) or use a specific exception from XML parser you are using.

Assuming the class structure is indeed out of our control, as seems to be the case, I think catching the NPE as suggested in the question is indeed a reasonable solution, unless performance is a major concern. One small improvement might be to wrap the throw/catch logic to avoid clutter:

static <T> T get(Supplier<T> supplier, T defaultValue) {
    try {
        return supplier.get();
    } catch (NullPointerException e) {
        return defaultValue;
    }
}

Now you can simply do:

return get(() -> wsObject.getFoo().getBar().getBaz().getInt(), -1);

As already pointed out by Tom in the comment,

Following statement disobeys the Law of Demeter,

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

What you want is int and you can get it from Foo. Law of Demeter says, never talk to the strangers. For your case you can hide the actual implementation under the hood of Foo and Bar.

Now, you can create method in Foo to fetch int from Baz. Ultimately, Foo will have Bar and in Bar we can access Int without exposing Baz directly to Foo. So, null checks are probably divided to different classes and only required attributes will be shared among the classes.

My answer goes almost in the same line as @janki, but I would like to modify the code snippet slightly as below:

if (wsObject.getFoo() != null && wsObject.getFoo().getBar() != null && wsObject.getFoo().getBar().getBaz() != null) 
   return wsObject.getFoo().getBar().getBaz().getInt();
else
   return something or throw exception;

You can add a null check for wsObject as well, if there's any chance of that object being null.

You say that some methods "may return null" but do not say in what circumstances they return null. You say you catch the NullPointerException but you do not say why you catch it. This lack of information suggests you do not have a clear understanding of what exceptions are for and why they are superior to the alternative.

Consider a class method that is meant to perform an action, but the method can not guarantee it will perform the action, because of circumstances beyond its control (which is in fact the case for all methods in Java). We call that method and it returns. The code that calls that method needs to know whether it was successful. How can it know? How can it be structured to cope with the two possibilities, of success or failure?

Using exceptions, we can write methods that have success as a post condition. If the method returns, it was successful. If it throws an exception, it had failed. This is a big win for clarity. We can write code that clearly processes the normal, success case, and move all the error handling code into catch clauses. It often transpires that the details of how or why a method was unsuccessful are not important to the caller, so the same catch clause can be used for handling several types of failure. And it often happens that a method does not need to catch exceptions at all, but can just allow them to propagate to its caller. Exceptions due to program bugs are in that latter class; few methods can react appropriately when there is a bug.

So, those methods that return null.

• Does a null value indicate a bug in your code? If it does, you should not be catching the exception at all. And your code should not be trying to second guess itself. Just write what is clear and concise on the assumption that it will work. Is a chain of method calls clear and concise? Then just use them.
• Does a null value indicate invalid input to your program? If it does, a NullPointerException is not an appropriate exception to throw, because conventionally it is reserved for indicating bugs. You probably want to throw a custom exception derived from IllegalArgumentException (if you want an unchecked exception) or IOException (if you want a checked exception). Is your program required to provide detailed syntax error messages when there is invalid input? If so, checking each method for a null return value then throwing an appropriate diagnostic exception is the only thing you can do. If your program need not provide detailed diagnostics, chaining the method calls together, catching any NullPointerException and then throwing your custom exception is clearest and most concise.

---

One of the answers claims that the chained method calls violate the Law of Demeter and thus are bad. That claim is mistaken.

• When it comes to program design, there are not really any absolute rules about what is good and what is bad. There are only heuristics: rules that are right much (even almost all) of the time. Part of the skill of programming is knowing when it is OK to break those kinds of rules. So a terse assertion that "this is against rule X" is not really an answer at all. Is this one of the situations where the rule should be broken?
• The Law of Demeter is really a rule about API or class interface design. When designing classes, it is useful to have a hierarchy of abstractions. You have low level classes that uses the language primitives to directly perform operations and represent objects in an abstraction that is higher level than the language primitives. You have medium level classes that delegate to the low level classes, and implement operations and representations at a higher level than the low level classes. You have high level classes that delegate to the medium level classes, and implement still higher level operations and abstractions. (I've talked about just three levels of abstraction here, but more are possible). This allows your code to express itself in terms of appropriate abstractions at each level, thereby hiding complexity. The rationale for the Law of Demeter is that if you have a chain of method calls, that suggests you have a high level class reaching in through a medium level class to deal directly with low level details, and therefore that your medium level class has not provided a medium-level abstract operation that the high level class needs. But it seems that is not the situation you have here: you did not design the classes in the chain of method calls, they are the result of some auto-generated XML serialization code (right?), and the chain of calls is not descending through an abstraction hierarchy because the des-serialized XML is all at the same level of the abstraction hierarchy (right?)?