I have a class :
class Con {
private List<Ind> inds;
}
I am using Gson in the usual way to convert a JSON string to this class object. so in case, the JSON doesn't have the key inds present this variable inds is assigned a null value. Is there a way to assign inds an empty ArrayList instead?
My Thoughts:
One straightforward way could be once the Gson object is built. Go over all the null objects and assign them to the new ArrayList<>(). Is there a better approach?
public List<Ind> getInds() {
return inds;
}
Currently I am using the above getter in a code like : con.getInds().stream() which is causing NullPointerException.
I am not sure what would be a good way to resolve this. Instead of List Should I return an Optional or Should I modify this getter like
public List<Ind> getInds() {
inds==null?new ArrayList<>():inds;
}
The above will also resolve the NullPointerException. Not sure if there are pros and cons to using this approach. Although now there is no way to identify if the Json has a key with name inds or not. For the current code that I am writing this may not be required. But there is a meaning loss here certainly.
One solution to this would be to assign default values to the fields, for example:
class Con {
private List<Ind> inds = new ArrayList<>();
}
Gson will keep this default value; only if the field is present in the JSON data it will reassign the field value.
There are however a few things to keep in mind:
Your class needs a no-args constructor (implicit or explicit); otherwise Gson might create instances without invoking the initializer blocks of the class, and therefore the field will be null
If the field is present in JSON but has a JSON null value, then Gson will still set that as value
You cannot tell afterwards whether the field was present in JSON but had an empty JSON array as value, or whether it was missing
I have a POJO like this.
#JsonInclude(JsonInclude.Include.NON_NULL)
#JsonIgnoreProperties(ignoreUnknown = true)
public class Test {
private int a;
private String b;
}
I want to exclude the property 'a' if it has 0 value. String b is excluded with
#JsonInclude(JsonInclude.Include.NON_NULL)
Only way I could thing of is convert the int data type to Integer Object and set the value to NULL in the setter explicitly if it is 0.
Any other suggestions or correct solution will be appreciated
Option 1:
Do what you said: Change int to Integer and use #JsonInclude(Include.NON_NULL). Because primitive types have default values and their values cannot be compared to null you have to wrap the int to Integer. See Primitive Data Types. imho this is the cleaner way.
Option 2:
Use the way described in this answer and use #JsonInclude(Include.NON_DEFAULT) instead (see Jackson-annotations API), so that default values (and so also null values for objects) will be ignored.
Note:
If you only want to exclude the specific field (in your case the int/Integer - a - field) when it has a null-/default value and the other fields (in your case the String - b - field) should be included when they have null-/default values, put the annotation on field level.
As you can see in the title , I'd appreciate it if somebody can tell the usage of the Class .
There's a inside enum Type ,how to use it?
public static enum Type {
BETWEEN(2, "IsBetween", "Between"), IS_NOT_NULL(0, "IsNotNull", "NotNull"), IS_NULL(0, "IsNull", "Null"), LESS_THAN(
"IsLessThan", "LessThan"), LESS_THAN_EQUAL("IsLessThanEqual", "LessThanEqual"), GREATER_THAN("IsGreaterThan",
"GreaterThan"), GREATER_THAN_EQUAL("IsGreaterThanEqual", "GreaterThanEqual"), BEFORE("IsBefore", "Before"), AFTER(
"IsAfter", "After"), NOT_LIKE("IsNotLike", "NotLike"), LIKE("IsLike", "Like"), STARTING_WITH("IsStartingWith",
"StartingWith", "StartsWith"), ENDING_WITH("IsEndingWith", "EndingWith", "EndsWith"), NOT_CONTAINING(
"IsNotContaining", "NotContaining", "NotContains"), CONTAINING("IsContaining", "Containing", "Contains"), NOT_IN(
"IsNotIn", "NotIn"), IN("IsIn", "In"), NEAR("IsNear", "Near"), WITHIN("IsWithin", "Within"), REGEX(
"MatchesRegex", "Matches", "Regex"), EXISTS(0, "Exists"), TRUE(0, "IsTrue", "True"), FALSE(0, "IsFalse",
"False"), NEGATING_SIMPLE_PROPERTY("IsNot", "Not"), SIMPLE_PROPERTY("Is", "Equals");
// Need to list them again explicitly as the order is important
// (esp. for IS_NULL, IS_NOT_NULL)
private static final List<Part.Type> ALL = Arrays.asList(IS_NOT_NULL, IS_NULL, BETWEEN, LESS_THAN, LESS_THAN_EQUAL,
GREATER_THAN, GREATER_THAN_EQUAL, BEFORE, AFTER, NOT_LIKE, LIKE, STARTING_WITH, ENDING_WITH, NOT_CONTAINING,
CONTAINING, NOT_IN, IN, NEAR, WITHIN, REGEX, EXISTS, TRUE, FALSE, NEGATING_SIMPLE_PROPERTY, SIMPLE_PROPERTY);
...}
Part is internal to Spring Data. It is not intended to be used by client code. So if you don't implement your own Spring Data Modul you shouldn't use it at all nor anything inside it.
A Part is basically an element of an AST that will probably result in an element of a where clause or equivalent depending on the store in use.
E.g. if you have a method findByNameAndDobBetween(String, Date, Date) parsing the method name will result in two parts. One for the name condition and one for the DOB between condition.
The type enum lists all the different types of conditions that are possible.
The parameters of the elements are the number of method arguments required and (possibly multiple) Strings that identify this type inside a method name.
Why does this throw a java.lang.NullPointerException?
List<String> strings = new ArrayList<>();
strings.add(null);
strings.add("test");
String firstString = strings.stream()
.findFirst() // Exception thrown here
.orElse("StringWhenListIsEmpty");
//.orElse(null); // Changing the `orElse()` to avoid ambiguity
The first item in strings is null, which is a perfectly acceptable value. Furthermore, findFirst() returns an Optional, which makes even more sense for findFirst() to be able to handle nulls.
EDIT: updated the orElse() to be less ambiguous.
The reason for this is the use of Optional<T> in the return. Optional is not allowed to contain null. Essentially, it offers no way of distinguishing situations "it's not there" and "it's there, but it is set to null".
That's why the documentation explicitly prohibits the situation when null is selected in findFirst():
Throws:
NullPointerException - if the element selected is null
As already discussed, the API designers do not assume that the developer wants to treat null values and absent values the same way.
If you still want to do that, you may do it explicitly by applying the sequence
.map(Optional::ofNullable).findFirst().flatMap(Function.identity())
to the stream. The result will be an empty optional in both cases, if there is no first element or if the first element is null. So in your case, you may use
String firstString = strings.stream()
.map(Optional::ofNullable).findFirst().flatMap(Function.identity())
.orElse(null);
to get a null value if the first element is either absent or null.
If you want to distinguish between these cases, you may simply omit the flatMap step:
Optional<String> firstString = strings.stream()
.map(Optional::ofNullable).findFirst().orElse(null);
System.out.println(firstString==null? "no such element":
firstString.orElse("first element is null"));
This is not much different to your updated question. You just have to replace "no such element" with "StringWhenListIsEmpty" and "first element is null" with null. But if you don’t like conditionals, you can achieve it also like:
String firstString = strings.stream()
.map(Optional::ofNullable).findFirst()
.orElseGet(()->Optional.of("StringWhenListIsEmpty"))
.orElse(null);
Now, firstString will be null if an element exists but is null and it will be "StringWhenListIsEmpty" when no element exists.
You can use java.util.Objects.nonNull to filter the list before find
something like
list.stream().filter(Objects::nonNull).findFirst();
The following code replaces findFirst() with limit(1) and replaces orElse() with reduce():
String firstString = strings.
stream().
limit(1).
reduce("StringWhenListIsEmpty", (first, second) -> second);
limit() allows only 1 element to reach reduce. The BinaryOperator passed to reduce returns that 1 element or else "StringWhenListIsEmpty" if no elements reach the reduce.
The beauty of this solution is that Optional isn't allocated and the BinaryOperator lambda isn't going to allocate anything.
Optional is supposed to be a "value" type. (read the fine print in javadoc:) JVM could even replace all Optional<Foo> with just Foo, removing all boxing and unboxing costs. A null Foo means an empty Optional<Foo>.
It is a possible design to allow Optional with null value, without adding a boolean flag - just add a sentinel object. (could even use this as sentinel; see Throwable.cause)
The decision that Optional cannot wrap null is not based on runtime cost. This was a hugely contended issue and you need to dig the mailing lists. The decision is not convincing to everybody.
In any case, since Optional cannot wrap null value, it pushes us in a corner in cases like findFirst. They must have reasoned that null values are very rare (it was even considered that Stream should bar null values), therefore it is more convenient to throw exception on null values instead of on empty streams.
A workaround is to box null, e.g.
class Box<T>
static Box<T> of(T value){ .. }
Optional<Box<String>> first = stream.map(Box::of).findFirst();
(They say the solution to every OOP problem is to introduce another type :)
message Person {
required Empid = 1 [default = 100];
required string name = 2 [default = "Raju"];
optional string occupation = 3;
repeated string snippets = 4;
}
Can I give the default values as mentioned above?
For proto3, custom default values are disallowed.
Update: The below answer is for proto2 only, proto3 doesn't allow custom default values.
Yes, you can give default values as you had written. default is optional for required, but for optional you have to mention the default values else type specific value is automatically assigned. Moreover you forgot to mention the type for Empid.
protobuf language guide states that
If the default value is not specified for an optional element, a
type-specific default value is used instead: for strings, the default
value is the empty string. For bools, the default value is false. For
numeric types, the default value is zero. For enums, the default value
is the first value listed in the enum's type definition. This means
care must be taken when adding a value to the beginning of an enum
value list.