Which is better != null or !isEmpty() ?

January 10, 2014
·
Like
0
·
Follow
3

Best Answer chosen by ethan hunt

GlynA
Is this in regards to String? If so, I usually use String.isBlank( stringToCheck ). This checks for null, empty and all whitespace.

If this is in regards to collections, you might have to check both:

if ( myList != null && !myList.isEmpty() ) ...

If you know that your collection is not null (because you allocated it, or it's the result of a query), then I prefer !.isEmpty() over .size() > 0:

This:

if ( !myList.isEmpty() ) ...

Not this:

if ( myList.size() > 0 ) ...

They have the same effect, but I think that .isEmpty() expresses the intent better, i.e. I want to know if the list is empty or not. I don't actually care what its size is.

Glyn Anderson
Sr Developer | System Analyst | ClosedWon | closedwon.com
Certified Developer | Certified Advanced Administrator
Twitter: @GlynAtClosedWon

January 11, 2014
·
Like
14
·
Dislike
0

sunny.sfdc
I believe isEmpty() is better. It checks both null and empty string.

January 10, 2014
·
Like
1
·
Dislike
1

This was selected as the best answer

GlynA
If sunny.sfdc or I answered your question satisfactorily, please mark one of our replies as the "answer". This will mark the post as "solved". Thanks!

-Glyn

January 16, 2014
·
Like
0
·
Dislike
0

Jytohi Prakas
when we create a data in test class then list is empty when it is sorted by id, then how we gonna check it in test class?

September 25, 2018
·
Like
0
·
Dislike
0

You need to sign in to do that.

Need an account? Sign Up

Have an account? Sign In

Dismiss

Browse by Topic

Welcome to Support!

Show

sorted by

Which is better != null or !isEmpty() ?

All Answers

You need to sign in to do that.