Java 8: Lambda-Streams, Filter by Method with Exception
I have a problem trying out the Lambda expressions of Java 8.
Usually it works fine, but now I have methods that throw IOException's.
It's best if you look at the following code:
class Bank{
....
public Set<String> getActiveAccountNumbers() throws IOException {
Stream<Account> s = accounts.values().stream();
s = s.filter(a -> a.isActive());
Stream<String> ss = s.map(a -> a.getNumber());
return ss.collect(Collectors.toSet());
}
....
}
interface Account{
....
boolean isActive() throws IOException;
String getNumber() throws IOException;
....
}
The problem is, it doesn't compile, because I have to catch the possible exceptions of the isActive- and the getNumber-Methods. But even if I explicitly use a try-catch-Block like below, it still doesn't compile because I don't catch the Exception. So either there is a bug in JDK, or I don't know how to catch these Exceptions.
class Bank{
....
//Doesn't compile either
public Set<String> getActiveAccountNumbers() throws IOException {
try{
Stream<Account> s = accounts.values().stream();
s = s.filter(a -> a.isActive());
Stream<String> ss = s.map(a -> a.getNumber());
return ss.collect(Collectors.toSet());
}catch(IOException ex){
}
}
....
}
How can I get it work? Can someone hint me to the right solution?
Solution 1:
You must catch the exception before it escapes the lambda:
s = s.filter(a -> {
try {
return a.isActive();
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new UncheckedIOException(e);
}
});
Consider the fact that the lambda isn't evaluated at the place you write it, but at some completely unrelated place, within a JDK class. So that would be the point where that checked exception would be thrown, and at that place it isn't declared.
You can deal with it by using a wrapper of your lambda that translates checked exceptions to unchecked ones:
public static <T> T uncheckCall(Callable<T> callable) {
try {
return callable.call();
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
throw e;
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
Your example would be written as
return s.filter(a -> uncheckCall(a::isActive))
.map(Account::getNumber)
.collect(toSet());
In my projects I deal with this issue without wrapping; instead I use a method which effectively defuses compiler's checking of exceptions. Needless to say, this should be handled with care and everybody on the project must be aware that a checked exception may appear where it is not declared. This is the plumbing code:
public static <T> T uncheckCall(Callable<T> callable) {
try {
return callable.call();
} catch (Exception e) {
return sneakyThrow(e);
}
}
public static void uncheckRun(RunnableExc r) {
try {
r.run();
} catch (Exception e) {
sneakyThrow(e);
}
}
public interface RunnableExc {
void run() throws Exception;
}
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private static <T extends Throwable> void sneakyThrow(Throwable t) throws T {
throw (T) t;
}
and you can expect to get an IOException thrown in your face, even though collect does not declare it. In most, but not all real-life cases you would want to just rethrow the exception, anyway, and handle it as a generic failure. In all those cases, nothing is lost in clarity or correctness. Just beware of those other cases, where you would actually want to react to the exception on the spot. The developer will not be made aware by the compiler that there is an IOException to catch there and the compiler will in fact complain if you try to catch it because we have fooled it into believing that no such exception can be thrown.
Solution 2:
You can also propagate your static pain with lambdas, so the whole thing looks readable:
s.filter(a -> propagate(a::isActive))
propagate here receives java.util.concurrent.Callable as a parameter and converts any exception caught during the call into RuntimeException. There is a similar conversion method Throwables#propagate(Throwable) in Guava.
This method seems being essential for lambda method chaining, so I hope one day it will be added to one of the popular libs or this propagating behavior would be by default.
public class PropagateExceptionsSample {
// a simplified version of Throwables#propagate
public static RuntimeException runtime(Throwable e) {
if (e instanceof RuntimeException) {
return (RuntimeException)e;
}
return new RuntimeException(e);
}
// this is a new one, n/a in public libs
// Callable just suits as a functional interface in JDK throwing Exception
public static <V> V propagate(Callable<V> callable){
try {
return callable.call();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw runtime(e);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
class Account{
String name;
Account(String name) { this.name = name;}
public boolean isActive() throws IOException {
return name.startsWith("a");
}
}
List<Account> accounts = new ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList(new Account("andrey"), new Account("angela"), new Account("pamela")));
Stream<Account> s = accounts.stream();
s
.filter(a -> propagate(a::isActive))
.map(a -> a.name)
.forEach(System.out::println);
}
}
Solution 3:
This UtilException helper class lets you use any checked exceptions in Java streams, like this:
Stream.of("java.lang.Object", "java.lang.Integer", "java.lang.String")
.map(rethrowFunction(Class::forName))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Note Class::forName throws ClassNotFoundException, which is checked. The stream itself also throws ClassNotFoundException, and NOT some wrapping unchecked exception.
public final class UtilException {
@FunctionalInterface
public interface Consumer_WithExceptions<T, E extends Exception> {
void accept(T t) throws E;
}
@FunctionalInterface
public interface BiConsumer_WithExceptions<T, U, E extends Exception> {
void accept(T t, U u) throws E;
}
@FunctionalInterface
public interface Function_WithExceptions<T, R, E extends Exception> {
R apply(T t) throws E;
}
@FunctionalInterface
public interface Supplier_WithExceptions<T, E extends Exception> {
T get() throws E;
}
@FunctionalInterface
public interface Runnable_WithExceptions<E extends Exception> {
void run() throws E;
}
/** .forEach(rethrowConsumer(name -> System.out.println(Class.forName(name)))); or .forEach(rethrowConsumer(ClassNameUtil::println)); */
public static <T, E extends Exception> Consumer<T> rethrowConsumer(Consumer_WithExceptions<T, E> consumer) throws E {
return t -> {
try { consumer.accept(t); }
catch (Exception exception) { throwAsUnchecked(exception); }
};
}
public static <T, U, E extends Exception> BiConsumer<T, U> rethrowBiConsumer(BiConsumer_WithExceptions<T, U, E> biConsumer) throws E {
return (t, u) -> {
try { biConsumer.accept(t, u); }
catch (Exception exception) { throwAsUnchecked(exception); }
};
}
/** .map(rethrowFunction(name -> Class.forName(name))) or .map(rethrowFunction(Class::forName)) */
public static <T, R, E extends Exception> Function<T, R> rethrowFunction(Function_WithExceptions<T, R, E> function) throws E {
return t -> {
try { return function.apply(t); }
catch (Exception exception) { throwAsUnchecked(exception); return null; }
};
}
/** rethrowSupplier(() -> new StringJoiner(new String(new byte[]{77, 97, 114, 107}, "UTF-8"))), */
public static <T, E extends Exception> Supplier<T> rethrowSupplier(Supplier_WithExceptions<T, E> function) throws E {
return () -> {
try { return function.get(); }
catch (Exception exception) { throwAsUnchecked(exception); return null; }
};
}
/** uncheck(() -> Class.forName("xxx")); */
public static void uncheck(Runnable_WithExceptions t)
{
try { t.run(); }
catch (Exception exception) { throwAsUnchecked(exception); }
}
/** uncheck(() -> Class.forName("xxx")); */
public static <R, E extends Exception> R uncheck(Supplier_WithExceptions<R, E> supplier)
{
try { return supplier.get(); }
catch (Exception exception) { throwAsUnchecked(exception); return null; }
}
/** uncheck(Class::forName, "xxx"); */
public static <T, R, E extends Exception> R uncheck(Function_WithExceptions<T, R, E> function, T t) {
try { return function.apply(t); }
catch (Exception exception) { throwAsUnchecked(exception); return null; }
}
@SuppressWarnings ("unchecked")
private static <E extends Throwable> void throwAsUnchecked(Exception exception) throws E { throw (E)exception; }
}
Many other examples on how to use it (after statically importing UtilException):
@Test
public void test_Consumer_with_checked_exceptions() throws IllegalAccessException {
Stream.of("java.lang.Object", "java.lang.Integer", "java.lang.String")
.forEach(rethrowConsumer(className -> System.out.println(Class.forName(className))));
Stream.of("java.lang.Object", "java.lang.Integer", "java.lang.String")
.forEach(rethrowConsumer(System.out::println));
}
@Test
public void test_Function_with_checked_exceptions() throws ClassNotFoundException {
List<Class> classes1
= Stream.of("Object", "Integer", "String")
.map(rethrowFunction(className -> Class.forName("java.lang." + className)))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
List<Class> classes2
= Stream.of("java.lang.Object", "java.lang.Integer", "java.lang.String")
.map(rethrowFunction(Class::forName))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
@Test
public void test_Supplier_with_checked_exceptions() throws ClassNotFoundException {
Collector.of(
rethrowSupplier(() -> new StringJoiner(new String(new byte[]{77, 97, 114, 107}, "UTF-8"))),
StringJoiner::add, StringJoiner::merge, StringJoiner::toString);
}
@Test
public void test_uncheck_exception_thrown_by_method() {
Class clazz1 = uncheck(() -> Class.forName("java.lang.String"));
Class clazz2 = uncheck(Class::forName, "java.lang.String");
}
@Test (expected = ClassNotFoundException.class)
public void test_if_correct_exception_is_still_thrown_by_method() {
Class clazz3 = uncheck(Class::forName, "INVALID");
}
But don't use it before understanding the following advantages, disadvantages, and limitations:
• If the calling-code is to handle the checked exception you MUST add it to the throws clause of the method that contains the stream. The compiler will not force you to add it anymore, so it's easier to forget it.
• If the calling-code already handles the checked exception, the compiler WILL remind you to add the throws clause to the method declaration that contains the stream (if you don't it will say: Exception is never thrown in body of corresponding try statement).
• In any case, you won't be able to surround the stream itself to catch the checked exception INSIDE the method that contains the stream (if you try, the compiler will say: Exception is never thrown in body of corresponding try statement).
• If you are calling a method which literally can never throw the exception that it declares, then you should not include the throws clause. For example: new String(byteArr, "UTF-8") throws UnsupportedEncodingException, but UTF-8 is guaranteed by the Java spec to always be present. Here, the throws declaration is a nuisance and any solution to silence it with minimal boilerplate is welcome.
• If you hate checked exceptions and feel they should never be added to the Java language to begin with (a growing number of people think this way, and I am NOT one of them), then just don't add the checked exception to the throws clause of the method that contains the stream. The checked exception will, then, behave just like an UNchecked exception.
• If you are implementing a strict interface where you don't have the option for adding a throws declaration, and yet throwing an exception is entirely appropriate, then wrapping an exception just to gain the privilege of throwing it results in a stacktrace with spurious exceptions which contribute no information about what actually went wrong. A good example is Runnable.run(), which does not throw any checked exceptions. In this case, you may decide not to add the checked exception to the throws clause of the method that contains the stream.
• In any case, if you decide NOT to add (or forget to add) the checked exception to the throws clause of the method that contains the stream, be aware of these 2 consequences of throwing CHECKED exceptions:
1) The calling-code won't be able to catch it by name (if you try, the compiler will say: Exception is never thrown in body of corresponding try statement). It will bubble and probably be catched in the main program loop by some "catch Exception" or "catch Throwable", which may be what you want anyway.
2) It violates the principle of least surprise: it will no longer be enough to catch RuntimeException to be able to guarantee catching all possible exceptions. For this reason, I believe this should not be done in framework code, but only in business code that you completely control.
In conclusion: I believe the limitations here are not serious, and the UtilException class may be used without fear. However, it's up to you!
- References:
- http://www.philandstuff.com/2012/04/28/sneakily-throwing-checked-exceptions.html
- http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05984.html
- Project Lombok annotation: @SneakyThrows
- Brian Goetz opinion (against) here: How can I throw CHECKED exceptions from inside Java 8 streams?
- https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/225931/workaround-for-java-checked-exceptions?newreg=ddf0dd15e8174af8ba52e091cf85688e *