Reputation: 9278
Does Ruby safe navigation operator (&.
) evaluate its parameters when its receiver is nil
?
For example:
logger&.log("Something important happened...")
"Something important happened..."
string evaluated here?Thanks in advance.
I have the code like the following throughout my codebase:
logger.log("Something important happened. (#{Time.current})") if verbose
My main goal is to remove the repetition of the if verbose
check whenever I call the log
method since it is easy to forget about it and you will be not notified at all about the misusage.
Inspired by the Tell, don't ask principle,
I have moved if verbose
check inside log
method implementation.
class Logger
# ...
def log(message)
return unless verbose
# ...
end
end
def logger
@logger ||= Logger.new
end
logger.log("Something important happened. (#{Time.current})")
This approach simplified my code since I have solved my main problem - I don't need to remember to place if verbose
whenever I call the log
method,
but I have received another issue.
"Something important..."
string is always evaluated, no matter whether verbose
is true
or false
.
Therefore, I have completely changed the solution:
logger
returns nil
when verbose
is false
.log
calls.def logger
@logger ||= Logger.new if verbose
end
logger&.log("Something important happened. (#{Time.current})")
As a result, I have replaced the initial problem of remembering if verbose
checks to remembering of &.
calls.
But, anyway, I consider this as an improvement, since forgetting to utilize the safe navigation operator raises the NoMethodError
, in other words, notifies about the log
method misusage.
So now, in order to be sure that the 'safe navigation operator approach' is actually a 'better' option for my problem,
I need to know exactly whether the safe navigation operator in Ruby evaluates its parameters when its receiver is nil
.
Upvotes: 6
Views: 1192
Reputation: 584
This is not an answer to the specific question, as that has already been answered, but is instead an alternative in light of the stated goal.
Ruby's Logger already has a block syntax, where the block is only evaluated iff the log level would print the statement.
logger.debug { puts "Do not evaluate this!"; "My String" }
If the log level is debug or higher, then the block will be evaluated, and the string it returns will be logged. If the log level is less than debug the statement will not be evaluated at all.
TL;DR: Pass expensive log statements to your logger inside blocks.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 6659
No, and it's very easy to test:
$ irb
> def test
> puts 'triggered!'
> end
=> :test
> def nothing
> end
=> :nothing
> nothing&.whatever(test)
=> nil
> nothing&.whatever("string_#{test}")
=> nil
Conceptually you might think of safe navigation operator as this:
x&.test(param) # is "conceptually" equal to
if x.respond_to?(:test)
x.test(param)
end
# or, as pointed in the comment:
unless x.nil?
x.test(param)
end
And now it's pretty clear why it's not evaluated when it's not called.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 84393
The argument to logger&.log
isn't evaluated when logger.is_a?(NilClass) == true
. Every Ruby expression that's evaluated should have an impact, so consider:
test = 1
nil&.log(test+=1); test
#=> 1
If the argument were evaluated by the interpreter, test would equal two. So, while the parser certainly parses the expression in your argument, it doesn't execute the inner expression.
You can verify what the parser sees with Ripper#sexp:
require 'ripper'
test = 1
pp Ripper.sexp "nil&.log(test+=1)"; test
[:program, [[:method_add_arg, [:call, [:var_ref, [:@kw, "nil", [1, 0]]], [:@op, "&.", [1, 3]], [:@ident, "log", [1, 5]]], [:arg_paren, [:args_add_block, [[:opassign, [:var_field, [:@ident, "test", [1, 9]]], [:@op, "+=", [1, 13]], [:@int, "1", [1, 15]]]], false]]]]] #=> 1
This clearly shows that the parser sees the incremented assignment in the symbolic expression tree. However, the assignment is never actually executed.
Upvotes: 3
Reputation: 55833
To quote from the syntax documentation for the safe navigation operator:
&.
, called “safe navigation operator”, allows to skip method call when receiver isnil
. It returnsnil
and doesn't evaluate method's arguments if the call is skipped.
As such, the arguments of your log
method are not evaluated if the logger
is nil
when you call it as
logger&.log("something happened at #{Time.now}")
With that being said, note that the Ruby core logger offers a different solution to your exact issue, namely to avoid having to evaluate potentially expensive arguments if the log level is to high.
The Ruby core logger implements its add
method something like this (simplified):
class Logger
attr_accessor :level
def initialize(level)
@level = level.to_i
end
def add(severity, message = nil)
return unless severity >= level
message ||= yield
log_device.write(message)
end
def info(message = nil, &block)
add(1, message, &block)
end
end
You can then use this as
logger = Logger.new(1)
logger.info { "something happened at #{Time.now}" }
Here, the block is only evaluated if the log level is high enough that the message is actually used.
Upvotes: 7
Reputation: 10546
It does not evaluate them:
require 'pry'
logger = nil
logger&.log(binding.pry)
This returns:
nil
If it evaluated it then it would trigger the binding like this example does:
a = []
a&.push(binding.pry)
If you don't have pry but do have a modern version of Ruby you can substitute binding.irb
for binding.pry
.
Whether or not this is a "better" solution is something you should benchmark to be sure.
You can read more about the safe navigation operator at How is the Ruby safe navigation (&.) implemented?
Upvotes: 1