Hey, .. Is there neater way to do this ```fun foo...

# announcements

[althaf]

Hey, ..

Is there neater way to do this

fun foo() : Response {
             workFlowLog?.let {  Response.Sucess(BatchApprovalWorkFlowList(workFlowLog) ) } ?: run { Response.Error(Exception()) } 
}

My intention is to return different response in case workflow is null. My team mates say this kinda of ugly. Is there a better kotlin idiom to craft this statement.
if( w == null) ... else ... , we are trying to avoid this.

[ephemient]

can remove run { }, can't you?

[althaf]

yes i can however how do i return different kind of response in case workflow is null

[ephemient]

either that, if, or when. go with whatever the team likes. nothing wrong with if if it's clearer

[althaf]

hm.. noted

[Rajkumar Singh]

fun foo() = workFlowLog?.let { Response.Sucess(BatchApprovalWorkFlowList(it) ) } ?: Response.Error(Exception())

[althaf]

@Rajkumar Singh i think you have misunderstood statement

[Rajkumar Singh]

@althaf can you ask your teammates what part is ugly? as ephemient said either if or when would also be fine.

[Dave K]

Depending what the issue your team has with it, couldn’t you also have an extension function on nullable Response? Like orError that returns Response.Error(Exception()). No matter how you cut it you need to handle the not null case and the null case and the rest is just how it looks

[althaf]

checkNotNull() i'm now thinking of using this one so a exception is raised an can be cleanly handled

[althaf]

@Dave K they say it looks ugly. 😄

[Rajkumar Singh]

@althaf ask your teammate(s) to provide a non-ugly solution. I'm curious now.

[Dave K]

Try/catch with the checkNotNull is one of a million other options

[ephemient]

you could make an extension function like

inline fun <T : Any, R> T?.ifNotNull(orElse: () -> R = ::TODO, block: (T) -> R) = if (this == null) orElse() else block(this)
fun foo(): Response {
    workFlowLog.ifNotNull(orElse = { Response.Error(Exception()) }) { Response.Success(BatchApprovalWorkFlowList(it)) }
}

but that doesn't strike me as an improvement