is there a more idiomatic way of writing this

if(!item.name.isNullOrEmpty()){
            itemMap["name"] = AttributeValue().withS(item.name)
        }

Usually I do

item.name?.takeif { it.isNotEmpty() }?.let { AttributeValue().withS(it) }

Personally, I find @Tolriq's solution less clear, actually. The advantage of

isNotNullOrEmpty()

is that you get more checks into one, and yet the semantics of it is very clear to the human eye.

yea it seems less readable @hallvard, but I'm curious how it works

it's takeIf sorry. in his case seeing that ?. is a warning it means the String can't be null so isNotEmtpy is enought. For the rest it's a matter of reading.

Sure, it's functional and kotlinish. I still think doing just one check is more readable in this case, but you are free to disagree, of course. And I do agree that there are plenty of other use-cases where

takeIf

is very useful.

Well the other advantage is that it properly handles smart cast for complex object 🙂 If item.name is mutable and could have been null then the if code would still require a !! after the item.name.

thanks @Tolriq

Just to show the problem (your item.name can't be null but to have the idea)

class Item(var name: String? = null)

val item = Item()

fun test() {
    if (!item.name.isNullOrEmpty()) {
        var t: String = item.name
    }
}

That does not work compiler will complain that item.name is mutable and can't be smartcast 😉