C#•2mo ago

Selecting and filtering from a list with full nullable safety & warnings as errors

I have the type Btn in my sample below which simulates the portion of WinForms that I'm interested in. I have a list of Btn objects and my goal is to mutate it into a subset of Btn objects that have their Tag matching the Wanted type without being opaque to the static analyser that detects potential null references (and avoiding the null-forgiving operator) I ran the code below over on https://sharplab.io and it does not complain that OfType could return any nullables. Nonetheless, the code fails because the middle element (which will be a tuple of nulls) still gets returned. Is this an issue with the REPL or is the static analyser really not seeing that the tuple types could end up being null? Perhaps there is a cleaner way to achieve what I want. Do note that I cannot alter the type held by Btn.Tag, it's an object in WinForms and I have no control over the code that decided to expose the types via that field.

#nullable enable

using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

class Btn {
    public object Tag { get; private set; }
    public string Str { get; private set; }
    public Btn(object tag, string str) {
        Tag = tag;
        Str = str;
    }
}

class Wanted {}
class Unwanted {}

class main {
    public static void Main(string[] args) {
        List<Btn> lst = [new Btn(new Wanted(), "A"),
                         new Btn(new Unwanted(), "B"),
                         new Btn(new Wanted(), "C")];

        foreach (var tup in lst.Select(btn => btn.Tag is Wanted w ? (btn, w) : (null, null)).OfType<(Btn, Wanted)>())
             Console.WriteLine(tup.Item1.Str);
    }
}

#nullable enable

using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

class Btn {
    public object Tag { get; private set; }
    public string Str { get; private set; }
    public Btn(object tag, string str) {
        Tag = tag;
        Str = str;
    }
}

class Wanted {}
class Unwanted {}

class main {
    public static void Main(string[] args) {
        List<Btn> lst = [new Btn(new Wanted(), "A"),
                         new Btn(new Unwanted(), "B"),
                         new Btn(new Wanted(), "C")];

        foreach (var tup in lst.Select(btn => btn.Tag is Wanted w ? (btn, w) : (null, null)).OfType<(Btn, Wanted)>())
             Console.WriteLine(tup.Item1.Str);
    }
}

32 Replies

Angius•2mo ago

I'd recommend filtering it out with .Where() first

OliproOP•2mo ago

As an addendum, I am aware that I can chain .Where(tup => tup.Item1 is not null) but that seems silly when OfType is supposed to remove nullables

Angius•2mo ago

Probably has to do with how reference types are nullable by default. So all elements that your Select() returns are of type (Btn?, Wanted?) null is not really a type You could not do .OfType<null>() for example

OliproOP•2mo ago

I have set the pragma #nullable enable it would emit a warning It has occurred to me that I can make it work correctly by explicitly stating the tuple as nullable - like so:

lst.Select<Btn, (Btn, Wanted)?>(btn => btn.Tag is Wanted w ? (btn, w) : null).OfType<(Btn, Wanted)>()

lst.Select<Btn, (Btn, Wanted)?>(btn => btn.Tag is Wanted w ? (btn, w) : null).OfType<(Btn, Wanted)>()

This functions correctly, but it does strike me as a bit verbose

Angius•2mo ago

A .Where() would be simpler

OliproOP•2mo ago

.Where() is not visible to the analyser, it won't know that the tuple's types can't be null or more specifically, .Where() will filter out the nullables, but it won't transform the type from T?, T2? to T, T2

Angius•2mo ago

True

Angius•2mo ago

Unfortulately, nullability for reference types in C# is a bit of a "landlord special"

Angius•2mo ago

Just about kinda works, but... not that well

OliproOP•2mo ago

well, I have a working solution now, as posted above, but it'd be cosmetically pleasant if I could do it more tersely than explicitly writing out the tuple as a nullable type to make it cooperate

ero•2mo ago

this seems like an issue with tuples specifically

OliproOP•2mo ago

This makes it cleaner:

lst.Select(btn => btn.Tag is Wanted w ? (btn, w) : default((Btn, Wanted)?)).OfType<(Btn, Wanted)>())

lst.Select(btn => btn.Tag is Wanted w ? (btn, w) : default((Btn, Wanted)?)).OfType<(Btn, Wanted)>())

the right hand side of the ternary is no longer ambiguous so I don't have to specify the generics if anyone thinks they can make it shorter, I'm all ears.

ero•2mo ago

yeah the problem is that foo is (C, D) does a tuple pattern check. it checks the items individually. but OfType will do is ValueTuple<C, D>. and that can't ever be true, because generic parameters in structs don't have variance

OliproOP•2mo ago

if that is the case, I'd expect it to still fail nullable analysis

ero•2mo ago

how do you mean?

OliproOP•2mo ago

if the return type of Select is an IEnumerable<(T?, T2?)> then it should fail when OfType is supposed to be returning an IEnumerable<(T, T2)> in my original code sample, the ternary was returning either (btn, w) or (null, null) which is going to be an IEnumerable<(T?, T2?)>

ero•2mo ago

well no, because like angius mentioned, nullable reference types are kinda just... sugar for analyzers (T1?, T2?) is still ValueTuple<T1, T2>

OliproOP•2mo ago

as I have read and understood the documentation, the analyser needs to be able to prove that a type can't be null this is somehow escaping the analyser

ero•2mo ago

it's not really surprising. the linq query goes through so many layers, it's impossible to retain that information all OfType does is check value is ReturnType and that check is true for ValueTuple<T1, T2>, ValueTuple<T1?, T2>, ValueTuple<T1, T2?>, and ValueTuple<T1?, T2?>

MODiX•2mo ago

ero

REPL Result: Success

(C?, D?) tuple = (new C(), new D());
Console.WriteLine(tuple is ValueTuple<C, D>);

class C;
class D;

(C?, D?) tuple = (new C(), new D());
Console.WriteLine(tuple is ValueTuple<C, D>);

class C;
class D;

Console Output

True

True

Compile: 504.577ms | Execution: 32.420ms | React with ❌ to remove this embed.

MODiX•2mo ago

ero

REPL Result: Success

(C?, D?) tuple = (null, null);
Console.WriteLine(tuple is ValueTuple<C?, D?>);

class C;
class D;

(C?, D?) tuple = (null, null);
Console.WriteLine(tuple is ValueTuple<C?, D?>);

class C;
class D;

Console Output

True

True

Compile: 487.519ms | Execution: 52.578ms | React with ❌ to remove this embed.

OliproOP•2mo ago

everywhere I've had nullable errors, it's been because it cannot prove it's non-nullable and I've had to change the code so that passes through. if you're saying information is lost through LINQ, that should defacto result in the analyser deciding that it can't prove the types are non-null and emitting an error

MODiX•2mo ago

ero

REPL Result: Success

(C?, D?) tuple = (null, null);
Console.WriteLine(tuple is ValueTuple<C, D>);

class C;
class D;

(C?, D?) tuple = (null, null);
Console.WriteLine(tuple is ValueTuple<C, D>);

class C;
class D;

Console Output

True

True

Compile: 488.115ms | Execution: 48.817ms | React with ❌ to remove this embed.

ero•2mo ago

sure, raise an issue in dotnet/roslyn i'm sure people in that repo can explain it better than i ever could anyway but what you're seeing is a general issue with generic parameters that don't have variance like in classes or structs many things go into this maybe https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/discussions is best

OliproOP•2mo ago

I suspect this isn't unique to ValueTuple - I imagine this is applicable to all struct types and it seems this is by design: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/nullable-references#structs

Nullable reference types - C#

This article provides an overview of nullable reference types. Learn how the feature provides safety against null reference exceptions, for new and existing projects.

OliproOP•2mo ago

that makes structs a bit of a turnoff for me if they essentially have inferior nullability safety

Arrays and structs that contain reference types are known pitfalls in nullable references and the static analysis that determines null safety. In both situations, a non-nullable reference might be initialized to null, without generating warnings.

:cough:

ero•2mo ago

this specifically isn't about structs. it's about the generic arguments

MODiX•2mo ago

ero

REPL Result: Success

Tuple<C?, D?> tuple = Tuple.Create<C?, D?>(null, null);
Console.WriteLine(tuple is Tuple<C, D>);

class C;
class D;

Tuple<C?, D?> tuple = Tuple.Create<C?, D?>(null, null);
Console.WriteLine(tuple is Tuple<C, D>);

class C;
class D;

Console Output

True

True

Compile: 490.639ms | Execution: 28.665ms | React with ❌ to remove this embed.

ero•2mo ago

this is the class Tuple<T1, T2>

OliproOP•2mo ago

I see, if I'm understanding this right, whether it's allowed to work or not is dependent on whether or not you define constraints: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/nullable-references#generics

Nullable reference types - C#

This article provides an overview of nullable reference types. Learn how the feature provides safety against null reference exceptions, for new and existing projects.

OliproOP•2mo ago

meaning, if I understand this correctly, that ValueTuple/Tuple have no such constraints

ero•2mo ago

lst.Where(btn => btn.Tag is Wanted).Select(btn => (btn, (Wanted)btn.Tag)), maybe? i think you might need nullable suppression in the Select though, still... i've always kinda wanted a Where + Select combination for this, but i'm not sure how you would design it

Gaming

Programming

Selecting and filtering from a list with full nullable safety & warnings as errors