Should I create functions/methods for packages/libraries that allow optional parameters to accept null?

In this example below, I set the 3rd and 4th parameter as null which will act as the default value.

myLibrary.myFunction(1, 7, null, null, true);

Or is this not a good way to go about creating functions for a package and therefore should not accept null as a parameter value.

myLibrary.myFunction(1, 7, false, 4, true);
  • Vincent@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    My recommendation for APIs that have optional parameters is to have an optional last options parameter, every property of which can be left unset. Makes it far clearer to the caller what those properties do.

  • MajorHavoc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    When null can be handled rationally, a library should accept it and do something reasonable.

    When null makes no sense whatsoever, a library should error out if it receives null.

    So it’s up to your use case which is most appropriate.

    The core principle is the program should stop executing the moment we 100% know that we’re not going to accomplish what the user needs. In many cases, being passed ‘null’ tells us that.

    In any other case, the program should pick a reasonable (default) option for the user and continue running.

  • RonSijm
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Having to pass in null values seems a bit weird. You can define functions and optional parameters like this:

    function myFunction(a = 1, b = 1, c = null, d = null, e = true) {
      return a * b;
    }
    

    Then people don’t have to call your function with

    myLibrary.myFunction(1, 7, null, null, true);
    

    they just call your library with

    myLibrary.myFunction(1, 7);
    

    You could add a default inside the method signature, like:

    function myFunction(a = 1, b = 1, c = null, d = null, e = true) {
      if (c === null) {
        c = 5;
      }
      return a * b * c;
    }
    

    because if you define it in the method:

    function myFunction(a = 1, b = 1, c = 5, d = null, e = true) {
      return a * b * c;
    }
    

    then if people still call it with

    console.log(myFunction(5, 2, null));
    

    Then the default c = 5 is overwritten by null, and results in 0.

    I don’t know if you really need to handle all that though, instead of just doing c = 5 - if people intentionally call your library with null, and things go wrong…? well yea ok, don’t do that then.

    But it depends on the use-case. If this is some method deep within a library, and some other calling method might be unintentionally dumping null into it, you could default it inside the method, and handle it