In a generic GetHashCode(T foo) method, I check whether foo is null.
However I just stumbled upon a strange Resharper warning.
In the following code, can foo never be null?
private class FooComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T> where T: Foo
{
public int GetHashCode(T foo)
{
// resharper warning: "Expression is always false"
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(null,foo)) return 0;
// ... calculate hash
}
}
However as far as I can tell, the following is perfectly legal:
Foo foo = null;
var fooComparer = new FooComparer<Foo>();
int hash = fooComparer.GetHashCode(foo);
Method IEqualityComparer<T>.GetHashCode has contract [NotNull] for its parameter because it has implementations that throw an exception when null is provided as an argument.
If you want to use FooComparer<T>.GetHashCode directly and exception-safe for null as its argument, you can annotate it as follows:
public int GetHashCode([JetBrains.Annotations.CanBeNull] T foo)
{
// resharper warning: "Expression is always false"
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(null,foo)) return 0;
// ... calculate hash
}
Nevertheless analysis for [Not-Null]-parameters must be improved. This bug exists for similar code in http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RSRP-304111
MSDN for IEqualityComparer<T>.GetHashCode Method says:
Exceptions:
ArgumentNullExceptionThe type ofobjis a reference type andobjisnull.
This seems to imply that calling GetHashCode<T>(T obj) with a null parameter violates the contract of IEqualityComparer<T>.
I assume Resharper assumes that callers adhere to that contract, and thus never pass in null.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With