Writing a more refined and simplified null check c#

Question

I have the following code,

bool HasPassed= (result!= null && result.Identifier.Equals("Passed"))? true : false

This works fine as it is, but I was wondering if it were possible to write this code in a better and more simplified way, maybe using the ? operator ( or Null-coalescing operator). I'm still learning about this and did not quite understand how it can be used in this case. Below is a minimal project to test it out and any advice is much appreciated!

Result result = new Result();
//result.Identifier = "Passed";
result = null;
bool HasPassed = (result != null && result.Identifier.Equals("Passed")) ? true : false;

public class Result
{
    public string Identifier { get; set; }
}

Thanks but the issue I don't always know when exactly this property is been set, thus, I need to do the null check when evaluating for bool HasPassed — Dre, Oct 04 '22 at 08:12
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/operators/member-access-operators#null-conditional-operators--and- — , Oct 04 '22 at 08:13
If `result` is null, then `result?.Identifier` is null, which is not equal to "Passed". — Johnathan Barclay, Oct 04 '22 at 08:13

score 7 · Accepted Answer · answered Oct 04 '22 at 08:11

Firstly, any time you have a conditional of the form condition ? true : false, you can just replace it with condition.

So you can start with:

bool HasPassed= (result!= null && result.Identifier.Equals("Passed"));

You can then remove the parentheses and rename the local variable to follow .NET naming conventions:

bool hasPassed = result != null && result.Identifier.Equals("Passed");

Finally, use the null-conditional operator and the == overload for string:

bool hasPassed = result?.Identifier == "Passed";

Just as safe, but much more readable and concise IMO.

Writing a more refined and simplified null check c#

1 Answers1