[c#] Checking if an object is null in C#

I would like to prevent further processing on an object if it is null.

In the following code I check if the object is null by either:

if (!data.Equals(null))

and

if (data != null)

However, I receive a NullReferenceException at dataList.Add(data). If the object was null, it should never have even entered the if-statement!

Thus, I'm asking if this is proper way of checking if an object is null:

public List<Object> dataList;
public  bool AddData(ref Object data)
    bool success = false;
    try
    {
        // I've also used "if (data != null)" which hasn't worked either
        if (!data.Equals(null))
        {
           //NullReferenceException occurs here ...
           dataList.Add(data);
           success = doOtherStuff(data);
        }
    }
    catch (Exception e)
    {
        throw new Exception(e.ToString());
    }
    return success;
}

If this is the proper way of checking if the object is null, what am I doing wrong (how can I prevent further processing on the object to avoid the NullReferenceException)?

As of C# 8 you can use the 'empty' property pattern (with pattern matching) to ensure an object is not null:

if (obj is { })
{
    // 'obj' is not null here
}

This approach means "if the object references an instance of something" (i.e. it's not null).

You can think of this as the opposite of: if (obj is null).... which will return true when the object does not reference an instance of something.

For more info on patterns in C# 8.0 read here.

You can try like below

public List<Object> dataList;
public  bool AddData(ref Object data)
bool success = false;
try
{
    if (data != null)
    {
       dataList.Add(data);
       success = doOtherStuff(data);
    }
}
catch (Exception e)
{
    throw new Exception(e.ToString());
}
return success;

}

No, you should be using !=. If data is actually null then your program will just crash with a NullReferenceException as a result of attempting to call the Equals method on null. Also realize that, if you specifically want to check for reference equality, you should use the Object.ReferenceEquals method as you never know how Equals has been implemented.

Your program is crashing because dataList is null as you never initialize it.

Whenever you are creating objects of class you have to check the whether the object is null or not using the below code.

Example: object1 is object of class

void myFunction(object1)
{
  if(object1!=null)
  {
     object1.value1 //If we miss the null check then here we get the Null Reference exception
  }
}

in C# > 7.0 use

if (obj is null) ...

This will ignore any == or != defined by the object (unless of course you want to use them ...)

For not null use if (obj is object) and from C# 9 you can also use if (obj is not null)

You cannot use ToString() on a null object so use a Null Coalescing Operator to assign an empty string to the null object then evaluate with IsNullOrEmpty

        var foo = obj ?? "";

        if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(foo.ToString()))
        {
          //Do something
        }

As others have already pointed out, it's not data but rather likely dataList that is null. In addition to that...

catch-throw is an antipattern that almost always makes me want to throw up every time that I see it. Imagine that something goes wrong deep in something that doOtherStuff() calls. All you get back is an Exception object, thrown at the throw in AddData(). No stack trace, no call information, no state, nothing at all to indicate the real source of the problem, unless you go in and switch your debugger to break on exception thrown rather than exception unhandled. If you are catching an exception and just re-throwing it in any way, particularly if the code in the try block is in any way nontrivial, do yourself (and your colleagues, present and future) a favor and throw out the entire try-catch block. Granted, throw; is better than the alternatives, but you are still giving yourself (or whoever else is trying to fix a bug in the code) completely unnecessary headaches. This is not to say that try-catch-throw is necessarily evil per se, as long as you do something relevant with the exception object that was thrown inside the catch block.

Then there's the potential problems of catching Exception in the first place, but that's another matter, particularly since in this particular case you throw an exception.

Another thing that strikes me as more than a little dangerous is that data could potentially change value during the execution of the function, since you are passing by reference. So the null check might pass but before the code gets to doing anything with the value, it's changed - perhaps to null. I'm not positive if this is a concern or not (it might not be), but it seems worth watching out for.

In addition to @Jose Ortega answer, its better for use extension method

 public static bool IsNull(this object T)
     {
        return T == null;
     } 

And use IsNull method for all of object like:

object foo = new object(); //or any object from any class
if (foo.IsNull())
   {
     // blah blah //
   }

I did more simple (positive way) and it seems to work well.

Since any kind of "object" is at least an object

    if (MyObj is Object)
    {
            //Do something .... for example:  
            if (MyObj is Button)
                MyObj.Enabled = true;
    }

With c#9 (2020) you can now check a parameter is null with this code:

if (name is null) { }

if (name is not null) { }

You can have more information here

  public static bool isnull(object T)
  {
      return T == null ? true : false;
  }

use:

isnull(object.check.it)

Conditional use:

isnull(object.check.it) ? DoWhenItsTrue : DoWhenItsFalse;

Update (another way) updated 08/31/2017 and 01/25/2021. Thanks for the comment.

public static bool IsNull(object T)
{
    return (bool)T ? true : false;
}

Demostration

And for the records, you have my code on Github, go check it out: https://github.com/j0rt3g4/ValidateNull PS: This one is especially for you Chayim Friedman, don't use beta software assuming that is all true. Wait for final versions or use your own environment to test, before assuming true beta software without any sort of documentation or demonstration from your end.

This was a good Example!

    if (MyObj is Object)
    {
            //Do something .... for example:  
            if (MyObj is Button)
                MyObj.Enabled = true;
    }

As of C# 9 you can do

if (obj is null) { ... }

For not null use

if (obj is not null) { ... }

If you need to override this behaviour use == and != accordingly.

Jeffrey L Whitledge is right. Your `dataList´-Object itself is null.

There is also another problem with your code: You are using the ref-keyword, which means the argument data cannot be null! The MSDN says:

An argument passed to a ref parameter must first be initialized. This differs from out, whose arguments do not have to be explicitly initialized before they are passed

It's also not a good idea to use generics with the type `Object´. Generics should avoid boxing/unboxing and also ensure type safety. If you want a common type make your method generic. Finally your code should look like this:

public class Foo<T> where T : MyTypeOrInterface {

      public List<T> dataList = new List<T>();

      public bool AddData(ref T data) {
        bool success = false;
        try {
          dataList.Add(data);                   
          success = doOtherStuff(data);
        } catch (Exception e) {
          throw new Exception(e.ToString());
        }
        return success;
      }

      private bool doOtherStuff(T data) {
        //...
      }
    }

C# 6 has monadic null checking :)

before:

if (points != null) {
    var next = points.FirstOrDefault();
    if (next != null && next.X != null) return next.X;
}   
return -1;

after:

var bestValue = points?.FirstOrDefault()?.X ?? -1;

Here are some extensions I use:

/// <summary>
/// Extensions to the object class
/// </summary>
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
    /// <summary>
    /// True if the object is null, else false
    /// </summary>
    public static bool IsNull(this object input) => input is null;

    /// <summary>
    /// False if the object is null, else true
    /// </summary>
    public static bool NotNull(this object input) => !IsNull(input);
}

I just followed a method that we would usually follow in java script. To convert object to string and then check whether they are null.

var obj = new Object();
var objStr = obj.ToString();
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(objStr)){
  // code as per your needs
}

The problem in this case is not that data is null. It is that dataList itself is null.

In the place where you declare dataList you should create a new List object and assign it to the variable.

List<object> dataList = new List<object>();

[Edited to reflect hint by @kelton52]

Simplest way is to do object.ReferenceEquals(null, data)

Since (null==data) is NOT guaranteed to work:

class Nully
{
    public static bool operator ==(Nully n, object o)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Comparing '" + n + "' with '" + o + "'");
        return true;
    }
    public static bool operator !=(Nully n, object o) { return !(n==o); }
}
void Main()
{
    var data = new Nully();
    Console.WriteLine(null == data);
    Console.WriteLine(object.ReferenceEquals(null, data));
}

Produces:

Comparing '' with 'Nully'

True

False

Your dataList is null as it has not been instantiated, judging by the code you have posted.

Try:

public List<Object> dataList = new List<Object>();
public  bool AddData(ref Object data)
bool success = false;
try
{
    if (!data.Equals(null))   // I've also used if(data != null) which hasn't worked either
    {
       dataList.Add(data);                      //NullReferenceException occurs here
       success = doOtherStuff(data);
    }
}
catch (Exception e)
{
    throw new Exception(e.ToString());
}
return success;

}