An assertion is a statement in the Java programming language that enables you to test your assumptions about your program. For example, if you write a method that calculates the speed of a particle, you might assert that the calculated speed is less than the speed of light.
Each assertion contains a boolean expression that you believe will be true when the assertion executes. If it is not true, the system will throw an error. By verifying that the boolean expression is indeed true, the assertion confirms your assumptions about the behavior of your program, increasing your confidence that the program is free of errors.
Experience has shown that writing assertions while programming is one of the quickest and most effective ways to detect and correct bugs. As an added benefit, assertions serve to document the inner workings of your program, enhancing maintainability.
This document shows you how to program with assertions. It covers the topics:
The assertion statement has two forms. The first, simpler form is:
assert Expression1 ;
where Expression1
is a boolean expression. When the system runs the
assertion, it evaluates Expression1 and if it is false
throws an AssertionError
with no detail message.
The second form of the assertion statement is:
assert Expression1 : Expression2 ;
where:
void.)Use this version of the assert statement to provide
a detail message for the AssertionError. The system
passes the value of Expression2 to the appropriate
AssertionError constructor, which uses the string
representation of the value as the error's detail message.
The purpose of the detail message is to capture and communicate the details of the assertion failure. The message should allow you to diagnose and ultimately fix the error that led the assertion to fail. Note that the detail message is not a user-level error message, so it is generally unnecessary to make these messages understandable in isolation, or to internationalize them. The detail message is meant to be interpreted in the context of a full stack trace, in conjunction with the source code containing the failed assertion.
Like all uncaught exceptions, assertion failures are generally
labeled in the stack trace with the file and line number from which
they were thrown. The second form of the assertion statement should
be used in preference to the first only when the program has some
additional information that might help diagnose the failure. For
example, if Expression1 involves the
relationship between two variables x and
y, the second form should be used. Under these
circumstances, a reasonable candidate for
Expression2 would be "x: " + x + ", y:
" + y.
In some cases Expression1 may be expensive to evaluate. For example, suppose you write a method to find the minimum element in an unsorted list, and you add an assertion to verify that the selected element is indeed the minimum. The work done by the assert will be at least as expensive as the work done by the method itself. To ensure that assertions are not a performance liability in deployed applications, assertions can be enabled or disabled when the program is started, and are disabled by default. Disabling assertions eliminates their performance penalty entirely. Once disabled, they are essentially equivalent to empty statements in semantics and performance. See Enabling and Disabling Assertions for more information.
The addition of the assert keyword to the Java
programming language has implications for existing code. See
Compatibility With Existing Programs
for more information.
There are many situations where it is good to use assertions, including:
There are also situations where you should not use them:
Argument checking is typically part of the published
specifications (or contract) of a method, and these
specifications must be obeyed whether assertions are enabled or
disabled. Another problem with using assertions for argument
checking is that erroneous arguments should result in an
appropriate runtime exception (such as
IllegalArgumentException,
IndexOutOfBoundsException, or
NullPointerException). An assertion failure will not
throw an appropriate exception.
Because assertions may be disabled, programs must not assume
that the boolean expression contained in an assertion will be
evaluated. Violating this rule has dire consequences. For example,
suppose you wanted to remove all of the null elements from a list
names, and knew that the list contained one or more
nulls. It would be wrong to do this:
// Broken! - action is contained in assertion assert names.remove(null);
The program would work fine when asserts were enabled, but would fail when they were disabled, as it would no longer remove the null elements from the list. The correct idiom is to perform the action before the assertion and then assert that the action succeeded:
// Fixed - action precedes assertion boolean nullsRemoved = names.remove(null); assert nullsRemoved; // Runs whether or not asserts are enabled
As a rule, the expressions contained in assertions should be free of side effects: evaluating the expression should not affect any state that is visible after the evaluation is complete. One exception to this rule is that assertions can modify state that is used only from within other assertions. An idiom that makes use of this exception is presented later in this document.
Before assertions were available, many programmers used comments
to indicate their assumptions concerning a program's behavior. For
example, you might have written something like this to explain your
assumption about an else clause in a multiway
if-statement:
if (i % 3 == 0) {
...
} else if (i % 3 == 1) {
...
} else { // We know (i % 3 == 2)
...
}
You should now use an assertion whenever you would have written a comment that asserts an invariant. For example, you should rewrite the previous if-statement like this:
if (i % 3 == 0) {
...
} else if (i % 3 == 1) {
...
} else {
assert i % 3 == 2 : i;
...
}
Note, incidentally, that the assertion in the above example may
fail if i is negative, as the % operator
is not a true modulus operator, but computes the
remainder, which may be negative.
Another good candidate for an assertion is a switch
statement with no default case. The absence of a
default case typically indicates that a programmer
believes that one of the cases will always be executed. The
assumption that a particular variable will have one of a small
number of values is an invariant that should be checked with an
assertion. For example, suppose the following switch
statement appears in a program that handles playing cards:
switch(suit) {
case Suit.CLUBS:
...
break;
case Suit.DIAMONDS:
...
break;
case Suit.HEARTS:
...
break;
case Suit.SPADES:
...
}
It probably indicates an assumption that the suit
variable will have one of only four values. To test this
assumption, you should add the following default case:
default:
assert false : suit;
If the suit variable takes on another value and
assertions are enabled, the assert will fail and an
AssertionError will be thrown.
An acceptable alternative is:
default:
throw new AssertionError(suit);
This alternative offers protection even if assertions are
disabled, but the extra protection adds no cost: the
throw statement won't execute unless the program has
failed. Moreover, the alternative is legal under some circumstances
where the assert statement is not. If the enclosing
method returns a value, each case in the switch
statement contains a return statement, and no
return statement follows the switch
statement, then it would cause a syntax error to add a default case
with an assertion. (The method would return without a value if no
case matched and assertions were disabled.)
The previous example not only tests an invariant, it also checks
an assumption about the application's flow of control. The author
of the original switch statement probably assumed not
only that the suit variable would always have one of
four values, but also that one of the four cases would always be
executed. It points out another general area where you should use
assertions: place an assertion at any location you assume will
not be reached. The assertions statement to use is:
assert false;
For example, suppose you have a method that looks like this:
void foo() {
for (...) {
if (...)
return;
}
// Execution should never reach this point!!!
}
Replace the final comment so that the code now reads:
void foo() {
for (...) {
if (...)
return;
}
assert false; // Execution should never reach this point!
}
Note: Use this technique with discretion. If a statement
is unreachable as defined in the Java Language Specification, you
will get a compile time error if you try to assert that it is not
reached. Again, an acceptable alternative is simply to throw an
AssertionError.
While the assert construct is not a full-blown design-by-contract facility, it can help support an informal design-by-contract style of programming. This section shows you how to use asserts for:
By convention, preconditions on public methods are enforced by explicit checks that throw particular, specified exceptions. For example:
/**
* Sets the refresh rate.
*
* @param rate refresh rate, in frames per second.
* @throws IllegalArgumentException if rate <= 0 or
* rate > MAX_REFRESH_RATE.
*/
public void setRefreshRate(int rate) {
// Enforce specified precondition in public method
if (rate <= 0 || rate > MAX_REFRESH_RATE)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Illegal rate: " + rate);
setRefreshInterval(1000/rate);
}
This convention is unaffected by the addition of the
assert construct. Do not use assertions to check
the parameters of a public method. An assert is inappropriate
because the method guarantees that it will always enforce the
argument checks. It must check its arguments whether or not
assertions are enabled. Further, the assert construct
does not throw an exception of the specified type. It can throw
only an AssertionError.
You can, however, use an assertion to test a nonpublic method's precondition that you believe will be true no matter what a client does with the class. For example, an assertion is appropriate in the following "helper method" that is invoked by the previous method:
/**
* Sets the refresh interval (which must correspond to a legal frame rate).
*
* @param interval refresh interval in milliseconds.
*/
private void setRefreshInterval(int interval) {
// Confirm adherence to precondition in nonpublic method
assert interval > 0 && interval <= 1000/MAX_REFRESH_RATE : interval;
... // Set the refresh interval
}
Note, the above assertion will fail if
MAX_REFRESH_RATE is greater than 1000 and the client
selects a refresh rate greater than 1000. This would, in fact,
indicate a bug in the library!
Classes designed for multithreaded use often have non-public methods with preconditions relating to whether or not some lock is held. For example, it is not uncommon to see something like this:
private Object[] a;
public synchronized int find(Object key) {
return find(key, a, 0, a.length);
}
// Recursive helper method - always called with a lock on this object
private int find(Object key, Object[] arr, int start, int len) {
...
}
A static method called holdsLock has been added to
the Thread class to test whether the current thread
holds the lock on a specified object. This method can be used in
combination with an assert statement to supplement a
comment describing a lock-status precondition, as shown in the
following example:
// Recursive helper method - always called with a lock on this.
private int find(Object key, Object[] arr, int start, int len) {
assert Thread.holdsLock(this); // lock-status assertion
...
}
Note that it is also possible to write a lock-status assertion asserting that a given lock isn't held.
You can test postcondition with assertions in both public and
nonpublic methods. For example, the following public method uses an
assert statement to check a post condition:
/**
* Returns a BigInteger whose value is (this-1 mod m).
*
* @param m the modulus.
* @return this-1 mod m.
* @throws ArithmeticException m <= 0, or this BigInteger
*has no multiplicative inverse mod m (that is, this BigInteger
*is not relatively prime to m).
*/
public BigInteger modInverse(BigInteger m) {
if (m.signum <= 0)
throw new ArithmeticException("Modulus not positive: " + m);
... // Do the computation
assert this.multiply(result).mod(m).equals(ONE) : this;
return result;
}
Occasionally it is necessary to save some data prior to performing
a computation in order to check a postcondition. You can do this
with two assert statements and a simple inner class
that saves the state of one or more variables so they can be
checked (or rechecked) after the computation. For example, suppose
you have a piece of code that looks like this:
void foo(int[] array) {
// Manipulate array
...
// At this point, array will contain exactly the ints that it did
// prior to manipulation, in the same order.
}
Here is how you could modify the above method to turn the textual assertion of a postcondition into a functional one:
void foo(final int[] array) {
// Inner class that saves state and performs final consistency check
class DataCopy {
private int[] arrayCopy;
DataCopy() { arrayCopy = (int[]) array.clone(); }
boolean isConsistent() { return Arrays.equals(array, arrayCopy); }
}
DataCopy copy = null;
// Always succeeds; has side effect of saving a copy of array
assert ((copy = new DataCopy()) != null);
... // Manipulate array
// Ensure array has same ints in same order as before manipulation.
assert copy.isConsistent();
}
You can easily generalize this idiom to save more than one data field, and to test arbitrarily complex assertions concerning pre-computation and post-computation values.
You might be tempted to replace the first assert statement (which is executed solely for its side-effect) by the following, more expressive statement:
copy = new DataCopy();
Don't make this replacement. The statement above would copy the array whether or not asserts were enabled, violating the principle that assertions should have no cost when disabled.
A class invariant is a type of internal invariant that applies to every instance of a class at all times, except when an instance is in transition from one consistent state to another. A class invariant can specify the relationships among multiple attributes, and should be true before and after any method completes. For example, suppose you implement a balanced tree data structure of some sort. A class invariant might be that the tree is balanced and properly ordered.
The assertion mechanism does not enforce any particular style for checking invariants. It is sometimes convenient, though, to combine the expressions that check required constraints into a single internal method that can be called by assertions. Continuing the balanced tree example, it might be appropriate to implement a private method that checked that the tree was indeed balanced as per the dictates of the data structure:
// Returns true if this tree is properly balanced
private boolean balanced() {
...
}
Because this method checks a constraint that should be true before and after any method completes, each public method and constructor should contain the following line immediately prior to its return:
assert balanced();
It is generally unnecessary to place similar checks at the head of each public method unless the data structure is implemented by native methods. In this case, it is possible that a memory corruption bug could corrupt a "native peer" data structure in between method invocations. A failure of the assertion at the head of such a method would indicate that such memory corruption had occurred. Similarly, it may be advisable to include class invariant checks at the heads of methods in classes whose state is modifiable by other classes. (Better yet, design classes so that their state is not directly visible to other classes!)
The following sections discuss topics that apply only to resource-constrained devices and to systems where asserts must not be disabled in the field. If you have no interest in these topics, skip to the next section, "Compiling Files that Use Assertions".
Programmers developing applications for resource-constrained devices may wish to strip assertions out of class files entirely. While this makes it impossible to enable assertions in the field, it also reduces class file size, possibly leading to improved class loading performance. In the absence of a high quality JIT, it could lead to decreased footprint and improved runtime performance.
The assertion facility offers no direct support for stripping assertions out of class files. The assert statement may, however, be used in conjunction with the "conditional compilation" idiom described in the Java Language Specification, enabling the compiler to eliminate all traces of these asserts from the class files that it generates:
static final boolean asserts = ... ; // false to eliminate asserts if (asserts) assert <expr> ;
Programmers of certain critical systems might wish to ensure that assertions are not disabled in the field. The following static initialization idiom prevents a class from being initialized if its assertions have been disabled:
static {
boolean assertsEnabled = false;
assert assertsEnabled = true; // Intentional side effect!!!
if (!assertsEnabled)
throw new RuntimeException("Asserts must be enabled!!!");
}
Put this static-initializer at the top of your class.
In order for the javac compiler to accept code
containing assertions, you must use the
-source 1.4 command-line option as in this
example:
javac -source 1.4 MyClass.java
This flag is necessary so as not to cause source compatibility problems.
By default, assertions are disabled at runtime. Two command-line switches allow you to selectively enable or disable assertions.
To enable assertions at various granularities, use the
-enableassertions, or
-ea, switch. To disable assertions at
various granularities, use the
-disableassertions, or
-da, switch. You specify the granularity
with the arguments that you provide to the switch:
......For example, the following command runs a program,
BatTutor, with assertions enabled in only package
com.wombat.fruitbat and its subpackages:
java -ea:com.wombat.fruitbat... BatTutor
If a single command line contains multiple instances of these
switches, they are processed in order before loading any classes.
For example, the following command runs the BatTutor
program with assertions enabled in package
com.wombat.fruitbat but disabled in class
com.wombat.fruitbat.Brickbat:
java -ea:com.wombat.fruitbat... -da:com.wombat.fruitbat.Brickbat BatTutor
The above switches apply to all class loaders. With one exception, they also apply to system classes (which do not have an explicit class loader). The exception concerns the switches with no arguments, which (as indicated above) do not apply to system classes.This behavior makes it easy to enable asserts in all classes except for system classes, which is commonly desirable.
To enable assertions in all system classes, use a different
switch: -enablesystemassertions, or
-esa. Similarly, to disable assertions in
system classes, use
-disablesystemassertions, or
-dsa.
For example, the following command runs the
BatTutor program with assertions enabled in system
classes, as well as in the com.wombat.fruitbat package
and its subpackages:
java -esa -ea:com.wombat.fruitbat...
The assertion status of a class (enabled or disabled) is set at the time it is initialized, and does not change. There is, however, one corner case that demands special treatment. It is possible, though generally not desirable, to execute methods or constructors prior to initialization. This can happen when a class hierarchy contains a circularity in its static initialization.
If an assert statement executes before its class is initialized, the execution must behave as if assertions were enabled in the class. This topic is discussed in detail in the assertions specification in the Java Language Specification.
The addition of the assert keyword to the Java
programming language does not cause any problems with preexisting
binaries (.class files). If you try to compile an
application that uses assert as an identifier,
however, you will receive a warning or error message. In order to
ease the transition from a world where assert is a
legal identifier to one where it isn't, the compiler supports two
modes of operation in this release:
assert as an identifier, but issues
warnings. In this mode, programs are not permitted to use
the assert statement.assert as an identifier.
In this mode, programs are permitted to use the
assert statement.Unless you specifically request source mode 1.4 with the
-source 1.4 flag, the compiler operates in source mode
1.3. If you forget to use this flag, programs that use the new
assert statement will not compile. Having the
compiler use the old semantics as its default behavior (that is,
allowing assert to be used as an identifier) was done
for maximal source compatibility. Source mode 1.3 is likely to be
phased out over time.
Here is a collection of frequently asked questions concerning the design of the assertion facility.
AssertionError
ClassAlthough ad hoc implementations are possible, they are of
necessity either ugly (requiring an if statement for
each assertion) or inefficient (evaluating the condition even if
assertions are disabled). Further, each ad hoc implementation has
its own means of enabling and disabling assertions, which lessens
the utility of these implementations, especially for debugging in
the field. As a result of these shortcomings, assertions have never
become a part of the culture among engineers using the Java
programming language. Adding assertion support to the platform
stands a good chance of rectifying this situation.
We recognize that a language change is a serious effort, not to
be undertaken lightly. The library approach was considered. It was,
however, deemed essential that the runtime cost of assertions be
negligible if they are disabled. In order to achieve this with a
library, the programmer is forced to hard-code each assertion as an
if statement. Many programmers would not do this.
Either they would omit the if statement and performance would
suffer, or they would ignore the facility entirely. Note also that
assertions were contained in James Gosling's original specification
for the Java programming language. Assertions were removed from the
Oak specification because time constraints prevented a satisfactory
design and implementation.
We considered providing such a facility, but were unable to convince ourselves that it is possible to graft it onto the Java programming language without massive changes to the Java platform libraries, and massive inconsistencies between old and new libraries. Further, we were not convinced that such a facility would preserve the simplicity that is the hallmark of the Java programming language. On balance, we came to the conclusion that a simple boolean assertion facility was a fairly straight-forward solution and far less risky. It's worth noting that adding a boolean assertion facility to the language doesn't preclude adding a full-fledged design-by-contract facility at some time in the future.
The simple assertion facility does enable a limited form of
design-by-contract style
programming. The assert statement is appropriate
for nonpublic precondition, postcondition and class invariant
checking. Public precondition checking should still be performed by
checks inside methods that result in particular, documented
exceptions, such as IllegalArgumentException and
IllegalStateException.
Providing such a construct would encourage programmers to put complex assertions inline, when they are better relegated to separate methods.
assert as an
identifier?
Yes, for source files. (Binaries for classes that use
assert as an identifier will continue to work fine.)
To ease the transition, we implemented a
strategy whereby developers can continue using
assert as an identifier during a transitional
period.
Yes. Class files will contain calls to the new ClassLoader and Class methods, such as desiredAssertionStatus. If a class file containing calls to these methods is run against an older JRE (whose ClassLoader class doesn't define the methods), the program will fail at run time, throwing a NoSuchMethodError. It is generally the case that programs using new facilities are not compatible with older releases.
There is no compelling reason to restrict the type of this
expression. Allowing arbitrary types provides convenience for
developers who, for example, want to associate a unique integer
code with each assertion. Further, it makes this expression feel
like the argument of System.out.println(...), which is
seen as desirable.
AssertionError is generated by an
assert statement in which Expression2 is absent, why isn't the program
text of the asserted condition used as the detail message (for
example, "height <
maxHeight")?
While doing so might improve out-of-the-box usefulness of
assertions in some cases, the benefit doesn't justify the cost of
adding all those string constants to .class files and
runtime images.
AssertionError allow access to
the object that generated it? Similarly, why not pass an arbitrary
object from the assertion to the AssertionError
constructor in place of a detail message?
Access to these objects would encourage programmers to attempt to recover from assertion failures, which defeats the purpose of the facility.
getFile, getline, getMethod)
on AssertionError?
This facility is best provided on Throwable, so it
may be used for all throwables, not just assertion errors. We
enhanced Throwable with the getStackTrace
method to provide this functionality.
AssertionError a subclass of
Error rather than RuntimeException?
This issue was controversial. The expert group discussed it at
length, and came to the conclusion that Error was more
appropriate to discourage programmers from attempting to recover
from assertion failures. It is, in general, difficult or impossible
to localize the source of an assertion failure. Such a failure
indicates that the program is operating "outside of known space,"
and attempts to continue execution are likely to be harmful.
Further, convention dictates that methods specify most runtime
exceptions they may throw (with @throws doc comments).
It makes little sense to include in a method's specification the
circumstances under which it may generate an assertion failure.
Such information may be regarded as an implementation detail, which
can change from implementation to implementation and release to
release.
It is a firm requirement that it be possible to enable assertions in the field, for enhanced serviceability. It would have been possible to also permit developers to eliminate assertions from object files at compile time. Assertions can contain side effects, though they should not, and such a flag could therefore alter the behavior of a program in significant ways. It is viewed as good thing that there is only one semantics associated with each valid Java program. Also, we want to encourage users to leave asserts in object files so they can be enabled in the field. Finally, the spec demands that assertions behave as if enabled when a class runs before it is initialized. It would be impossible to offer these semantics if assertions were stripped from the class file. Note, however, that the standard "conditional compilation idiom" described in the Java Language Specification can be used to achieve this effect for developers who really want it.
Hierarchical control is useful, as programmers really do use package hierarchies to organize their code. For example, package-tree semantics allow assertions to be enabled or disabled in all of Swing at one time.
setClassAssertionStatus return a
boolean instead of throwing an exception if it is
invoked when it's too late to set the assertion status (that is, if
the named class has already been initialized)?
No action (other than perhaps a warning message) is necessary or desirable if it's too late to set the assertion status. An exception seems unduly heavyweight.
setDefaultAssertionStatus and
setAssertionStatus?
Clarity in method naming is for the greater good. Overloading tends to cause confusion.
It's not clear that there would be any use for the resulting method. The method isn't designed for application programmer use, and it seems inadvisable to make it slower and more complex than necessary.
RuntimePermission to prevent
applets from enabling/disabling assertions?
While applets have no reason to call any of the
ClassLoader methods for modifying assertion status,
allowing them to do so seems harmless. At worst, an applet can
mount a weak denial-of-service attack by enabling assertions in
classes that have yet to be initialized. Moreover, applets can only
affect the assert status of classes that are to be loaded by class
loaders that the applets can access. There already exists a
RuntimePermission to prevent untrusted code from
gaining access to class loaders (getClassLoader).
Such a construct would encourage people to inline complex assertion code, which we view as a bad thing. Further, it is straightforward to query the assert status atop the current API, if you feel you must:
boolean assertsEnabled = false; assert assertsEnabled = true; // Intentional side-effect!!! // Now assertsEnabled is set to the correct value
Few programmers are aware of the fact that a class's constructors and methods can run prior to its initialization. When this happens, it is quite likely that the class's invariants have not yet been established, which can cause serious and subtle bugs. Any assertion that executes in this state is likely to fail, alerting the programmer to the problem. Thus, it is generally helpful to the programmer to execute all assertions encountered while in this state.
