Java8 Lambdas and Exceptions

I wonder if someone could explain the following weirdness to me. I'm using Java 8 update 11.

Given this method

private <F,T> T runFun(Function<Optional<F>, T> fun, Optional<F> opt) {
return fun.apply(opt) ;
}

If I first construct a function Object, and pass that in to the method above, things compile.

private void doesCompile() {
Function<Optional<String>, String> fun = o -> o.orElseThrow(() -> new RuntimeException("nah"));
runFun(fun, Optional.of("foo"));


}

But, if I inline the function as a lambda, the compiler says

unreported exception X; must be caught or declared to be thrown

private void doesNotCompile () {
runFun(o -> o.orElseThrow(() -> new RuntimeException("nah")), Optional.of("foo"));
}

Update: Turns out the error message was abbreviated by maven. If compiled directly with javac, the error is:

error: unreported exception X; must be caught or declared to be thrown
runFun(o -> o.orElseThrow(() -> new RuntimeException("nah")), Optional.of("foo"));
^
where X,T are type-variables:
X extends Throwable declared in method <X>orElseThrow(Supplier<? extends X>)
T extends Object declared in class Optional

Also see here for runnable test code.

30514 次浏览
小开

This looks like a case of bug JDK-8054569, which doesn't affect Eclipse.

I was able to narrow it down by replacing Function with Supplier and extracting the orElseThrow method:

abstract <T> void f(Supplier<T> s);


abstract <T, X extends Throwable> T g(Supplier<? extends X> x) throws X;


void bug() {
f(() -> g(() -> new RuntimeException("foo")));
}

and then further by removing the suppliers and lambdas altogether:

abstract <T> void f(T t);


abstract <T, X extends Throwable> T g(X x) throws X;


void bug() {
f(g(new RuntimeException("foo")));
}

which is actually a cleaner example than the one in the bug report. This shows the same error if compiled as Java 8, but works fine with -source 1.7.

I guess something about passing a generic method return type to a generic method parameter causes the type inference for the exception to fail, so it assumes the type is Throwable and complains that this checked exception type isn't handled. The error disappears if you declare bug() throws Throwable or change the bound to X extends RuntimeException (so it's unchecked).

小开
最佳答案

This is what solved the problem for me:

instead of writing

optional.map(this::mappingFunction).orElseThrow(() -> new BadRequestException("bla bla"));

I wrote:

optional.map(this::mappingFunction).<BadRequestException>orElseThrow(() -> new BadRequestException("bla bla"));

Adding the explicit <BadRequestException> helps with these lambda edge cases (which are quite annoying...)

UPDATE: This is in case you can't update to the latest JDK version, if you can you should...

小开

If you are trying to compile someone else's project try to upgrade to 1.8.0_92

小开

Similar to @keisar I could solve my problem (see maven-compiler-plugin fails to compile a file that Eclipse has no problem with) by specifying the type parameter.

However, I found it much more convenient (since I use NotFoundException in a number of places) to simply make my exception class its own Supplier:

public class NotFoundException extends RuntimeException
implements Supplier<NotFoundException> {


// Rest of the code


@Override
public NotFoundException get() {
return this;
}


}

Then you can simply do:

// Distribution.rep().get(id) returns a java.util.Optional
Distribution distro = Distribution.rep().get(id).orElseThrow(
new NotUniqueException("Exception message"));
小开

If explicitly adding <RunTimeException> looks ugly then as a workaround you can replace with orElseGet()

.orElseGet(() -> throw new RunTimeException("foo"));

提交答案