Is it wrong to use a boolean parameter to determine behavior?

Question

I have seen a practice from time to time that "feels" wrong, but I can't quite articulate what is wrong about it. Or maybe it's just my prejudice. Here goes:

A developer defines a method with a boolean as one of its parameters, and that method calls another, and so on, and eventually that boolean is used, solely to determine whether or not to take a certain action. This might be used, for example, to allow the action only if the user has certain rights, or perhaps if we are (or aren't) in test mode or batch mode or live mode, or perhaps only when the system is in a certain state.

Well there is always another way to do it, whether by querying when it is time to take the action (rather than passing the parameter), or by having multiple versions of the method, or multiple implementations of the class, etc. My question isn't so much how to improve this, but rather whether or not it really is wrong (as I suspect), and if it is, what is wrong about it.

Answer 1

Yes, this is likely a code smell, which would lead to unmaintainable code that is difficult to understand and that has a lower chance of being easily re-used.

As other posters have noted context is everything (don't go in heavy-handed if it's a one off or if the practice has been acknowledged as deliberately incurred technical debt to be re-factored later) but broadly speaking if there is a parameter passed into a function that selects specific behaviour to be executed then further step-wise refinement is required; Breaking up this function in to smaller functions will produce more highly cohesive ones.

So what is a highly cohesive function?

It's a function that does one thing and one thing only.

The problem with a parameter passed in as you describe, is that the function is doing more than two things; it may or may not check the users access rights depending on the state of the Boolean parameter, then depending on that decision tree it will carry out a piece of functionality.

It would be better to separate the concerns of Access Control from the concerns of Task, Action or Command.

As you have already noted, the intertwining of these concerns seems off.

So the notion of Cohesiveness helps us identify that the function in question is not highly cohesive and that we could refactor the code to produce a set of more cohesive functions.

So the question could be restated; Given that we all agree passing behavioural selection parameters is best avoided how do we improve matters?

I would get rid of the parameter completely. Having the ability to turn off access control even for testing is a potential security risk. For testing purposes either stub or mock the access check to test both the access allowed and access denied scenarios.

Ref: Cohesion (computer science)

Answer 2

I stopped using this pattern a long time ago, for a very simple reason; maintenance cost. Several times I found that I had some function say frobnicate(something, forwards_flag) which was called many times in my code, and needed to locate all the places in the code where the value false was passed as the value of forwards_flag. You can't easily search for those, so this becomes a maintenance headache. And if you need to make a bugfix at each of those sites, you may have an unfortunate problem if you miss one.

But this specific problem is easily fixed without fundamentally changing the approach:

enum FrobnicationDirection {
  FrobnicateForwards,
  FrobnicateBackwards;
};

void frobnicate(Object what, FrobnicationDirection direction);

With this code, one would only need to search for instances of FrobnicateBackwards. While it's possible there is some code which assigns this to a variable so you have to follow a few threads of control, I find in practice that this is rare enough that this alternative works OK.

However, there is another problem with passing the flag in this way, at least in principle. This is that some (only some) systems having this design may be exposing too much knowledge about the implementation details of the deeply-nested parts of the code (which uses the flag) to the outer layers (which need to know which value to pass in this flag). To use Larry Constantine's terminology, this design may have over-strong coupling between the setter and the user of the boolean flag. Franky though it's hard to say with any degree of certainty on this question without knowing more about the codebase.

To address the specific examples you give, I would have some degree of concern in each but mainly for reasons of risk/correctness. That is, if your system needs to pass around flags which indicate what state the system is in, you may find that you've got code which should have taken account of this but doesn't check the parameter (because it was not passed to this function). So you have a bug because someone omitted to pass the parameter.

It's also worth admitting that a system-state indicator that needs to be passed to almost every function is in fact essentially a global variable. Many of the downsides of a global variable will apply. I think in many cases it is better practice to encapsulate the knowledge of the system state (or the user's credentials, or the system's identity) within an object which is responsible for acting correctly on the basis of that data. Then you pass around a reference to that object as opposed to the raw data. The key concept here is encapsulation.

Answer 3

This is not necessarily wrong but it can represent a code smell.

The basic scenario that should be avoided regarding boolean parameters is:

public void foo(boolean flag) {
    doThis();
    if (flag)
        doThat();
}

Then when calling you'd typically call foo(false) and foo(true) depending on the exact behavior you want.

This is really a problem because it's a case of bad cohesion. You're creating a dependency between methods that is not really necessary.

What you should be doing in this case is leaving doThis and doThat as separate and public methods then doing:

doThis();
doThat();

or

doThis();

That way you leave the correct decision to the caller (exactly as if you were passing a boolean parameter) without create coupling.

Of course not all boolean parameters are used in such bad way but it's definitely a code smell and you're right to get suspicious if you see that a lot in the source code.

This is just one example of how to solve this problem based on the examples I wrote. There are other cases where a different approach will be necessary.

There is a good article from Martin Fowler explaining in further details the same idea.

PS: if method foo instead of calling two simple methods had a more complex implementation then all you have to do is apply a small refactoring extracting methods so the resulting code looks similar to the implementation of foo that I wrote.

Answer 4

First off: programming is not a science so much as it is an art. So there is very rarely a "wrong" and a "right" way to program. Most coding-standards are merely "preferences" that some programmers consider useful; but ultimately they are rather arbitrary. So I would never label a choice of parameter to be "wrong" in and of itself -- and certainly not something as generic and useful as a boolean parameter. The use of a boolean (or an int, for that matter) to encapsulate state is perfectly justifiable in many cases.

Coding decisions, by & large, should be based primarily on performance and maintainability. If performance isn't at stake (and I can't imagine how it ever could be in your examples), then your next consideration should be: how easy will this be for me (or a future redactor) to maintain? Is it intuitive and understandable? Is it isolated? Your example of chained function calls does in fact seem potentially brittle in this respect: if you decide to change your bIsUp to bIsDown, how many other places in the code will need to be changed too? Also, is your paramater list ballooning? If your function has 17 parameters, then readability is an issue, and you need to reconsider whether you are appreciating the benefits of object-oriented architecture.

Answer 5

I think Robert C Martins Clean code article states that you should eliminate boolean arguments where possible as they show a method does more than one thing. A method should do one thing and one thing only I think is one of his mottos.

Answer 6

I think the most important thing here is to be practical.

When the boolean determines the entire behavior, just make a second method.

When the boolean only determines a little bit of behaviour in the middle, you might want to keep it in one to cut down on code duplication. Where possible, you might even be able to split the method in three: Two calling methods for either boolean option, and one that does the bulk of the work.

For example:

private void FooInternal(bool flag)
{
  //do work
}

public void Foo1()
{
  FooInternal(true);
}

public void Foo2()
{
  FooInternal(false);
}

Of course, in practice you'll always have a point in between these extremes. Usually I just go with what feels right, but I prefer to err on the side of less code duplication.

Answer 7

I like the approach of customizing behavior through builder methods that return immutable instances. Here's how Guava Splitter uses it:

private static final Splitter MY_SPLITTER = Splitter.on(',')
       .trimResults()
       .omitEmptyStrings();

MY_SPLITTER.split("one,,,,  two,three");

The benefits of this are:

• Superior readibility
• Clear separation of configuration vs. action methods
• Promotes cohesion by forcing you to think about what the object is, what it should and shouldn't do. In this case it's a Splitter. You'd never put someVaguelyStringRelatedOperation(List<Entity> myEntities) in a class called Splitter, but you'd think about putting it as a static method in a StringUtils class.
• The instances are pre-configured therefore readily dependency-injectable. The client doesn't need to worry about whether to pass true or false to a method to get the correct behavior.

Answer 8

Definitely a code smell. If it doesn't violate Single Responsibility Principle then it probably violates Tell, Don't Ask. Consider:

• Can you summarize what your method does without using conjunctions (and, but, etc.)?
• Are there subparts of your method that could easily be grouped into another smaller method? (This includes complex creation of a local variable.)
• If your flag determines which method to call on a parameter, is your parameter doing too much?
• Does this method belong in one of your parameters? (You might notice if it picks apart instance variables in your parameter using getters/setters.)

If it turns out not to violate one of those two principles, you should still use an enum. Boolean flags are the boolean equivalent of magic numbers. foo(false) makes as much sense as bar(42). Enums can be useful for Strategy Pattern and have the flexibility of letting you add another strategy. (Just remember to name them appropriately.)

Your particular example especially bothers me. Why is this flag passed through so many methods? This sounds like you need to split your parameter into subclasses.

Answer 9

I'm surprised no one has mentioned named-parameters.

The problem I see with boolean-flags is that they hurt readability. For example, what does true in

myObject.UpdateTimestamps(true);

do? I have no idea. But what about:

myObject.UpdateTimestamps(saveChanges: true);

Now it's clear what the parameter we're passing is meant to do: we're telling the function to save its changes. In this case, if the class is non-public, I think the boolean parameter is fine.

---

Of course, you can't force the users of your class to use named-parameters. For this reason, either an enum or two separate methods are usually preferable, depending on how common your default case is. This is exactly what .Net does:

//Enum used
double a = Math.Round(b, MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero);

//Two separate methods used
IEnumerable<Stuff> ascendingList = c.OrderBy(o => o.Key);
IEnumerable<Stuff> descendingList = c.OrderByDescending(o => o.Key); 

Answer 10

TL;DR: don't use boolean arguments.

See below why they are bad, and how to replace them (in bold face).

---

Boolean arguments are very hard to read, and thus difficult to maintain. The main problem is that the purpose is generally clear when you read the method signature where the argument is named. However, naming a parameter is generally not required in most languages. So you will have anti-patterns like RSACryptoServiceProvider#encrypt(Byte[], Boolean) where the boolean parameter determines what kind of encryption is to be used in the function.

So you will get a call like:

rsaProvider.encrypt(data, true);

where the reader has to lookup the method's signature simply to determine what the hell true could actually mean. Passing an integer is of course just as bad:

rsaProvider.encrypt(data, 1);

would tell you just as much - or rather: just as little. Even if you define constants to be used for the integer then users of the function may simply ignore them and keep using literal values.

The best way to solve this is to use an enumeration. If you have to pass an enum RSAPadding with two values: OAEP or PKCS1_V1_5 then you would immediately be able to read the code:

rsaProvider.encrypt(data, RSAPadding.OAEP);

---

Booleans can only have two values. This means that if you have a third option, then you'd have to refactor your signature. Generally this cannot be easily performed if backwards compatibility is an issue, so you'd have to extend any public class with another public method. This is what Microsoft finally did when they introduced RSACryptoServiceProvider#encrypt(Byte[], RSAEncryptionPadding) where they used an enumeration (or at least a class mimicking an enumeration) instead of a boolean.

It may even be easier to use a full object or interface as parameter, in case the parameter itself needs to be parameterized. In the above example OAEP padding itself could be parameterized with the hash value to use internally. Note that there are now 6 SHA-2 hash algorithms and 4 SHA-3 hash algorithms, so the number of enumeration values may explode if you only use a single enumeration rather than parameters (this is possibly the next thing Microsoft is going to find out).

---

Boolean parameters may also indicate that the method or class is not designed well. As with the example above: any cryptographic library other than the .NET one doesn't use a padding flag in the method signature at all.

---

Almost all software gurus that I like warn against boolean arguments. For instance, Joshua Bloch warns against them in the highly appreciated book "Effective Java". In general they should simply not be used. You could argue that they could be used if the case that there is one parameter that is easy to understand. But even then: Bit.set(boolean) is probably better implemented using two methods: Bit.set() and Bit.unset().

---

If you cannot directly refactor the code you could define constants to at least make them more readable:

const boolean ENCRYPT = true;
const boolean DECRYPT = false;

...

cipher.init(key, ENCRYPT);

is much more readable than:

cipher.init(key, true);

even if you'd rather have:

cipher.initForEncryption(key);
cipher.initForDecryption(key);

instead.

Answer 11

I can't quite articulate what is wrong about it.

If it looks like a code smell, feels like a code smell and - well - smells like a code smell, it's probably a code smell.

What you want to do is:

1) Avoid methods with side-effects.

2) Handle necessary states with a central, formal state-machine (like this).

Answer 12

I agree with all the concerns of using Boolean Parameters to not determine performance in order to ; improve, Readability, Reliability, lowering Complexity, Lowering risks from poor Encapsulation & Cohesion and lower Total Cost of Ownership with Maintainability.

I started designing hardware in the mid 70's which we now call SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) and these were fine tuned hardware with machine code in EPROM running macro remote controls and collecting high speed data.

The Logic is called Mealey & Moore machines which we call now Finite State Machines. These also must be done in the same rules as above, unless it is a real time machine with a finite execution time and then shortcuts must be done to serve the purpose.

The data is synchronous but commands are asynchronous and the command logic follows memoryless Boolean logic but with sequential commands based on memory of previous, present and desired next state. In order for that to function in the most efficient machine language (only 64kB), great care was taken to define every process in a heuristic IBM HIPO fashion. That sometimes meant passing Boolean variables and doing indexed branches.

But now with lots of memory and ease of OOK, Encapsulation is an essential ingredient today but a penalty when code was counted in bytes for real time and SCADA machine code..

Answer 13

Its not necessarily wrong, but in your concrete example of the action depending on some attribute of the "user" I would pass through a reference to the user rather than a flag.

This clarifies and helps in a number of ways.

Anyone reading the invoking statement will realize that the result will change depending on the user.

In the function which is ultimately called you can easily implement more complex business rules because you can access any of the users attributes.

If one function/method in the "chain" does something different depending on a user attribute, it is very likely that a similar dependency on user attributes will be introduced to some of the other methods in the "chain".

Answer 14

Most of the time, I would consider this bad coding. I can think of two cases, however, where this might be a good practice. As there are a lot of answers already saying why it's bad, I offer two times when it might be good:

The first is if each call in the sequence makes sense in its own right. It would make sense if the calling code might be changed from true to false or false to true, or if the called method might be changed to use the boolean parameter directly rather than passing it on. The likelihood of ten such calls in a row is small, but it could happen, and if it did it would be good programming practice.

The second case is a bit of a stretch given that we're dealing with a boolean. But if program has multiple threads or events, passing parameters is the simplest way to track thread/event specific data. For example, a program may get input from two or more sockets. Code running for one socket may need to produce warning messages, and one running for another may not. It then (sort of) makes sense for a boolean set at a very high level to get passed through many method calls to the places where warning messages might be generated. The data can't be saved (except with great difficulty) in any sort of global because multiple threads or interleaved events would each need their own value.

To be sure, in the latter case I'd probably create a class/structure whose only content was a boolean and pass that around instead. I'd be almost certain to need other fields before too long--like where to send the warning messages, for instance.

Answer 15

Context is important. Such methods are pretty common in iOS. As just one often-used example, UINavigationController provides the method -pushViewController:animated:, and the animated parameter is a BOOL. The method performs essentially the same function either way, but it animates the transition from one view controller to another if you pass in YES, and doesn't if you pass NO. This seems entirely reasonable; it'd be silly to have to provide two methods in place of this one just so you could determine whether or not to use animation.

It may be easier to justify this sort of thing in Objective-C, where the method-naming syntax provides more context for each parameter than you get in languages like C and Java. Nevertheless, I'd think that a method that takes a single parameter could easily take a boolean and still make sense:

file.saveWithEncryption(false);    // is there any doubt about the meaning of 'false' here?