There is paradox in the exception description: Nullable object must have a value (?!)
This is the problem:
I have a DateTimeExtended
class, that has
{
DateTime? MyDataTime;
int? otherdata;
}
and a constructor
DateTimeExtended(DateTimeExtended myNewDT)
{
this.MyDateTime = myNewDT.MyDateTime.Value;
this.otherdata = myNewDT.otherdata;
}
running this code
DateTimeExtended res = new DateTimeExtended(oldDTE);
throws an InvalidOperationException
with the message:
Nullable object must have a value.
myNewDT.MyDateTime.Value
- is valid and contain a regular DateTime
object.
What is the meaning of this message and what am I doing wrong?
Note that oldDTE
is not null
. I've removed the Value
from myNewDT.MyDateTime
but the same exception is thrown due to a generated setter.
You should change the line this.MyDateTime = myNewDT.MyDateTime.Value;
to just this.MyDateTime = myNewDT.MyDateTime;
The exception you were receiving was thrown in the .Value
property of the Nullable DateTime
, as it is required to return a DateTime
(since that's what the contract for .Value
states), but it can't do so because there's no DateTime
to return, so it throws an exception.
In general, it is a bad idea to blindly call .Value
on a nullable type, unless you have some prior knowledge that that variable MUST contain a value (i.e. through a .HasValue
check).
EDIT
Here's the code for DateTimeExtended
that does not throw an exception:
class DateTimeExtended
{
public DateTime? MyDateTime;
public int? otherdata;
public DateTimeExtended() { }
public DateTimeExtended(DateTimeExtended other)
{
this.MyDateTime = other.MyDateTime;
this.otherdata = other.otherdata;
}
}
I tested it like this:
DateTimeExtended dt1 = new DateTimeExtended();
DateTimeExtended dt2 = new DateTimeExtended(dt1);
Adding the .Value
on other.MyDateTime
causes an exception. Removing it gets rid of the exception. I think you're looking in the wrong place.
When using LINQ extension methods (e.g. Select
, Where
), the lambda function might be converted to SQL that might not behave identically to your C# code. For instance, C#'s short-circuit evaluated &&
and ||
are converted to SQL's eager AND
and OR
. This can cause problems when you're checking for null in your lambda.
Example:
MyEnum? type = null;
Entities.Table.Where(a => type == null ||
a.type == (int)type).ToArray(); // Exception: Nullable object must have a value
Try dropping the .value
DateTimeExtended(DateTimeExtended myNewDT)
{
this.MyDateTime = myNewDT.MyDateTime;
this.otherdata = myNewDT.otherdata;
}
Assign the members directly without the .Value
part:
DateTimeExtended(DateTimeExtended myNewDT)
{
this.MyDateTime = myNewDT.MyDateTime;
this.otherdata = myNewDT.otherdata;
}
In this case oldDTE is null, so when you try to access oldDTE.Value the InvalidOperationException is thrown since there is no value. In your example you can simply do:
this.MyDateTime = newDT.MyDateTime;
Looks like oldDTE.MyDateTime was null, so constructor tried to take it's Value - which threw.
I got this message when trying to access values of a null valued object.
sName = myObj.Name;
this will produce error. First you should check if object not null
if(myObj != null)
sName = myObj.Name;
This works.
this.MyDateTime = myNewDT.MyDateTime.Value;
, not sName = myObj.Name;
I got this solution and it is working for me
if (myNewDT.MyDateTime == null)
{
myNewDT.MyDateTime = DateTime.Now();
}
Success story sharing
.Value
on a null object makes sense (I guess), but the exception message is really misleading if you happen to be dealing with two Nullable objects. Something like 'The .Value property requires the object to be non-null' would make a whole lot more sense.