What is the difference between the two? Both seem to mean that the value may be null and should be dealt with accordingly i.e. checked for null.
Update: The two annotations above are part of JSR-305/FindBugs: http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/manual/annotations.html
In the IntelliJ Idea
@javax.annotation.Nullable
is supported by default and any attempts to dereference@Nullable
arguments or return values will result in warning.@alexander-pavlov, You could add
@javax.annotation.CheckForNull
in configuration of "Constant conditions & exceptions" inspection. Go File->Settings->Inspections->Probable bugs->Constant conditions & exceptions->Configure annotations.I prefer doing this as
@CheckForNull
has more clear meaning than@Nullable
as @lbalazscs mentioned in his answer above.I think it is pretty clear from the link you added: if you use
@CheckForNull
and the code that uses the value does not check fornull
, FindBugs will show it as an error.FindBugs will ignore
@Nullable
.Use
@CheckForNull
in the cases when the value must always be checked. Use@Nullable
wherenull
might be OK.EDIT: it seems that
@CheckForNull
is not well supported at the moment, so I suggest avoiding it and using@NonNull
(also see Which @NotNull Java annotation should I use?). Another idea would be to get in touch directly with the FindBugs developers, and ask their opinion about the inconsistency in the documentation.@Nonnull
and@Nullable
are correctly handled by IntelliJ IDEA. FindBugs found the problem with@Nonnull
but missed those for@Nullable
and@CheckForNUll
. Problems which were detected by IDEA and FindBugs are marked with comments.