C# : Avoid == && != to check for nullability

In everyday programming, we have to do something like the following because we don't want to see the ugly NullReferenceException

var car = new Car();

if(car != null) 
{ 
    // invoke method on car variable 
}

Every programmer knows it's the right approach to avoid NullReferenceException.

But is it?

Interestingly enough, if we think about using == or != it becomes apparent very quickly using these operators is not the proper way to check if a variable is null or not because, in C#, we have operator overloading. See the following example:

public class Car
{
    public static bool operator ==(Car lhs, Car rhs) => true;

    public static bool operator !=(Car lhs, Car rhs) => !(lhs == rhs);
}

For this implementation we will have inappropriate results for null checking as demonstrated below:

[Fact]
public void CSharp_Runtime_Should_Return_True_Provided_That_Variable_Is_Not_Null()
{
    var car = new Car();
   (car == null).ShouldBeTrue();
}

[Fact]
public void CSharp_Runtime_Should_Return_False_Provided_That_Variable_Is_Not_Null()
{
    var car = new Car();
   (car != null).ShouldBeFalse();
}

Then what's the solution?

Use is & is not operator combination as shown below:

[Fact]
public void CSharp_Runtime_Should_Return_False_Provided_That_Variable_Is_Not_Null()
{
    var car = new Car();
    (car is null).ShouldBeFalse();
}

[Fact]
public void CSharp_Runtime_Should_Return_True_Provided_That_Variable_Is_Not_Null()
{
    var car = new Car();
    (car is not null).ShouldBeTrue();
}

Use is { } expression as below:

[Fact]
public void CSharp_Runtime_Should_Return_True_That_Variable_Is_Not_Null_Using_Property_Pattern_Matching()
{
    var car = new Car();
    (car is { }).ShouldBeTrue();
}

[Fact]
public void CSharp_Runtime_Should_Return_False_That_Variable_Is_Null_Using_Property_Pattern_Matching()
{
    Car car = null;
    (car is { }).ShouldBeFalse();
}

Note: is { } expression checks if the variable is an instance of object

Use object.ReferenceEquals static method as below:

[Fact]
public void CSharp_Runtime_Should_Return_True_Provided_That_Variable_Is_Not_Null_Using_Reference_Equality_Check()
{
    var car = new Car();
    car.IsNotNull().ShouldBeTrue();
}

[Fact]
public void CSharp_Runtime_Should_Return_False_Provided_That_Variable_Is_Null_Using_Reference_Equality_Check()
{
    Car car = null;
    car.IsNotNull().ShouldBeFalse();
}

...
...
...

public static class ObjectExtensions
{
    public static bool IsNull<T>(this T obj) => ReferenceEquals(obj, null);

    public static bool IsNotNull<T>(this T obj) => !obj.IsNull();
}

Post inspiration: How null checks have changed in C#

Comments

[John Dave Dalmao]

When I use the "is" to check for null it works, but when I use "is not", I get this error: "Feature "not pattern" is not available in C#8.0. Please use language 9.0 or greater"

//check the image for my versions... my vs2019 is up to date, and I don't know where to change the version (if I needed to)

dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/up...