Between these functions which one do you feel is appropriately named?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Between these functions which one do you feel is appropriately named?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Ajmal Hasan -
Mukit, Ataul -
Maxi Contieri -
s-babaeizadeh -
Top comments (29)
Personally, I would use the third option because it looks great along with the if statement.
About the first, I think is not an appropriate name: the function's name says that the function will do some kind of modifications to the input email and then, return it.
About the second, I would use it if email were an object:
Only if you have an email object :-D
Interesting. And what would be the structure of that email object.
I think it will be like this:
For a lexical analyzer or something like that
not meaning to troll or so, but you can have user@ipaddress as a validemail ;)
I say the second,
isEmailValid
.Canonical
is
prefix when returning a boolean, others could be is-, has-, does.Works well:
Not listed, but I would use
isValidEmail
.is*
is a good way to indicate true/false return value. Andif (isValidEmail)
reads well.I would not use
validateEmail
because I would expect an error message in return, not a boolean.I would not use
isEmail
because it sounds weird and unclear to me. I can’t put my finger on why though.I would not use
emailIsValid
because I assume there would be a series of functions like this, and I would like their names to all start same.isEmail
sounds weird because it's too generic. For most purposes you'll be validating a user's input, and if they put infoo@example.com
that may be a valid email address but it's not valid for use as such in the context of your app.isValidEmail
added. Thanks for the feedback.Functionally, I like the second one the best.
I also concur with the
However, to go with the object-oriented I'd prefer
If we were building a lexical analyzer, then this could be one way of modeling that. But in this case we are not. Also note: the question is on naming not structure. How naming affects code readability
Naming wise, I like the second one. But if it was purely my choice I would not make a function to name in the first place and have the constructor do the validation during instantiation.
Does this mean that you will have to create a class and do validation in the constructor for everything in your code that needs validation?
For high level objects that take arbitrary input, like an Email or URL, yes. Other things it's not always necessary because the type system ensures everything else is in order
I like to keep my validation functions in one module, generally named
is
. So, the call is something likeis.email(val)
. However, if I have to choose a single function, I will name itisEmail
. Havingvalid
orvalidations
withis
seems a bit redundant to me.Nice catch. Let me also add that as a possibility
prereq question: Is 'email' an actual email or is it an email address?
Calling an 'email address' 'an email' could lead to confusion when you get to actually sending emails.
I'd prefer
function isValidEmailAddress(str)
You also probably shouldn't be checking if their email address is valid. Just send the email.
hackernoon.com/the-100-correct-way...
I think this is the only valid answer so far. ;)
Seriously though, all the rest ignore the fact that validation is being performed on an email address, not an email. The order of the words doesn't matter much if they're misleading words.
And yup, even an email address with a valid format can still be wrong. I get spam all the time because people keep mistyping their email address. It drives me nuts.
So if you do anything at all, send an activation email.
It returns a boolean answer, so the function should be a question, so it should start with "is" in this case.
I don't think there is a case where "isEmail" and "isEmailValid" are 2 different things, so I will choose the simplest one #KISS.
but ...if you have more features like
isEmail
will create confusion, and it will have to refactored toisEmailValid
.As with most things, it depends:
isValidEmail
seems like the most expressive, in that it leaves the least room for doubt regarding what the method requires as input and what it will return as outputvalidateEmail
seems like the most expressive choiceMy thoughts on the other options:
user.isEmailValid()
, so as a plain function this name adds more ambiguity than is necessaryMy own preference is for
is...
naming; it makes it clear that it's a boolean. I'd sayisEmailValid
orisEmail
-- but with different contects.isEmail
to me implies you are checking whether it's an email at all, butisEmailValid
is checking if it is a valid email. A valid email is certainly an email.Honestly, I'd probably have both, for different purposes. They read as completely distinct.
"If am I developer?". Your code is a set of commands and statements. It doesn't ask its reader questions like how their day is. And everything, that's not some Email class's own function (a'la email.isValid) and that starts with "is" sounds like a question.
Only emailIsValid(email), rain or shine.
Also constructions like "if email is email" make no sense. Of course it is. You need to have a quality (such as "valid") to be used to distinguish good emails from bad ones.
Cheers