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

  • 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.

    This is a question of where decisions belong. Move the decisions in a central place instead of having them littered all over. This will keep the complexity lower than having a factor two of code paths everytime you have an if.

    @ChristofferHammarström Nice link. I'll include that in my answer as it explains in much details the same idea of my explanation.

    I don't always agree with what Nick has to say, but in this case I agree 100%: Don't use boolean parameters.

    I think this question consists of two parts: 1. using a boolean variable to a method and 2. using a variable (boolean or not) to determine behavior. The first part shows a bad design decision, but it can be avoided by e.g. using an enum. The second part is the more interesting question: is it good design to switch behavior according to some specific variable?

  • Rob Kielty

    Rob Kielty Correct answer

    8 years ago

    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 or the access check to test both the access allowed and access denied scenarios.

    Ref: Cohesion (computer science)

    Rob, would you give some explanation of what Cohesion is and how it applies?

    Ray, the more I think about this the more I think that you should object to the code based on the security hole the boolean to turn of access control introduces into the application. The quality improvement to the code base will be a nice side effect ;)

    Very nice explanation of cohesion and it's application. This really should get more votes. And I do agree with the security issue as well... though if they are all private methods it's a smaller potential vulnerability

    Thanks Ray. Sounds like it will be easy enough to re-factor when time permits. Might be worth dropping a TODO comment in to highlight the issue, striking a balance between technical authority and sensitivity to the pressure that we are sometimes under to get things done.


  • 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 {
    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.

    Really great concrete examples as well as insight into the nature of what we're dealing with and how it affects us.

    +1. I use enums for this as much as possible. I've seen functions where extra `bool` parameters have been added later, and calls start to look like `DoSomething( myObject, false, false, true, false )`. It's impossible to figure out what the extra boolean arguments mean, whereas with meaningfully-named enum values, it's easy.

    Oh man, finally a good example of how to FrobnicateBackwards. Been searching for this forever.

  • 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) {
        if (flag)

    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:




    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.

    Thanks for calling out the term "code smell"--I knew it smelled bad, but couldn't quite get at what the smell was. Your example is pretty much spot-on with what I'm looking at.

    There are lots of situations where `if (flag) doThat()` inside `foo()` is legitimate. Pushing the decision about invoking `doThat()` to every caller forces repetition that will have to be removed if you later find out for some methods, the `flag` behavior also needs to call `doTheOther()`. I'd much rather put dependencies between methods in the same class than have to go scour all of the callers later.

    @Blrfl: Yes, I think the more straightforward refactorings would be either creating a `doOne` and `doBoth` methods (for the false and true case, respectively) or using a separate enum type, as suggested by James Youngman

    @missingno: You'd still have the same problem of pushing redundant code out to callers to make the `doOne()` or `doBoth()` decision. Subroutines/functions/methods have arguments so their behavior can be varied. Using an enum for a truly Boolean condition sounds a lot like repeating yourself if the name of the argument already explains what it does.

    If calling two methods one after the other or one method alone can be considered redundant then it's also redundant how you write a try-catch block or maybe an if else. Does it mean you will write a function to abstract all of them? No! Be careful, creating one method that all it does is calling two other methods does not necessarily represent a good abstraction.

    This may be true for `if (flag) doThat();`, however, in my experience it's more common to see `if (flag) doThat(local_variable);` so that pulling the `doThat` out requires you to expose what would otherwise be a private variable. This is not so clearly a good thing.

    Pardon the pun but the `code-smell` to me is sort of like this analogy... `skinning a deer from head to tail` or `skinning a deer from tail to head`. There is always more than 1 way to program a piece of code that will do the exact same thing and in both cases they can be viably correct, but both with their own flaws. One has to weigh the trade offs to find the middle ground and balance between the two, and no matter which preference style they prefer to use, they just need to stay consistent with it.

    What if `doThat` clearly makes no sense at all without `doThis`?

    @gherman then you'd have methods `doThis` and `doThisAndThat`.

  • 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.

    I appreciate the caveat in the first paragraph. I was being intentionally provocative by saying "wrong", and certainly acknowledge that we're dealing in the realm of "best practices" and design principles, and that these sorts of things are often situational, and one must weigh multiple factors

    Your answer reminds me of a quote that I can't remember the source of - "if your function has 17 parameters, you're probably missing one".

    I would very much agree with this one, and apply to the question to say that yes its often a bad idea to pass in a boolean flag, but it's never as simple as bad/good ...

  • 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.

    @dreza you are referring to Curlys Law.

    Of course with experience you should know when to ignore such arguments.

  • 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()
    public void Foo2()

    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.

    I only use boolean arguments to control behavior in private methods (as shown here). But the problem: If some dufus decides to increase the visibility of `FooInternal` in the future, then what?

    Actually, I'd go another route. The code inside FooInternal should be split into 4 pieces: 2 functions to handle the Boolean true/false cases, one for the work that happens before, and another for the work that happens after. Then, your `Foo1` becomes: `{ doWork(); HandleTrueCase(); doMoreWork() }`. Ideally, the `doWork` and `doMoreWork` functions are each broken down into (one or more) meaningful chunks of discrete actions (i.e. as separate functions), not just two functions for the sake of splitting.

  • 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(',')
    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.

    I'm partial to your solution as a big Guava lover and evangelist... but I can't give you a +1, because you skip over the part I'm really looking for, which is what is wrong (or smelly) about the other way. I think it's actually implicit in some of your explanations, so maybe if you could make that explicit, it would answer the question better.

    I like the idea of separating of configuration and acton methods!

    Links to Guava library are broken

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

    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.

  • 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


    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); 

    The question is not about what is preferable to a behavior determining flag, it's whether such a flag a smell, and if so, why

    @Ray: I don't see a difference between those two questions. In a language where you can enforce the use of named parameters, or when you can be sure named-parameters will always be used *(eg. private methods)*, boolean parameters are fine. If named parameters can't be enforced by the language (C#) and the class is part of a public API, or if the language doesn't support named parameters (C++), so that code like `myFunction(true)` might be written, it's a code-smell.

    The named parameter approach is even more wrong. Without a name, one will be forced to read the API doc. With a name, you think you need not: but the paramter could be misnamend. For example, it could have been used to save (all) changes, but later the implmentation changed a bit so as to only save **big** changes (for some value of big).

    @Ingo I don't agree. That's a generic programming issue; you can easily define another `SaveBig` name. Any code can be screwed up, this kind of screw up is not particular to named parameters.

    @Ingo: If you are surrounded by idiots, then you go and find a job elsewhere. That kind of thing is what you have code reviews for.

  • 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:



License under CC-BY-SA with attribution

Content dated before 6/26/2020 9:53 AM