Example of Why stream::good is Wrong? - c++

Question

I gave an answer which I wanted to check the validity of stream each time through a loop here.
My original code used good and looked similar to this:
ifstream foo("foo.txt");
while (foo.good()){
string bar;
getline(foo, bar);
cout << bar << endl;
}
I was immediately pointed here and told to never test good. Clearly this is something I haven't understood but I want to be doing my file I/O correctly.
I tested my code out with several examples and couldn't make the good-testing code fail.
First (this printed correctly, ending with a new line):
bleck 1
blee 1 2
blah
ends in new line
Second (this printed correctly, ending in with the last line):
bleck 1
blee 1 2
blah
this doesn't end in a new line
Third was an empty file (this printed correctly, a single newline.)
Fourth was a missing file (this correctly printed nothing.)
Can someone help me with an example that demonstrates why good-testing shouldn't be done?

Answer 1

They were wrong. The mantra is 'never test .eof()'.
Why is iostream::eof inside a loop condition considered wrong?
Even that mantra is overboard, because both are useful to diagnose the state of the stream after an extraction failed.
So the mantra should be more like
Don't use good() or eof() to detect eof before you try to read any further
Same for fail(), and bad()
Of course stream.good can be usefully employed before using a stream (e.g. in case the stream is a filestream which has not been successfully opened)
However, both are very very very often abused to detect the end of input, and that's not how it works.
A canonical example of why you shouldn't use this method:
std::istringstream stream("a");
char ch;
if (stream >> ch) {
std::cout << "At eof? " << std::boolalpha << stream.eof() << "\n";
std::cout << "good? " << std::boolalpha << stream.good() << "\n";
}
Prints
false
true
See it Live On Coliru

Answer 2

This is already covered in other answers, but I'll go over it briefly for completeness. The only functional difference with
while(foo.good()) { // effectively same as while(foo) {
getline(foo, bar);
consume(bar); // consume() represents any operation that uses bar
}
And
while(getline(foo, bar)){
consume(bar);
}
Is that the former will do an extra loop when there are no lines in the file, making that case indistinguishable from the case of one empty line. I would argue that this is not typically desired behaviour. But I suppose that's matter of opinion.
As sehe says, the mantra is overboard. It's a simplification. What really is the point is that you must not consume() the result of reading the stream before you test for failure or at least EOF (and any test before the read is irrelevant). Which is what people easily do when they test good() in the loop condition.
However, the thing about getline(), is that it tests EOF internally, for you and returns an empty string even if only EOF is read. Therefore, the former version could maybe be roughly the similar to following pseudo c++:
while(foo.good()) {
// inside getline
bar = ""; // Reset bar to empty
string sentry;
if(read_until_newline(foo, sentry)) {
// The streams state is tested implicitly inside getline
// after the value is read. Good
bar = sentry // The read value is used only if it's valid.
// ... // Otherwise, bar is empty.
consume(bar);
}
I hope that illustrates what I'm trying to say. One could say that there is a "correct" version of the read loop inside getline(). This is why the rule is at least partially satisfied by the use of readline even if the outer loop doesn't conform.
But, for other methods of reading, breaking the rule hurts more. Consider:
while(foo.good()) {
int bar;
foo >> bar;
consume(bar);
}
Not only do you always get the extra iteration, the bar in that iteration is uninitialized!
So, in short, while(foo.good()) is OK in your case, because getline() unlike certain other reading functions, leaves the output in a valid state after reading EOF bit. and because you don't care or even do expect the extra iteration when the file is empty.

Answer 3

both good() and eof() will both give you an extra line in your code. If you have a blank file and run this:
std::ifstream foo1("foo1.txt");
std::string line;
int lineNum = 1;
std::cout << "foo1.txt Controlled With good():\n";
while (foo1.good())
{
std::getline(foo1, line);
std::cout << lineNum++ << line << std::endl;
}
foo1.close();
foo1.open("foo1.txt");
lineNum = 1;
std::cout << "\n\nfoo1.txt Controlled With getline():\n";
while (std::getline(foo1, line))
{
std::cout << line << std::endl;
}
The output you will get is
foo1.txt Controlled With good():
1
foo1.txt Controlled With getline():
This proves that it isn't working correctly since a blank file should never be read. The only way to know that is to use a read condition since the stream will always be good the first time it reads.

Answer 4

Using foo.good() just tells you that the previous read operation worked just fine and that the next one might as well work. .good() checks the state of the stream at a given point. It does not check if the end of the file is reached. Lets say something happened while the file was being read (network error, os error, ...) good will fail. That does not mean the end of the file was reached. Nevertheless .good() fails when end of file is reached because the stream is not able to read anymore.
On the other hand, .eof() checks if the end of file was truly reached.
So, .good() might fail while the end of file was not reached.
Hope this helps you understand why using .good() to check end of file is a bad habit.

Answer 5

Let me clearly say that sehe's answer is the correct one.
But the option proposed by, Nathan Oliver, Neil Kirk, and user2079303 is to use readline as the loop condition rather than good. Needs to be addressed for the sake of posterity.
We will compare the loop in the question to the following loop:
string bar;
while (getline(foo, bar)){
cout << bar << endl;
}
Because getline returns the istream passed as the first argument, and because when an istream is cast to bool it returns !(fail() || bad()), and since reading the EOF character will set both the failbit and the eofbit this makes getline a valid loop condition.
The behavior does change however when using getline as a condition because if a line containing only an EOF character is read the loop will exit preventing that line from being outputted. This doesn't occur in Examples 2 and 4. But Example 1:
bleck 1
blee 1 2
blah
ends in new line
Prints this with the good loop condition:
bleck 1
blee 1 2
blah
ends in new line
But chops the last line with the getline loop condition:
bleck 1
blee 1 2
blah
ends in new line
Example 3 is an empty file:
Prints this with the good condition:
Prints nothing with the getline condition.
Neither of these behaviors are wrong. But that last line can make a difference in code. Hopefully this answer will be helpful to you when deciding between the two for coding purposes.