下面是最常见的用例。假设你正在打开一个枚举值:

switch (fruit) {
  case apple:
    // do something
    break;
  case pear:
    // do something
    break;
  case banana:
    // do something
    break;
}

只要你处理每一个案子，就没问题。但是有一天，有人会把fig添加到你的枚举中，而忘记把它添加到你的switch语句中。这将产生一个难以捕捉的错误，因为直到您离开switch语句后才会感受到其影响。但是如果你像这样写开关，你可以立即捕获它:

switch (fruit) {
  case apple:
    // do something
    break;
  case pear:
    // do something
    break;
  case banana:
    // do something
    break;
  default:
    assert false : "Missing enum value: " + fruit;
}

断言主要用于调试应用程序，或者用于替换某些应用程序的异常处理，以检查应用程序的有效性。

断言在运行时工作。这里有一个简单的例子，可以非常简单地解释整个概念——assert关键字在Java中做什么?(WikiAnswers)。

Assert是一个关键字。它在JDK 1.4中引入。这是两种类型的断言

非常简单的断言语句 简单的断言语句。

默认情况下，所有assert语句都不会被执行。如果assert语句接收到false，则它将自动引发断言错误。

我不知道Java中这个特性背后的历史。但是我有一个关于断言可以用来做什么的想法，我认为在这个帖子中没有提到过。

假设你有一个枚举，你打开它:(†)

public enum Veggie {
    CAULIFLOWER,
    CARROT,
}

// Another class
switch (veggie) {
    case CAULIFLOWER: value = 5;
    case CARROT: value = 3;
}

†:也许优秀的Java编译器/工具会静态地捕获丢失的枚举值。在这种情况下，想象一下你发现了一些bug并修复了它。然后，您可以使用下面描述的技术在代码中适当地添加回归测试。

这里没有好的默认情况。所以你要确保你覆盖了所有的值。当你添加一个新的enum变量时，你要确保你更新了switch块:

public enum Veggie {
    CAULIFLOWER,
    CARROT,
    TOMATO,
}

但事实证明，当用户在web应用程序中加载特定视图时，这段代码会被调用。尽管存在这个错误，视图仍然可以持续存在:这将是一个bug，但不值得干扰视图的加载(让我们说用户只是看到了一些错误的数字)。所以你只需要记录一个警告:

switch (veggie) {
    case CAULIFLOWER: value = 5;
    case CARROT: value = 3;
    default: nonExhaustiveMatchOnEnum();
// […]
public static void nonExhaustiveMatchOnEnum() {
    String errorMessage: "Missing veggie";
    logger.warn(errorMessage);
}

但是当你在开发代码时，你确实希望这个错误立即失败——开发者可以在五分钟内修复这个错误，而不像你的web应用程序的用户。

所以你可以添加一个assert false:

public static void nonExhaustiveMatchOnEnum() {
    String errorMessage: "Missing veggie";
    assert false : errorMessage;
    logger.warn(errorMessage);
}

现在，应用程序将在本地崩溃，但只在生产中记录一个警告(假设您在本地使用java -ea，而不是在生产中)。

下面是我在Hibernate/SQL项目的服务器中编写的断言。一个实体bean有两个有效的布尔属性，称为isActive和isDefault。每个都可以有一个值“Y”或“N”或null，被视为“N”。我们希望确保浏览器客户端仅限于这三个值。所以，在这两个属性的setter中，我添加了这样的断言:

assert new HashSet<String>(Arrays.asList("Y", "N", null)).contains(value) : value;

注意以下几点。

This assertion is for the development phase only. If the client sends a bad value, we will catch that early and fix it, long before we reach production. Assertions are for defects that you can catch early. This assertion is slow and inefficient. That's okay. Assertions are free to be slow. We don't care because they're development-only tools. This won't slow down the production code because assertions will be disabled. (There's some disagreement on this point, which I'll get to later.) This leads to my next point. This assertion has no side effects. I could have tested my value against an unmodifiable static final Set, but that set would have stayed around in production, where it would never get used. This assertion exists to verify the proper operation of the client. So by the time we reach production, we will be sure that the client is operating properly, so we can safely turn the assertion off. Some people ask this: If the assertion isn't needed in production, why not just take them out when you're done? Because you'll still need them when you start working on the next version.

Some people have argued that you should never use assertions, because you can never be sure that all the bugs are gone, so you need to keep them around even in production. And so there's no point in using the assert statement, since the only advantage to asserts is that you can turn them off. Hence, according to this thinking, you should (almost) never use asserts. I disagree. It's certainly true that if a test belongs in production, you should not use an assert. But this test does not belong in production. This one is for catching a bug that's not likely to ever reach production, so it may safely be turned off when you're done.

顺便说一句，我可以这样写:

assert value == null || value.equals("Y") || value.equals("N") : value;

对于只有三个值是可以的，但是如果可能值的数量变大，HashSet版本就会变得更方便。我选择HashSet版本来说明我关于效率的观点。

下面是最常见的用例。假设你正在打开一个枚举值:

switch (fruit) {
  case apple:
    // do something
    break;
  case pear:
    // do something
    break;
  case banana:
    // do something
    break;
}

只要你处理每一个案子，就没问题。但是有一天，有人会把fig添加到你的枚举中，而忘记把它添加到你的switch语句中。这将产生一个难以捕捉的错误，因为直到您离开switch语句后才会感受到其影响。但是如果你像这样写开关，你可以立即捕获它:

switch (fruit) {
  case apple:
    // do something
    break;
  case pear:
    // do something
    break;
  case banana:
    // do something
    break;
  default:
    assert false : "Missing enum value: " + fruit;
}