I\'m using the new nullable reference types from C# 8 and I was wondering if it is possible to indicate that a parameter passed in is not null if the method returns at all.<
Using a normal null-check
First of all, RaiseIfNull doesn't offer something more than :
var value=data?.property ?? new HttpException(400);
Which the compiler can recognize. RaiseIfNull on the other hand hides what's actually going on. This code doesn't produce a warning:
class D
{
    public string? property{get;set;}
}
D? data=null;
var value=data?.property ?? throw new HttpException(400);
Console.WriteLine(value.Length);
Unconditional Post-Condition and generics
That said, the the correct argument to use is NotNull - after the method executes, the parameter is not null even if the type itself is nullable. That attribute can be applied to :
The methods can be made generic too, to avoid boxing structs into objects. To do that we need to specify whether the type is a class or struct, because the resulting concrete types are very different - a string? is still a string while an int? is a Nullable<int> :
public static bool RaiseIfNull<T>([NotNull] T? thing) 
    where T:class
    => RaiseIf(() => thing is null);
public static bool RaiseIfNull<T>([NotNull] T? thing) 
    where T:struct
    => RaiseIf(() => thing is null);
Given those methods, the following code won't generate a warning either :
D? data=null;
RaiseIfNull(data?.property);
Console.WriteLine(data.property.Length);
Finally, we can get rid of the return value:
public static void RaiseIfNull<T>([NotNull] T? thing) 
    where T:class
    => RaiseIf(() => thing is null);
public static void RaiseIfNull<T>([NotNull] T? thing) 
    where T:struct
    => RaiseIf(() => thing is null);