''Someone deleted this, and maybe that's reasonable, but surely backlinks should be fixed at the same time, or the information left until it can be integrated or evaluated.''
----
This looks like another name for FailFast, or ExposeErrors -- PeteHardie

Or just simply GuardClause''''''s
-----
If your method body contains several validations that abort (with possible error-handling code), and especially with nested if's, apply this Refactoring.

From (C# example):

	if (overall valid)
	{
		if (valid Id)
		{
			if (valid Name)
			{
				� code to do work (all is valid) �
			}
			else
			{
				DebugLog.AddValidationError(�Bad Name�);
				return false;
			}
		}
		else
		{
			DebugLog.AddValidationError(�Bad Id�);
			return false;
		}
	}
	else
	{
		throw new Exception(�blah�);
	}

To:

	#region Validation Tests
	if (!overall valid)
	{
		throw new Exception(�blah�);
	}
	
	if (!valid Id)
	{
		DebugLog.AddValidationError(�Bad Id�);
		return false;
	}

	if (!valid Name)
	{
		DebugLog.AddValidationError(�Bad Name�);
		return false;
	}
	#endregion

	� code to do work (all is valid) �


Note that the validation test in the if statements are inverted. Here are the advantages:

* Saves excessive horizontal scrolling by eliminating nested indentation levels (code all fits on screen)
* Prevents common mistake: adding code to bottom of method (outside an else) that accidentally executes on a failed validation fall-through
* Locality: Places error code at the point of validation instead of burying it many lines below
* Can wrap validation code in a region and collapse it to reduce clutter/noise
* Improves overall clarity: can clearly see what code belongs to validation and what belongs to the work done

-- BrianG
----
Better yet is to store all the errors on a stack and run your fail code if the stacksize is bigger than zero. (pseudo code):
	
	errors = new errorStack;
	if(!name){
	errors->push('Name not ok');
	}
	if(!e mail){
	errors->push('Email not ok');
	}
  if(errors->size() > 0){
	/* Fail code */
  } else {
	/* Success code */
  }

-----
@Previous - That doesn't solve the problem of validation with nested ifs