Details
-
Type:
Bug Detection
-
Status: Active
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Labels:None
-
Message:Replace this constructor reference with a lambda returning a new {{List/HashMap/...}}.
-
Highlighting:
-
Default Severity:Major
-
Impact:Low
-
Likelihood:High
-
Default Quality Profiles:Sonar way
-
Targeted languages:Java
-
Remediation Function:Constant/Issue
-
Constant Cost:5min
-
Analysis Scope:Main Sources, Test Sources
Description
It is very common to pass a collection constructor reference as an argument, for example Collectors.toCollection(ArrayList::new) takes the ArrayList::new constructor. When the method expects a java.util.function.Supplier it is perfectly fine. However when the me argument type is java.util.function.Function it means that an argument will be passed to the constructor.
The first argument of Collections constructors is usually an integer representing its "initial capacity". This is generally not what the developer expects, but the memory allocation is not visible at first glance.
This rule raises an issue when a collection constructor is passed by reference as a java.util.function.Function argument.
Noncompliant Code Example
Arrays.asList(1, 2, 54000).stream().collect(Collectors.toMap(Function.identity(), ArrayList::new));
Compliant Solution
Arrays.asList(1, 2, 54000).stream().collect(Collectors.toMap(Function.identity(), id -> new ArrayList<>()));
Attachments
Issue Links
- is implemented by
-
SONARJAVA-3854 Rule S5329: Collection constructors should not be used as java.util.function.Function
-
- Closed
-
- relates to
-
SONARJAVA-3820 Add missing remediation functions
-
- Closed
-