Immutable.java:38-40: Introduce an Immutable wrapper for...

[0pdd]

The puzzle 898-fb66ac0b from #898 has to be resolved:

cactoos/src/main/java/org/cactoos/list/Immutable.java

Lines 38 to 40 in 5e0da30

	* @todo #898:30min Introduce an Immutable wrapper for {@link ListIterator}
	* and use it in listIterator() methods instead of {@link ListIteratorOf}.
	* One another option is renaming of {@link ListIteratorOf}.

The puzzle was created by @fanifieiev on 28-Oct-19.

Estimate: 30 minutes, role: DEV.

If you have any technical questions, don't ask me, submit new tickets instead. The task will be "done" when the problem is fixed and the text of the puzzle is removed from the source code. Here is more about PDD and about me.

[0crat]

@paulodamaso/z please, pay attention to this issue

[0crat]

Job #1219 is now in scope, role is DEV

[0crat]

The job #1219 assigned to @fanifieiev/z, here is why; the budget is 30 minutes, see §4; please, read §8 and §9; if the task is not clear, read this and this; there will be no monetary reward for this job

[fanifieiev]

@victornoel @iakunin @paulodamaso
Guys, I have a question to you:
The test class ListEnvelopeTest contains some tests:

1. ListEnvelopeTest.java#L142
2. ListEnvelopeTest.java#L59
3. ListEnvelopeTest.java#L92
   The all use ListIterator.set method to successfully change the iterator, but the StringList class they use is based on Immutable list, so ListIterator.set operation IMHO should not be allowed here.
   Moreover, if that test passes, then it basically means that Immutable class is not actually immutable.
   My question is: why do those tests were written in a way to accept the ListIterator.set operation?

[iakunin]

@fanifieiev there is a todo just above the class and there is a corresponding issue: #1217

This test should be rewritten without using Immutable decorator.

By the way:

• cactoos/src/test/java/org/cactoos/list/ListEnvelopeTest.java

  Line 63 in 5e0da30

  iterator.set("zero");

• cactoos/src/test/java/org/cactoos/list/ListEnvelopeTest.java

  Line 97 in 5e0da30

  iterator.set("zero");

in these cases set() called on the iterator not on the ListEnvelope (Immutable decorator).

Also there is a test exactly about immutability of Immutable decorator:

cactoos/src/test/java/org/cactoos/list/ListEnvelopeTest.java

Line 126 in 5e0da30

list.set(0, "zero");

[fanifieiev]

@fanifieiev there is a todo just above the class and there is a corresponding issue: #1217

This test should be rewritten without using Immutable decorator.

By the way:

• cactoos/src/test/java/org/cactoos/list/ListEnvelopeTest.java

  Line 63 in 5e0da30

  iterator.set("zero");

• cactoos/src/test/java/org/cactoos/list/ListEnvelopeTest.java

  Line 97 in 5e0da30

  iterator.set("zero");

in these cases set() called on the iterator not on the ListEnvelope (Immutable decorator).

Also there is a test exactly about immutability of Immutable decorator:

cactoos/src/test/java/org/cactoos/list/ListEnvelopeTest.java

Line 126 in 5e0da30

list.set(0, "zero");

@iakunin,
IMHO, the org.cactoos.list.Immutable
is broken, it is not completely immutable. It looks more like a decorator to restrict mutable methods.
For instance,

1. The subList method should result in returning an immutable list as well;
2. Also, please have a look at the issue
   Immutable list is not really immutable

PS: Regarding the above tests you mentioned

• ListEnvelopeTest.java#L63
• ListEnvelopeTest.java#L97
  Yes, you are right, but that is because the org.cactoos.list.Immutable returns the original list's listIterator, not the immutable one.

[fanifieiev]

@iakunin
I was actually more concerned about the following tests:

1. ListEnvelopeTest.java#L142
2. ListEnvelopeTest.java#L59
3. ListEnvelopeTest.java#L92

Why do the TESTS allow mutations for listIterator returned from immutable list?
The tests IMHO are broken, they are invalid.

[iakunin]

@fanifieiev you can always create an issue and suggest your changes in it.

[victornoel]

@fanifieiev don't bother too much about ListEnvelope because #1185 is going to clean this up :)

[0pdd]

The puzzle 898-fb66ac0b has disappeared from the source code, that's why I closed this issue.

[0pdd]

@0pdd the puzzle #1230 is still not solved.

[0crat]

@sereshqua/z please review this job completed by @fanifieiev/z, as in §30; the job will be fully closed and all payments will be made when the quality review is completed

[0crat]

The job #1219 is now out of scope

[sereshqua]

@0crat quality good

[0crat]

Order was finished, quality is "good": +35 point(s) just awarded to @fanifieiev/z

[0crat]

Quality review completed: +4 point(s) just awarded to @sereshqua/z

[0pdd]

@0pdd the puzzle #1233 is still not solved; solved: #1230.

[0pdd]

@0pdd the puzzle #1291 is still not solved; solved: #1230, #1233.

[0pdd]

@0pdd all 3 puzzles are solved here: #1230, #1233, #1291.