Or: why is my list still mutable?

Today I learnt a new thing about Collections.unmodifiableList.

First, I noted that Sonar wasn’t raising a violation where I thought it should.

Take the sample class below

public final class MyImmutableClass {
    
    private final List<String> myList;

    public MyImmutableClass(List<String>myList) {
        this.myList = myList;
    }

    public List<String> getMyList() {
        return myList;
    }
    
}

I would expect sonar to raise the following:

Malicious code vulnerability - May expose internal representation by incorporating reference to mutable object (Findbugs: EI_EXPOSE_REP2)
Malicious code vulnerability - May expose internal representation by returning reference to mutable object (Findbugs: EI_EXPOSE_REP)

But it didn’t. This is a mystery in itself, as I am sure it has picked me up on this before.

Anyway, no problem, I wrote a test for the class myself:

/**
     * Test of getMyList method, of class MyImmutableClass.
     */
    @Test
    public void testGetMyList() {
        List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();
        list.add("Potato");
        list.add("Apple");
        
        MyImmutableClass instance = new MyImmutableClass(list);
        
        assertEquals(2,instance.getMyList().size());
        
        //check for immutability
        list.add("item 3");
        assertEquals(2,instance.getMyList().size());
        
        try {
            instance.getMyList().add("Message3");
            fail("Should not be possible");
        } catch (Exception ex) {
            assertTrue( ex instanceof UnsupportedOperationException);
        }
    }

Of course, the test fails with the code as it is.

So I modified it to this:

public final class MyImmutableClass {
    
    private final List<String> myList;

    public MyImmutableClass(List<String>myList) {
        this.myList = Collections.unmodifiableList(myList);
    }

    public List<String> getMyList() {
        return Collections.unmodifiableList(myList);
    }
    
}

And it STILL failed. I was very confused. How come Collections.unmodifiableList in the constructer wasn’t stopping the list inside the class from changing?

It took some googling to find the answer. For example: this stackoverflow post.
If you pay proper attention to the javadoc for Collections.unmodifiableList, it makes sense.

     * Returns an unmodifiable view of the specified list.  This method allows
     * modules to provide users with "read-only" access to internal
     * lists.  Query operations on the returned list "read through" to the
     * specified list, and attempts to modify the returned list, whether
     * direct or via its iterator, result in an
     * UnsupportedOperationException.

So, this just wraps the original list inside an unmodifiable view. I can’t modify the one inside my class, but if I modify the one I used to create the class, the view reflects the update.

The correct way to make my class immutable is:

public final class MyImmutableClass {
    
    private final List<String> myList;

    public MyImmutableClass(List<String>myList) {
        this.myList = Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<String>(myList));
    }

    public List<String> getMyList() {
        return Collections.unmodifiableList(myList);
    }
    
}

Phew. As an afterthought, because sonar and findbugs did not pick this up, I’m thinking of taking a look at this: http://mutability-detector.blogspot.co.uk/. We like to make all classes immutable, unless there is a good reason not to. It would be interesting to see what else has slipped through.