List assignment with ternary operator

I have found a False negative: I wrote a User class that is immutable but the detector doesn’t think it is. I directly provide a piece of code:

given that this.roles is a private final field and no setter methods are defined if I write this code in the constructor, the class is correctly recognized IMMUTABLE.

if (roles == null) {
  this.roles = null;
} else {
  this.roles = Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<String>(roles));
}

but, if I write this code instead: this.roles = (roles == null ? null : Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<String>(roles))); the check fail with this Exception:

Expected:[...].User to be IMMUTABLE
 but: [...].User is actually NOT_IMMUTABLE
Reasons:
    Field is not a wrapped collection type. You can use this expression: Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<String>(roles)) [Field: roles at [...].User(User.java:1)]
Allowed reasons:
    None.
at org.mutabilitydetector.unittesting.internal.AssertionReporter.assertThat(AssertionReporter.java:48)
at org.mutabilitydetector.unittesting.MutabilityAsserter.assertImmutable(MutabilityAsserter.java:127)
at org.mutabilitydetector.unittesting.MutabilityAssert.assertImmutable(MutabilityAssert.java:672)
at [...]TestUser.theUserIsImmutable(TestUser.java:92)

if I need to provide more info, please let me know.

[Grundlefleck]

Thanks for raising. I’ve easily reproduced in a test case.

I can’t give an ETA on a fix right now, but I’ll start taking a look.

[rohansuri]

Hi @Grundlefleck The case I’d thought of is covered by @sband’s (nice work!) latest PR. It was about taking care when null (or a mutable expression) could come on either side of the ternary operator since then you can’t simply rely on the latest PUT_FIELD right before your FrameNode->LabelNode

So we’re looking good!