rspec/rules/S3351/java/rule.adoc

The use of the ``++enum.ordinal()++`` method is regarded as suspicious since conceptually, the significance of an ``++enum++`` member is in what it represents, not its position within the ``++enum++``. 


According to the method's Javadoc:

____
Most programmers will have no use for this method. It is designed for use by sophisticated enum-based data structures, such as ``++EnumSet++`` and ``++EnumMap++``.
____


Further, reliance on a particular member's position within an ``++enum++`` is a bug waiting to happen since the position of members within an ``++enum++`` is not generally regarded as significant, and maintainers are just as likely to add new members at the beginning as at the end.


Therefore this rule raises an issue for each use of the ``++ordinal++`` method.


== Noncompliant Code Example

----
public enum Fruit {
  APPLE, ORANGE, PLUM, GRAPE;
}

public void doTheThing(Fruit fruit) {

  if (fruit.ordinal() == 2) {  // Noncompliant
    // ...
  }
}
----


== Compliant Solution

----
public enum Fruit {
  APPLE, ORANGE, PLUM, GRAPE;
}

public void doTheThing(Fruit fruit) {

  if (Fruit.PLUM.equals(fruit)) {
    // ...
  }
}
----


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

include::comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]