rspec/rules/S1872/java/rule.adoc

There is no requirement that class names be unique, only that they be unique within a package. Therefore trying to determine an object's type based on its class name is an exercise fraught with danger. One of those dangers is that a malicious user will send objects of the same name as the trusted class and thereby gain trusted access.

Instead, the ``++instanceof++`` operator or the ``++Class.isAssignableFrom()++`` method should be used to check the object's underlying type.

== Noncompliant Code Example

----
package computer;
class Pear extends Laptop { ... }

package food;
class Pear extends Fruit { ... }

class Store {

  public boolean hasSellByDate(Object item) {
    if ("Pear".equals(item.getClass().getSimpleName())) {  // Noncompliant
      return true;  // Results in throwing away week-old computers
    }
    return false;
  }

  public boolean isList(Class<T> valueClass) {
    if (List.class.getName().equals(valueClass.getName())) {  // Noncompliant
      return true;
    }
    return false;
  }
}
----

== Compliant Solution

----
class Store {

  public boolean hasSellByDate(Object item) {
    if (item instanceof food.Pear) {
      return true;
    }
    return false;
  }

  public boolean isList(Class<T> valueClass) {
    if (valueClass.isAssignableFrom(List.class)) {
      return true;
    }
    return false;
  }
}
----

include::../see.adoc[]