This rule raises an issue when an iteration over the items of a ``++Collection++`` is performed on a super-type of the type handled by the ``++Collection++``.


Relying on ``++Object++`` or any classes between ``++Object++`` and the real class handled by the ``++Collection++`` is not recommended. While it's accepted by the language, this practice reduces readability of the code and forces to down-cast the item of the ``++Collection++`` to be able to call a method on it while simply using the correct type in the iteration makes things more clear and simple.


== Noncompliant Code Example

[source,java]
----
public Collection<Person> getPersons() { ... }

for (Object item : getPersons()) { // Noncompliant
  Person person = (Person) item; // Noncompliant; it's required to down-cast to the to correct type to use "item"
  person.getAdress();
}
----


== Compliant Solution

[source,java]
----
for (Person person : getPersons()) { // Compliant
  person.getAddress() ;
}
----


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

include::message.adoc[]

include::highlighting.adoc[]

'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

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