I have a discussion with colleague that we should not be using setters inside stream.map() like the solution suggested here - https://stackoverflow.com/a/35377863/1552771
There is a comment to this answer that discourages using map this way, but there hasn’t been a reason given as to why this is a bad idea. Can someone provide a possible scenario why this can break?
I have seen some discussions where people talk about concurrent modification of the collection itself, by adding or removing items from it, but are there any negatives to using map to just set some values to a data object?
Using side effects in map like invoking a setter, has a lot of similarities to using peek for non-debugging purposes, which have been discussed in In Java streams is peek really only for debugging?
This answer has a very good general advice:
Don't use the API in an unintended way, even if it accomplishes your immediate goal. That approach may break in the future, and it is also unclear to future maintainers.
Whereas the other answer names associated practical problems; I have to cite myself:
The important thing you have to understand, is that streams are driven by the terminal operation. The terminal operation determines whether all elements have to be processed or any at all.
When you place an operation with a side effect into a map function, you have a specific expectation about on which elements it will be performed and perhaps even how it will be performed, e.g. in which order. Whether the expectation will be fulfilled, depends on other subsequent Stream operations and perhaps even on subtle implementation details.
To show some examples:
IntStream.range(0, 10) // outcome changes with Java 9
.mapToObj(i -> System.out.append("side effect on "+i+"\n"))
.count();
IntStream.range(0, 2) // outcome changes with Java 10 (or 8u222)
.flatMap(i -> IntStream.range(i * 5, (i+1) * 5 ))
.map(i -> { System.out.println("side effect on "+i); return i; })
.anyMatch(i -> i > 3);
IntStream.range(0, 10) // outcome may change with every run
.parallel()
.map(i -> { System.out.println("side effect on "+i); return i; })
.anyMatch(i -> i > 6);
Further, as already mentioned in the linked answer, even if you have a terminal operation that processes all elements and is ordered, there is no guaranty about the processing order (or concurrency for parallel streams) of intermediate operations.
The code may happen to do the desired thing when you have a stream with no duplicates and a terminal operation processing all elements and a map function which is calling only a trivial setter, but the code has so many dependencies on subtle surrounding conditions that it will become a maintenance nightmare. Which brings us back to the first quote about using an API in an unintended way.