RFR: 8267452: Delegate forEachRemaining in Spliterators.iterator() [v2]

[Paul Sandoz]

On Mon, 24 May 2021 07:15:34 GMT, Tagir F. Valeev <tvaleev at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Sometimes, `Spliterator::forEachRemaining` has much more optimized implementation, compared to `Spliterator::tryAdvance`. For example, if a `Stream::spliterator` called for a stream that has intermediate operations, `tryAdvance()` may buffer intermediate elements while `forEachRemaining()` just delegates to the `wrapAndCopyInto` (see `StreamSpliterators.AbstractWrappingSpliterator` and its inheritors).
>> 
>> `Spliterators::iterator` methods (used in particular by `Stream::iterator`) provide adapter iterators that delegate to the supplied spliterator. Unfortunately, they don't have a specialized implementation for `Iterator::forEachRemaining`. As a result, a default implementation is used that delegates to `hasNext`/`next`, which in turn causes the delegation to `tryAdvance`. It's quite simple to implement `Iterator::forEachRemaining` here, taking advantage of possible spliterator optimizations if the iterator client decides to use `forEachRemaining`.
>> 
>> This patch implements Iterator::forEachRemaining in Spliterators::iterator methods. Also, I nullize the `nextElement` in `Iterator::next` to avoid accidental prolongation of the user's object lifetime when iteration is finished. Finally, a small cleanup: I added the `final` modifier where possible to private fields in `Spliterators`.
>> 
>> Test-wise, some scenarios are already covered by SpliteratorTraversingAndSplittingTest. However, the resulting iterator is always wrapped into `Spliterators::spliterator`, so usage scenarios are somewhat limited. In particular, calling `hasNext` (without `next`) before `forEachRemaining` was not covered there. I added more tests in `IteratorFromSpliteratorTest` to cover these scenarios. I checked that removing `valueReady = false;` or `action.accept(t);` lines from newly implemented `forEachRemaining` method causes new tests to fail (but old tests don't fail due to this).
>
> Tagir F. Valeev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Test: formatting; tests for empty spliterator

Oops i missed the bit about testing in the description. That's subtle, the `hasNext` occurs in the assert before the `forEachRemaining`. Could you add a comment that this is the primary purpose of the test since `SpliteratorTraversingAndSplittingTest` cannot do that for a spliterator wrapping an iterator?

-------------

Marked as reviewed by psandoz (Reviewer).

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4124