Synchronized implementation of a bank account in Java












7












$begingroup$


I am trying to implement a bank account with Java in a thread safe way. My code looks like:



import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.RoundingMode;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;

/**
* Class to represent an account, it also provides with methods to add and withdraw amount from the account.
*
* @author Karan Khanna
* @version 1.0
* @since 3/17/2019
*/
public class Account {

private ReadWriteLock accountLock;

private BigDecimal balance;

private String accountNumber;

private String accountHolder;

public Account(String accountNumber, String accountHolder) {
this.balance = new BigDecimal(0);
this.accountNumber = accountNumber;
this.accountHolder = accountHolder;
this.accountLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
}

public double getBalance() {
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
double balance = this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
return balance;
}

public String getAccountNumber() {
return accountNumber;
}

public String getAccountHolder() {
return accountHolder;
}

public ReadWriteLock getAccountLock() {
return accountLock;
}

public void addAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}

public void withdrawAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.subtract(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}


I am looking for feedback for the implementation.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    FWIW, you can always implement AutoCloseable in your lock and do try-with-resources on your operations - IMVHO, that would make both the intention more obvious, the code would be shorter, and the risk of omitting the unlock (either as a typo or after throwing in method) would be mitigated. I dunno why Java doesn't provide this functionality as default...
    $endgroup$
    – vaxquis
    yesterday


















7












$begingroup$


I am trying to implement a bank account with Java in a thread safe way. My code looks like:



import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.RoundingMode;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;

/**
* Class to represent an account, it also provides with methods to add and withdraw amount from the account.
*
* @author Karan Khanna
* @version 1.0
* @since 3/17/2019
*/
public class Account {

private ReadWriteLock accountLock;

private BigDecimal balance;

private String accountNumber;

private String accountHolder;

public Account(String accountNumber, String accountHolder) {
this.balance = new BigDecimal(0);
this.accountNumber = accountNumber;
this.accountHolder = accountHolder;
this.accountLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
}

public double getBalance() {
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
double balance = this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
return balance;
}

public String getAccountNumber() {
return accountNumber;
}

public String getAccountHolder() {
return accountHolder;
}

public ReadWriteLock getAccountLock() {
return accountLock;
}

public void addAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}

public void withdrawAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.subtract(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}


I am looking for feedback for the implementation.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    FWIW, you can always implement AutoCloseable in your lock and do try-with-resources on your operations - IMVHO, that would make both the intention more obvious, the code would be shorter, and the risk of omitting the unlock (either as a typo or after throwing in method) would be mitigated. I dunno why Java doesn't provide this functionality as default...
    $endgroup$
    – vaxquis
    yesterday
















7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


I am trying to implement a bank account with Java in a thread safe way. My code looks like:



import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.RoundingMode;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;

/**
* Class to represent an account, it also provides with methods to add and withdraw amount from the account.
*
* @author Karan Khanna
* @version 1.0
* @since 3/17/2019
*/
public class Account {

private ReadWriteLock accountLock;

private BigDecimal balance;

private String accountNumber;

private String accountHolder;

public Account(String accountNumber, String accountHolder) {
this.balance = new BigDecimal(0);
this.accountNumber = accountNumber;
this.accountHolder = accountHolder;
this.accountLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
}

public double getBalance() {
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
double balance = this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
return balance;
}

public String getAccountNumber() {
return accountNumber;
}

public String getAccountHolder() {
return accountHolder;
}

public ReadWriteLock getAccountLock() {
return accountLock;
}

public void addAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}

public void withdrawAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.subtract(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}


I am looking for feedback for the implementation.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am trying to implement a bank account with Java in a thread safe way. My code looks like:



import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.RoundingMode;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;

/**
* Class to represent an account, it also provides with methods to add and withdraw amount from the account.
*
* @author Karan Khanna
* @version 1.0
* @since 3/17/2019
*/
public class Account {

private ReadWriteLock accountLock;

private BigDecimal balance;

private String accountNumber;

private String accountHolder;

public Account(String accountNumber, String accountHolder) {
this.balance = new BigDecimal(0);
this.accountNumber = accountNumber;
this.accountHolder = accountHolder;
this.accountLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
}

public double getBalance() {
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
double balance = this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
return balance;
}

public String getAccountNumber() {
return accountNumber;
}

public String getAccountHolder() {
return accountHolder;
}

public ReadWriteLock getAccountLock() {
return accountLock;
}

public void addAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}

public void withdrawAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
this.balance.subtract(new BigDecimal(amount));
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}


I am looking for feedback for the implementation.







java multithreading thread-safety






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Karan KhannaKaran Khanna

20217




20217












  • $begingroup$
    FWIW, you can always implement AutoCloseable in your lock and do try-with-resources on your operations - IMVHO, that would make both the intention more obvious, the code would be shorter, and the risk of omitting the unlock (either as a typo or after throwing in method) would be mitigated. I dunno why Java doesn't provide this functionality as default...
    $endgroup$
    – vaxquis
    yesterday




















  • $begingroup$
    FWIW, you can always implement AutoCloseable in your lock and do try-with-resources on your operations - IMVHO, that would make both the intention more obvious, the code would be shorter, and the risk of omitting the unlock (either as a typo or after throwing in method) would be mitigated. I dunno why Java doesn't provide this functionality as default...
    $endgroup$
    – vaxquis
    yesterday


















$begingroup$
FWIW, you can always implement AutoCloseable in your lock and do try-with-resources on your operations - IMVHO, that would make both the intention more obvious, the code would be shorter, and the risk of omitting the unlock (either as a typo or after throwing in method) would be mitigated. I dunno why Java doesn't provide this functionality as default...
$endgroup$
– vaxquis
yesterday






$begingroup$
FWIW, you can always implement AutoCloseable in your lock and do try-with-resources on your operations - IMVHO, that would make both the intention more obvious, the code would be shorter, and the risk of omitting the unlock (either as a typo or after throwing in method) would be mitigated. I dunno why Java doesn't provide this functionality as default...
$endgroup$
– vaxquis
yesterday












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.



Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.



Locking



Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):



public void addAmount(double amount) {
this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
try {
this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
} finally {
this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}


In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN or infinity, and that would throw a NumberFormatException, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.



The balance method has the most to gain:



public double getBalance() {
this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
try {
return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
} finally {
this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
}
}


You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.



Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...



private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;


Bugs



The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount)); .... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));.



The accountNumber and accountHolder should be final as well.



Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    double is not a good choice to use for currency in Java. The better option is BigDecimal (which you are using for the internal balance, but not for the parameters passed to the addAmount and withdrawAmount methods). A better approach would be to make those methods take a BigDecimal parameter instead (and to use BigDecimal everywhere in your code that deals with currency amounts).



    If for some reason those methods need to take a double parameter then you should not convert it to a BigDecimal with the new BigDecimal(double) constructor - this will give an inaccurate conversion and an unexpected (and incorrect) value for the balance after the add/withdraw operation. For example, the following test fails:



        @Test
    public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
    BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
    balance = balance.add(new BigDecimal(0.1));
    assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
    }


    with the error



    java.lang.AssertionError: 
    Expected: is <0.1>
    but: was <0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625>


    The correct way to convert from a double to a BigDecimal is to use BigDecimal.valueOf(double). For example, changing the middle line in the above test will make it pass:



        @Test
    public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
    BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
    balance = balance.add(BigDecimal.valueOf(0.1));
    assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
    }





    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      });
      });
      }, "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "196"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215616%2fsynchronized-implementation-of-a-bank-account-in-java%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      11












      $begingroup$

      In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.



      Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.



      Locking



      Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):



      public void addAmount(double amount) {
      this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
      try {
      this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
      } finally {
      this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
      }
      }


      In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN or infinity, and that would throw a NumberFormatException, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.



      The balance method has the most to gain:



      public double getBalance() {
      this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
      try {
      return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
      } finally {
      this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
      }
      }


      You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.



      Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...



      private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;


      Bugs



      The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount)); .... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));.



      The accountNumber and accountHolder should be final as well.



      Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        11












        $begingroup$

        In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.



        Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.



        Locking



        Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):



        public void addAmount(double amount) {
        this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
        try {
        this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
        } finally {
        this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
        }
        }


        In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN or infinity, and that would throw a NumberFormatException, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.



        The balance method has the most to gain:



        public double getBalance() {
        this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
        try {
        return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
        } finally {
        this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
        }
        }


        You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.



        Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...



        private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;


        Bugs



        The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount)); .... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));.



        The accountNumber and accountHolder should be final as well.



        Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          11












          11








          11





          $begingroup$

          In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.



          Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.



          Locking



          Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):



          public void addAmount(double amount) {
          this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
          try {
          this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
          } finally {
          this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
          }
          }


          In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN or infinity, and that would throw a NumberFormatException, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.



          The balance method has the most to gain:



          public double getBalance() {
          this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
          try {
          return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
          } finally {
          this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
          }
          }


          You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.



          Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...



          private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;


          Bugs



          The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount)); .... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));.



          The accountNumber and accountHolder should be final as well.



          Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          In terms of the basic thread locking, it looks like it is doing the right thing, but there are a number of issues in how you are calculating the account balance, and also some escaped locking as well.



          Note, your post is titled "Synchronized implementation", but it is not, it is a locked implementation. Synchronization is different, and, in this case, it may be a simpler mechanism.



          Locking



          Even if you don't catch exceptions, you should always use the try/finally mechanism for locking. Here, for example, it's possible that the addition may throw an exception (even though you don't catch it):



          public void addAmount(double amount) {
          this.accountLock.writeLock().lock();
          try {
          this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));
          } finally {
          this.accountLock.writeLock().unlock();
          }
          }


          In case you think that's extreme, well, the amount could be NaN or infinity, and that would throw a NumberFormatException, etc. Even if it were impossible for the logic to throw an error, you should still use the try/finally mechanism because it makes the logic obvious.



          The balance method has the most to gain:



          public double getBalance() {
          this.accountLock.readLock().lock();
          try {
          return this.balance.setScale(2, RoundingMode.HALF_DOWN).doubleValue();
          } finally {
          this.accountLock.readLock().unlock();
          }
          }


          You are also leaking the lock through the public method to get it. You really should not allow other people to manipulate the lock strategy you have in your class. It is intended to be internal for a reason.



          Speaking of that lock, you should also make it final...



          private final ReadWriteLock accountLock;


          Bugs



          The most glaring issue is not with your locking, but with the balance management itself. BigDecimals are immutable. They cannot be changed. This does nothing: this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount)); .... that should be this.balance = this.balance.add(new BigDecimal(amount));.



          The accountNumber and accountHolder should be final as well.



          Finally, the getBalance method will not always return a 2-decimal double value. Not all values in binary floating-point are representable in decimal.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 2 days ago

























          answered 2 days ago









          rolflrolfl

          91.2k13193397




          91.2k13193397

























              3












              $begingroup$

              double is not a good choice to use for currency in Java. The better option is BigDecimal (which you are using for the internal balance, but not for the parameters passed to the addAmount and withdrawAmount methods). A better approach would be to make those methods take a BigDecimal parameter instead (and to use BigDecimal everywhere in your code that deals with currency amounts).



              If for some reason those methods need to take a double parameter then you should not convert it to a BigDecimal with the new BigDecimal(double) constructor - this will give an inaccurate conversion and an unexpected (and incorrect) value for the balance after the add/withdraw operation. For example, the following test fails:



                  @Test
              public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
              BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
              balance = balance.add(new BigDecimal(0.1));
              assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
              }


              with the error



              java.lang.AssertionError: 
              Expected: is <0.1>
              but: was <0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625>


              The correct way to convert from a double to a BigDecimal is to use BigDecimal.valueOf(double). For example, changing the middle line in the above test will make it pass:



                  @Test
              public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
              BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
              balance = balance.add(BigDecimal.valueOf(0.1));
              assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
              }





              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              $endgroup$


















                3












                $begingroup$

                double is not a good choice to use for currency in Java. The better option is BigDecimal (which you are using for the internal balance, but not for the parameters passed to the addAmount and withdrawAmount methods). A better approach would be to make those methods take a BigDecimal parameter instead (and to use BigDecimal everywhere in your code that deals with currency amounts).



                If for some reason those methods need to take a double parameter then you should not convert it to a BigDecimal with the new BigDecimal(double) constructor - this will give an inaccurate conversion and an unexpected (and incorrect) value for the balance after the add/withdraw operation. For example, the following test fails:



                    @Test
                public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
                BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
                balance = balance.add(new BigDecimal(0.1));
                assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
                }


                with the error



                java.lang.AssertionError: 
                Expected: is <0.1>
                but: was <0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625>


                The correct way to convert from a double to a BigDecimal is to use BigDecimal.valueOf(double). For example, changing the middle line in the above test will make it pass:



                    @Test
                public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
                BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
                balance = balance.add(BigDecimal.valueOf(0.1));
                assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
                }





                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                $endgroup$
















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  double is not a good choice to use for currency in Java. The better option is BigDecimal (which you are using for the internal balance, but not for the parameters passed to the addAmount and withdrawAmount methods). A better approach would be to make those methods take a BigDecimal parameter instead (and to use BigDecimal everywhere in your code that deals with currency amounts).



                  If for some reason those methods need to take a double parameter then you should not convert it to a BigDecimal with the new BigDecimal(double) constructor - this will give an inaccurate conversion and an unexpected (and incorrect) value for the balance after the add/withdraw operation. For example, the following test fails:



                      @Test
                  public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
                  BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
                  balance = balance.add(new BigDecimal(0.1));
                  assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
                  }


                  with the error



                  java.lang.AssertionError: 
                  Expected: is <0.1>
                  but: was <0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625>


                  The correct way to convert from a double to a BigDecimal is to use BigDecimal.valueOf(double). For example, changing the middle line in the above test will make it pass:



                      @Test
                  public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
                  BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
                  balance = balance.add(BigDecimal.valueOf(0.1));
                  assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
                  }





                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$



                  double is not a good choice to use for currency in Java. The better option is BigDecimal (which you are using for the internal balance, but not for the parameters passed to the addAmount and withdrawAmount methods). A better approach would be to make those methods take a BigDecimal parameter instead (and to use BigDecimal everywhere in your code that deals with currency amounts).



                  If for some reason those methods need to take a double parameter then you should not convert it to a BigDecimal with the new BigDecimal(double) constructor - this will give an inaccurate conversion and an unexpected (and incorrect) value for the balance after the add/withdraw operation. For example, the following test fails:



                      @Test
                  public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
                  BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
                  balance = balance.add(new BigDecimal(0.1));
                  assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
                  }


                  with the error



                  java.lang.AssertionError: 
                  Expected: is <0.1>
                  but: was <0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625>


                  The correct way to convert from a double to a BigDecimal is to use BigDecimal.valueOf(double). For example, changing the middle line in the above test will make it pass:



                      @Test
                  public void demonstrateBigDecimalRoundingErrorsFromDouble() {
                  BigDecimal balance = BigDecimal.ZERO;
                  balance = balance.add(BigDecimal.valueOf(0.1));
                  assertThat(balance, is(new BigDecimal("0.1")));
                  }






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered yesterday









                  Player OnePlayer One

                  1312




                  1312




                  New contributor




                  Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Player One is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215616%2fsynchronized-implementation-of-a-bank-account-in-java%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      Puebla de Zaragoza

                      Musa