Detect inherited extra fields under recursive comparison strict type checking - #4369
Open
tanvir-ux wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Detect inherited extra fields under recursive comparison strict type checking#4369tanvir-ux wants to merge 1 commit into
tanvir-ux wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Sorry, something went wrong.
Main already treats different types as unequal under withStrictTypeChecking; add regression tests for the superclass-vs-subtype case from assertj#4263 and align the javadoc with that behavior.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
|
Thanks for the PR, @tanvir-ux! FYI, it might take some time before we get to it, as we'll first finalize the scope of 3.28.0 and 4.0.0-M2. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
✅ All tests passed ✅🏷️ Commit: e1c6080 Learn more about TestLens at testlens.app/docs. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
withStrictTypeChecking() used to treat a subtype expected value as compatible with a supertype actual value, so extra fields on the subtype were skipped. Main already fails the comparison when types differ (typesDiffer); this PR covers that case and updates the javadoc, which still described the old subtype-compatible behavior.
isEqualTo now fails (and isNotEqualTo passes) for Person vs Giant in both directions, including a nested field, with both introspection strategies.
Fixes #4263
Check List: