Suggest to use Double.compare or Float.compare when ObjectEqualsForPrimitives is triggered on floating point primitives #4392
Closed
Description
for a class like
public class DoubleLiteral
{
private final double value;
public DoubleLiteral(double value) { this.value = value; }
@Override
public boolean equals(Object o)
{
if (this == o) {
return true;
}
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) {
return false;
}
DoubleLiteral that = (DoubleLiteral) o;
return Objects.equals(value, that.value);
}
@Override
public int hashCode()
{
return Objects.hash(value);
}
}ObjectEqualsForPrimitives' current suggestion is:
DoubleLiteral.java:[37,30] [ObjectEqualsForPrimitives] Avoid unnecessary boxing by using plain == for primitive types.
[ERROR] (see https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/ObjectEqualsForPrimitives)
[ERROR] Did you mean 'return (value == that.value);'?
That changes semantics -- different result when both compared values are NaN. Object Equals should be value based and generally should compare NaNs as equal.
It's probably worth noting that equals generated for Java record classes also compares NaN values as equal (as if Objects.equals was used).
Therefore ObjectEqualsForPrimitives should not suggest ==, but it should suggest Double.compare(...) == 0 instead.
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels