Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make allFieldsShouldBeUsed the default #65

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 29, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Make allFieldsShouldBeUsed the default #65

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 29, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

What feature do you request?
Corresponding to groups article: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=&hl=de#!topic/equalsverifier/MxuGgfg
hyE4

The method "allFieldsShouldBeUsed" should be the default for EqualsVerifier. In 
cases where you do not want to use all fields, suppress warnings should be your 
friend.

What problem will this feature solve?
Provide a better usability and prevents from failures when not using 
"allFieldsShouldBeUsed" by accident.

Please provide any additional information below.


Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 12 Sep 2012 at 6:46

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

I want to do this in the next major release (version 2.0) because it breaks 
backward compatibility. I have no schedule for this version yet.

Original comment by [email protected] on 13 Sep 2012 at 8:53

  • Changed state: Accepted
  • Added labels: Milestone-Next-Major
  • Removed labels: ****

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

This would be great to have. I've seen that a very common mistake is to modify 
a class to add a property and the developer forgets to add it to the 
equals/hashCode method.

Original comment by [email protected] on 14 Oct 2013 at 8:21

  • Added labels: ****
  • Removed labels: ****

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

I agree, it would be good for this to be the default. Unfortunately, I can't 
just do this, because it would break everybody's existing tests. That's why I 
want to wait until 2.0. I have some other neat features planned for this 
version as well; I hope to be able to start working on it soon.

Original comment by [email protected] on 18 Oct 2013 at 2:14

  • Added labels: ****
  • Removed labels: ****

@jqno
Copy link
Owner

jqno commented Mar 6, 2016

This has been included in version 2.0!

@jqno jqno closed this as completed Mar 6, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants