usingRecursiveComparison with usingOverriddenEquals ignores equals method of the compared object

Summary

Version 3.22.0 I expect if I use usingRecursiveComparison with usingOverriddenEquals, field “age” should be ignored. But as result I get

java.lang.AssertionError: Expecting actual: com.ComparatorDevices$Person@63be0d6 to be equal to: com.ComparatorDevices$Person@63be0b6 when recursively comparing field by field, but found the following difference:

field/property ‘age’ differ:

• actual value : “22”
• expected value: “11”

The recursive comparison was performed with this configuration:

• overridden equals methods were used in the comparison
• these types were compared with the following comparators:
  • java.lang.Double -> DoubleComparator[precision=1.0E-15]
  • java.lang.Float -> FloatComparator[precision=1.0E-6]
  • java.nio.file.Path -> lexicographic comparator (Path natural order)
• actual and expected objects and their fields were compared field by field recursively even if they were not of the same type, this allows for example to compare a Person to a PersonDto (call strictTypeChecking(true) to change that behavior).

Example

class Person {
        String name;
        String age;

        public Person(String name, String age) {
            this.name = name;
            this.age = age;
        }

        @Override
        public boolean equals(Object o) {
            if (this == o) return true;
            if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
            Person person = (Person) o;
            return Objects.equals(name, person.name);
        }

        @Override
        public int hashCode() {
            return Objects.hash(name, age);
        }
    }

@Test()
    public void personTest() {
        Person expectedPerson = new Person("name", "11");
        Person actualPerson = new Person("name", "22");
        Assertions.assertThat(actualPerson)
                .usingRecursiveComparison()
                .usingOverriddenEquals()
                .isEqualTo(expectedPerson);
    }

    

[joel-costigliola]

Leave it open @uc4w6c, I’m looking at it and it might be that we don’t need isRootObject anymore (which you have removed in your PR). I’ll see if I can confirm that and if I do I’ll integrate your PR and you’ll get the credit for fixing this one 😃 (usually I get the PR code, play with it, refactor it if needed, squash all commits but keep the original PR author)

[uc4w6c]

@joel-costigliola Thank you 😃