On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 14:00:53 GMT, Weijun Wang <wei...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> `Asserts.assertNotEquals` shows "expected 12345 to not equal 12345" which
>> sounds redundant, just say "expected not equals but was 12345".
>>
>> `Asserts.assertEqualsByteArray` uses the words "expected... to equal...".
>> Modify it to follow the `assertEquals` style ""expected... but was...".
>
> Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> be precise in method spec
test/lib/jdk/test/lib/Asserts.java line 448:
> 446: if ((unexpected == actual) || (unexpected != null &&
> unexpected.equals(actual))) {
> 447: msg = Objects.toString(msg, "assertNotEquals")
> 448: + ": expected not equals but was " +
> Objects.toString(actual);
Given that the comparison is based on Object.equals(...), there may be (rare)
cases where `a.equals(b)` returns true but `a.toString()` produces different
output from `b.toString()`? To address all cases, does it make sense to compare
the result of both toString() and print both in case that they are different?
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21101#discussion_r1891096484
