Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
I have the following simple Java code,
import lombok.EqualsAndHashCode;
#EqualsAndHashCode
public class Test{
}
When I look at the delomboked code generated I see the following:
public class Test {
public Test() {
}
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (o == this) {
return true;
} else if (!(o instanceof Test)) {
return false;
} else {
Test other = (Test)o;
return other.canEqual(this);
}
}
protected boolean canEqual(Object other) {
return other instanceof Test;
}
public int hashCode() {
int result = true;
return 1;
}
}
I don't understand the implementation of the hashCode(). How is this a good hashing method? And why is there no compile problem with int result = true;?
I suspect this is related to hashCode() being native, but I don't understand why I see this implementation.
UPDATE: My main question is in regards to the lack of compile error. If I add two fields for example I would have:
import lombok.EqualsAndHashCode;
#EqualsAndHashCode
public class Test{
private String name;
public int age;
}
and
...
public int hashCode() {
int PRIME = true;
int result = 1;
int result = result * 59 + this.age;
Object $name = this.name;
result = result * 59 + ($name == null ? 43 : $name.hashCode());
return result;
}
...
That you see the hashCode() method like this is probably an artifact of the tool you use to analyze the generated bytecode.
Internally the boolean values true and false are represented by the values 1 and 0 respectively. Some bytecode decompilers blindly translate 0 into false and 1 into true - this is what seems to be happening in your case.
The hashCode() method should read as
public int hashCode() {
int result = 1;
return 1;
}
Now to the question:
Is this a valid hashCode implementation?
Sure it is. The contracts for equals() and hashCode() state that for any two objects o1 and o2 when o1.equals(o2) is true then it must also be that o1.hashCode() == o2.hashCode().
Lomboks #EqualsAndHashCode annotation generates code so that two objects having the same field values are deemed equal (and therefore must have the same hashCode).
Since your class doesn't have any fields, all instances are considered equal and therefore must have the same hashCode. The actual value of the hashCode doesn't matter, as long as it is the same value for all instances.
Is the code that you see an error in the decompiler?
Yes, it clearly is (because the decompiler generates invalid source code).
Lombok itself contains an integrated "delombok" feature (https://projectlombok.org/features/delombok) and that feature creates for your first Test class the following source code (using Lombok 1.18.22):
public class Test {
#Override
public boolean equals(final Object o) {
if (o == this) return true;
if (!(o instanceof Test)) return false;
final Test other = (Test) o;
if (!other.canEqual((Object) this)) return false;
return true;
}
protected boolean canEqual(final Object other) {
return other instanceof Test;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int result = 1;
return result;
}
}
I think it's because your Test class doesn't have any field. So all instances of the class would be considered "equal" when using #EqualsAndHashCode. So the delomboked implementation reflects that.
Related
This question already has an answer here:
When do you need to override hashcode() and equals() when using a hashmap [duplicate]
(1 answer)
Closed 9 months ago.
Below code returns false. Trying to make Equation object act as a key in a custom HashMap. Pretty sure method overrides are implemented correctly, hashCode is the exact same between the two equation instances. What is exactly wrong?
class Solution {
public boolean maxPoints(int[][] points) {
Map<Equation, Integer> map = new HashMap<>();
Equation eq1 = new Equation(1, 2);
Equation eq2 = new Equation(1, 2);
map.put(eq1, 1);
if (map.containsKey(eq1)) return true;
return false;
}
class Equation {
private int slope;
private int yIntercept;
public Equation(int slope, int yIntercept) {
this.slope = slope;
this.yIntercept = yIntercept;
}
public boolean equals(Equation other) {
if (other == this) return true;
return (this.slope == other.slope && this.yIntercept == other.yIntercept);
}
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(this.slope, this.yIntercept);
}
}
}
If you want to overwrite a method annotade it with #Override.
The compiler would give you an error for your equals because you do not overwrite but overload the method
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other) {
...
}
equals needs to be public boolean equals(Object other) to match the signature in Object.
Your equals method doesn't override the one that the code in HashMap is calling.
Usually an equals method looks like this:
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other) {
if (other == this) {
return true;
}
if (!(other instanceof Equation)) {
return false;
}
// instanceof above also covers null
Equation otherEquation = (Equation) other;
return otherEquation.slope == this.slope
&& otherEquation.yIntercept == this.yIntercept;
}
...or use Project Lombok's #EqualsAndHashCode annotation.
I have a program which first generates a Hashmap with all allowed instances of a particular object, called BoardState, as the keys. I then iterate over the keyset, creating copies of the BoardState objects and performing transformations on them and then looking up the transformed objects in my statemap and updating their associated values. The problem is that when I use the contains() method on this keyset (either directly or by first creating a HashSet of the keys) it will sometimes return false for my new object even though the object does exist in the map.
I know that the obvious answer here is that there's something wrong with my implementation of either equals() or hashcode() in BoardState or one of its fields, and I would be inclined to agree. In fact I have been able to narrow the problem down somewhat. BoardState includes as an instance variable a HashSet of Box objects, which I also implemented, and setting the hashcode() method of Box to return a constant resolves the issue (though this obviously is not an acceptable solution).
The thing is, that when I am getting the error I can still iterate through my keyset and find the object by comparing using equals(). If I then output the hashcode for this object and the object I am checking against I get the same result for each, so I'm at a loss as to why it is that contains() is throwing an error.
I apologise if the below code is a bit meaty, I've tried to strip out what I can and only show what's relevant to the error.
public class BoardState {
private static int size;
private static int totalTokens;
private static HashMap<Colour, Integer> colours;
private static HashSet<Token> fullTokenSet;
private int inactiveBoxes;
private HashSet<Box> boxes;
private HashSet<Token> offBoardTokens;
public BoardState(...){...}
public boolean checkRemoveBox(final Box box,
final HashMap<BoardState, Boolean> stateMap) {
BoardState checkState = copy();
checkState.remove(box, box.getBoxColours());
if (!stateMap.keySet().contains(checkState)) {
for (BoardState state : stateMap.keySet()) {
if (state.equals(checkState)){
System.out.println("state hashcode: " + Objects.hash(state));
System.out.println("checkstate hashcode: " +
Objects.hash(checkState));
}
}
throw new IllegalStateException ("State not found.");
} else {
if (!stateMap.get(checkState)) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
BoardState state = (BoardState) o;
return size == state.size &&
inactiveBoxes == state.inactiveBoxes &&
totalTokens == state.totalTokens &&
boxes.equals(state.boxes) &&
fullTokenSet.equals(state.fullTokenSet) &&
offBoardTokens.equals(state.offBoardTokens) &&
colours.equals(state.colours);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(inactiveBoxes, boxes, offBoardTokens);
}
}
public class Box {
private static int totalTokens;
private HashSet<Token> tokens;
Box(...) {...}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
Box box = (Box) o;
return totalTokens == box.totalTokens &&
Objects.equals(tokens, box.tokens);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return tokens.hashCode();
}
}
The given code gives the following output:
state hashcode: 157760
checkstate hashcode: 157760
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: State not found.
at game.BoardState.checkSplitBox(BoardState.java:306)
at game.BoardState.checkSplit(BoardState.java:284)
at game.Game.checkForP1Win(Game.java:173)
at game.Main.main(Main.java:11)
Process finished with exit code 1
This question already has answers here:
Java 1.7 Override of hashCode() not behaving as I would expect
(2 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I seem to be getting duplicate keys in the standard Java HashMap. By "duplicate", I mean the keys are equal by their equals() method. Here is the problematic code:
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.HashMap;
public class User {
private String userId;
public User(String userId) {
this.userId = userId;
}
public boolean equals(User other) {
return userId.equals(other.getUserId());
}
public int hashCode() {
return userId.hashCode();
}
public String toString() {
return userId;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
User arvo1 = new User("Arvo-Part");
User arvo2 = new User("Arvo-Part");
Map<User,Integer> map = new HashMap<User,Integer>();
map.put(arvo1,1);
map.put(arvo2,2);
System.out.println("arvo1.equals(arvo2): " + arvo1.equals(arvo2));
System.out.println("map: " + map.toString());
System.out.println("arvo1 hash: " + arvo1.hashCode());
System.out.println("arvo2 hash: " + arvo2.hashCode());
System.out.println("map.get(arvo1): " + map.get(arvo1));
System.out.println("map.get(arvo2): " + map.get(arvo2));
System.out.println("map.get(arvo2): " + map.get(arvo2));
System.out.println("map.get(arvo1): " + map.get(arvo1));
}
}
And here is the resulting output:
arvo1.equals(arvo2): true
map: {Arvo-Part=1, Arvo-Part=2}
arvo1 hash: 164585782
arvo2 hash: 164585782
map.get(arvo1): 1
map.get(arvo2): 2
map.get(arvo2): 2
map.get(arvo1): 1
As you can see, the equals() method on the two User objects is returning true and their hash codes are the same, yet they each form a distinct key in map. Furthermore, map continues to distinguish between the two User keys in the last four get() calls.
This directly contradicts the documentation:
More formally, if this map contains a mapping from a key k to a value v such that (key==null ? k==null : key.equals(k)), then this method returns v; otherwise it returns null. (There can be at most one such mapping.)
Is this a bug? Am I missing something here? I'm running Java version 1.8.0_92, which I installed via Homebrew.
EDIT: This question has been marked as a duplicate of this other question, but I'll leave this question as is because it identifies a seeming inconsistency with equals(), whereas the other question assumes the error lies with hashCode(). Hopefully the presence of this question will make this issue more easily searchable.
The issue lies in your equals() method. The signature of Object.equals() is equals(OBJECT), but in your case it is equals(USER), so these are two completely different methods and the hashmap is calling the one with Object parameter. You can verify that by putting an #Override annotation over your equals - it will generate a compiler error.
The equals method should be:
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other) {
if(other instanceof User){
User user = (User) other;
return userId.equals(user.userId);
}
return false;
}
As a best practice you should always put #Override on the methods you override - it can save you a lot of trouble.
Your equals method does not override equals, and the types in the Map are erased at runtime, so the actual equals method called is equals(Object). Your equals should look more like this:
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other) {
if (!(other instanceof User))
return false;
User u = (User)other;
return userId.equals(u.userId);
}
OK, so first of all, the code doesn't compile. Missing this method:
other.getUserId()
But aside from that, you'll need to #Override equals method, IDE like Eclipse can also help generating equals and hashCode btw.
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj)
{
if(this == obj)
return true;
if(obj == null)
return false;
if(getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
User other = (User) obj;
if(userId == null)
{
if(other.userId != null)
return false;
}
else if(!userId.equals(other.userId))
return false;
return true;
}
Like others answered you had a problem with the equals method signature. According to Java equals best practice you should implement equals like the following :
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
User user = (User) o;
return userId.equals(user.userId);
}
Same thing applies for the hashCode() method. see Overriding equals() and hashCode() method in Java
The Second Problem
you don't have duplicates anymore now, but you have a new problem, your HashMap contains only one element:
map: {Arvo-Part=2}
This is because both User objects are referencing the same String(JVM String Interning), and from the HashMap perspective your two objects are the same, since both objects are equivalent in hashcode and equals methods. so when you add your second object to the HashMap you override your first one.
to avoid this problem, make sure you use a unique ID for each User
A simple demonstration on your users :
This question already has answers here:
Why do I need to override the equals and hashCode methods in Java?
(31 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have a hashmap which key is an object of my inner class "Key".
My problem is that when I use get(key) it never gives anything back. Since get works with equals I have overwritten equals in my Key class, so it should work for the get method, but apparently it does not.
Any suggestions?
CODE:
public class Infrastruktur
{
private Zuechter online;
private HashMap<Key,Zuechter> zuechter;
Infrastruktur()
{
zuechter = new HashMap<Key,Zuechter>();
}
}
public void login(String name, String passwort)
{
Key hashMapKey = new Key(name, passwort);
if(this.zuechter.get(hashMapKey) != null)
this.online = this.zuechter.get(hashMapKey);
}
public void register(String name, String passwort)
{
if(name != null && passwort != null)
{
this.zuechter.put(new Key(name,passwort),new Zuechter());
login(name, passwort);
}
}
public void logOut()
{
this.online = null;
}
public Zuechter getOnline() {
return this.online;
}
private class Key
{
String name;
String passwort;
Key(String name, String passwort)
{
this.name = name;
this.passwort = passwort;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o)
{
if (o == null) return false;
if (o == this) return true;
if (!(o instanceof Key)) return false;
Key key = (Key)o;
if(this.name.equals(key.name) && this.passwort.equals(key.passwort)) return true;
return false;
}
}
/* Testing */
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Infrastruktur inf = new Infrastruktur();
inf.register("Jakob", "passwort");
inf.logOut();
inf.login("Jakob", "passwort");
System.out.println(inf.getOnline().test());
}
}
If I run the class this is the output I get:
not found
not found
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
at Infrastruktur.main(Infrastruktur.java:105)
You should also implement hashCode() for your Key class. An example implementation could be:
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + name.hashCode();
result = prime * result + passwort.hashCode();
return result;
}
Use Eclipse to generate the hashCode method of your class. In any Map scenario, Java hashes the key value to allow 0(1) read access.
It simply hashes to jump to a reference if found. All Java IDEs have a Generate hashCode and equals option. A simple example, with null checks omitted.
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int hash = 3;
hash = 7 * hash + this.name.hashCode();
hash = 7 * hash + this.passwort.hashCode();
return hash;
}
You must override hashCode() in every class that overrides equals(). Failure to do so will result in a violation of the general contract for Object.hashCode(), which will prevent your class from functioning properly in conjunction with all hash-based collections, including HashMap, HashSet, and Hashtable.
from Effective Java, by Joshua Bloch
tl;dr either generate hashCode() manually,
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int hash = 31;
hash = 29 * hash + Objects.hashCode(name);
hash = 29 * hash + Objects.hashCode(passwort);
return hash;
}
use IDE hashCode generation, or just use generic (albeit slower)
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash( name, passwort );
}
... you can even write a generic hashCode() for any class using reflection (very slow, but good as placeholder)
btw, omitting null checks in hashCode() for mutable or immutable objects with null as a valid field value is one of the easiest ways to introduce bugs into code - that's exactly why either explicit check or Objects.hashCode() is needed.
So I've been struggling with a problem for a while now, figured I might as well ask for help here.
I'm adding Ticket objects to a TreeSet, Ticket implements Comparable and has overridden equals(), hashCode() and CompareTo() methods. I need to check if an object is already in the TreeSet using contains(). Now after adding 2 elements to the set it all checks out fine, yet after adding a third it gets messed up.
running this little piece of code after adding a third element to the TreeSet, Ticket temp2 is the object I'm checking for(verkoopLijst).
Ticket temp2 = new Ticket(boeking, TicketType.STANDAARD, 1,1);
System.out.println(verkoop.getVerkoopLijst().first().hashCode());
System.out.println(temp2.hashCode());
System.out.println(verkoop.getVerkoopLijst().first().equals(temp2));
System.out.println(verkoop.getVerkoopLijst().first().compareTo(temp2));
System.out.println(verkoop.getVerkoopLijst().contains(temp2));
returns this:
22106622
22106622
true
0
false
Now my question would be how this is even possible?
Edit:
public class Ticket implements Comparable{
private int rijNr, stoelNr;
private TicketType ticketType;
private Boeking boeking;
public Ticket(Boeking boeking, TicketType ticketType, int rijNr, int stoelNr){
//setters
}
#Override
public int hashCode(){
return boeking.getBoekingDatum().hashCode();
}
#Override
#SuppressWarnings("EqualsWhichDoesntCheckParameterClass")
public boolean equals(Object o){
Ticket t = (Ticket) o;
if(this.boeking.equals(t.getBoeking())
&&
this.rijNr == t.getRijNr() && this.stoelNr == t.getStoelNr()
&&
this.ticketType.equals(t.getTicketType()))
{
return true;
}
else return false;
}
/*I adjusted compareTo this way because I need to make sure there are no duplicate Tickets in my treeset. Treeset seems to call CompareTo() to check for equality before adding an object to the set, instead of equals().
*/
#Override
public int compareTo(Object o) {
int output = 0;
if (boeking.compareTo(((Ticket) o).getBoeking())==0)
{
if(this.equals(o))
{
return output;
}
else return 1;
}
else output = boeking.compareTo(((Ticket) o).getBoeking());
return output;
}
//Getters & Setters
On compareTo contract
The problem is in your compareTo. Here's an excerpt from the documentation:
Implementor must ensure sgn(x.compareTo(y)) == -sgn(y.compareTo(x)) for all x and y.
Your original code is reproduced here for reference:
// original compareTo implementation with bug marked
#Override
public int compareTo(Object o) {
int output = 0;
if (boeking.compareTo(((Ticket) o).getBoeking())==0)
{
if(this.equals(o))
{
return output;
}
else return 1; // BUG!!!! See explanation below!
}
else output = boeking.compareTo(((Ticket) o).getBoeking());
return output;
}
Why is the return 1; a bug? Consider the following scenario:
Given Ticket t1, t2
Given t1.boeking.compareTo(t2.boeking) == 0
Given t1.equals(t2) return false
Now we have both of the following:
t1.compareTo(t2) returns 1
t2.compareTo(t1) returns 1
That last consequence is a violation of the compareTo contract.
Fixing the problem
First and foremost, you should have taken advantage of the fact that Comparable<T> is a parameterizable generic type. That is, instead of:
// original declaration; uses raw type!
public class Ticket implements Comparable
it'd be much more appropriate to instead declare something like this:
// improved declaration! uses parameterized Comparable<T>
public class Ticket implements Comparable<Ticket>
Now we can write our compareTo(Ticket) (no longer compareTo(Object)). There are many ways to rewrite this, but here's a rather simplistic one that works:
#Override public int compareTo(Ticket t) {
int v;
v = this.boeking.compareTo(t.boeking);
if (v != 0) return v;
v = compareInt(this.rijNr, t.rijNr);
if (v != 0) return v;
v = compareInt(this.stoelNr, t.stoelNr);
if (v != 0) return v;
v = compareInt(this.ticketType, t.ticketType);
if (v != 0) return v;
return 0;
}
private static int compareInt(int i1, int i2) {
if (i1 < i2) {
return -1;
} else if (i1 > i2) {
return +1;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
Now we can also define equals(Object) in terms of compareTo(Ticket) instead of the other way around:
#Override public boolean equals(Object o) {
return (o instanceof Ticket) && (this.compareTo((Ticket) o) == 0);
}
Note the structure of the compareTo: it has multiple return statements, but in fact, the flow of logic is quite readable. Note also how the priority of the sorting criteria is explicit, and easily reorderable should you have different priorities in mind.
Related questions
What is a raw type and why shouldn't we use it?
How to sort an array or ArrayList ASC first by x and then by y?
Should a function have only one return statement?
This could happen if your compareTo method isn't consistent. I.e. if a.compareTo(b) > 0, then b.compareTo(a) must be < 0. And if a.compareTo(b) > 0 and b.compareTo(c) > 0, then a.compareTo(c) must be > 0. If those aren't true, TreeSet can get all confused.
Firstly, if you are using a TreeSet, the actual behavior of your hashCode methods won't affect the results. TreeSet does not rely on hashing.
Really we need to see more code; e.g. the actual implementations of the equals and compareTo methods, and the code that instantiates the TreeSet.
However, if I was to guess, it would be that you have overloaded the equals method by declaring it with the signature boolean equals(Ticket other). That would lead to the behavior that you are seeing. To get the required behavior, you must override the method; e.g.
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other) { ...
(It is a good idea to put in the #Override annotation to make it clear that the method overrides a method in the superclass, or implements a method in an interface. If your method isn't actually an override, then you'll get a compilation error ... which would be a good thing.)
EDIT
Based on the code that you have added to the question, the problem is not overload vs override. (As I said, I was only guessing ...)
It is most likely that the compareTo and equals are incorrect. It is still not entirely clear exactly where the bug is because the semantics of both methods depends on the compareTo and equals methods of the Boeking class.
The first if statement of the Ticket.compareTo looks highly suspicious. It looks like the return 1; could cause t1.compareTo(t2) and t2.compareTo(t1) to both return 1 for some tickets t1 and t2 ... and that would definitely be wrong.