Fix similar compare numbers #575
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
johnjaylward
force-pushed
the
fix-similar-compare-numbers
branch
from
f1f4a4e
to
fe0be1d
Compare
|
Actually, let me make one more change. The BigDecimal compare should probably only be used if the types are different and doesn't implement compare |
johnjaylward
force-pushed
the
fix-similar-compare-numbers
branch
from
fe0be1d
to
dec2b8b
Compare
johnjaylward
force-pushed
the
fix-similar-compare-numbers
branch
from
dec2b8b
to
11e6b1a
Compare
|
Starting 3-day comment window. |
This was referenced Mar 10, 2021
Closed
This was referenced Mar 13, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What problem does this code solve?
Fixes #573. Similar currently requires exact types match for numeric comparisons, but in JSON there are just "numbers", not specific
int,long,float, etc.Risks
Low
Changes to the API?
No.
Will this require a new release?
Yes.
Should the documentation be updated?
No.
Does it break the unit tests?
No, we did not have a unit test for this case. A new unit test was added to demonstrate the issue.
Was any code refactored in this commit?
New methods were added to accommodate the new check. They currently are
privateor havedefaultvisibility. Some areas of unrelated code were modified to take advantage of the new methods where applicableReview status
APPROVED