Fix invalid comparators #3251
Merged
Fix invalid comparators #3251
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
|
@stejbac Could you please resolve the conflict because of the recently merged release branch. |
Don't return 0 in the case of a null 'this.id' field, as that violates the Comparable contract and leads to inconsistent NPE throwing when the arguments are swapped. Instead, just assume (reasonably) that the ID field will never be null.
Remove the flawed pattern of returning 0 in a comparator when the sub- field of one of the two inputs being compared is null or absent. This violates the Comparator contract, since returning 0 or otherwise should define an equivalence relation. Use Comparator.nullsFirst(..) in the table column comparators instead, to ensure consistent ordering when a cell is missing a value. This fixes ill-defined and erratic behaviour in the underlying merge/insertion sort of the table rows done by the FX library.
stejbac
force-pushed
the
fix-invalid-comparators
branch
from
2809270 to
a392081
Compare
|
I've just rebased the two commits to resolve the conflict, which appears to be simply due to a file rename: TraderDisputeView -> DisputeView. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Many of the table column comparators (as well as PaymentMethod.compareTo) are invalid, since they immediately return 0 upon encountering a null/missing field. This violates the Comparator/Comparable contract, which expects a total order on the objects and, in particular, an equivalence relation given by the result of "compare(x, y) == 0".
This PR attemps to fix all the invalid Comparator / Comparable instances (which are almost all table column comparators), by ordering objects with a null/missing (sub)field ahead of the populated ones. In most cases this will probably have no effect, as nulls won't be encountered for that column in practice. However, the current flawed comparators are at least breaking row sorting in the Portfolio/History table, as seen in the following two screenshots:
The ascending/descending sorting of the "Amount in BTC" field does not make sense, due to a broken comparator passed to the underlying FX library insertion sort. After the fix, the rows appear as follows:
The missing cells are deemed smaller than all the others in the column, which is consistent with TableColumnBase.DEFAULT_COMPARATOR from the openjfx library.