ReferenceEquality
Comparison using reference equality instead of value equality

Category
JDK
Severity
WARNING
Maturity

The problem

Reference types that declare an equals() method, or that inherit equals() from a type other than Object, should not be compared for reference equality with == or !=. Instead, always compare for value equality with .equals().

FAQs

How about comparing interned objects?

It’s dangerous to rely on your instances being interned. We have no tooling to check or enforce that, and it’s easy to get wrong.

But what about Boolean values? We know there’s just TRUE and FALSE (and null). Surely they’re okay!

Well, no, because some tricky client can always generate a new instance with new Boolean(true). Comparing with equals always works; comparing with == doesn’t.

But enum values are always unique, so can’t I compare them with ==?

Yes, but that might confuse the reader, who must understand that your type has special properties because it’s an enum. Using equals everywhere can work the same everywhere; special-casing for enums isn’t worth it.

How about a reference equality comparison before a more expensive content equality comparison?

We do exempt methods that override Object#equals() from this check. In other cases, calling Type#equals() should be just as fast, because that method will likely be inlined, and the first thing it will likely do is that same instance comparison.

Alternatively, if you’re okay with accepting null, you could call java.util.Objects.equals(), which first does a reference equality comparison and then falls back to content equality for non-null arguments.

How about asserting in a test that two different references point to the same object (or not)?

Both Truth and JUnit provide clearer ways to assert this.

Truth:

assertThat(a).isSameAs(b);
assertThat(a).isNotSameAs(b);

JUnit:

assertSame(b, a);
assertNotSame(b, a);

How about comparing against a special marker instance?

Classes override equals to express when two instances should be treated as interchangeable with each other. Predominant Java libraries and practices are built on that assumption. Defining a “magic instance” for such a type goes against this whole practice, leaving you vulnerable to unexpected bugs.

Consider choosing a sentinel value within the domain of the type (the moral equivalent of -1 for indexOf function calls) that you could compare against using the normal equals method.

So how can I put a special “nothing” value in my map?

Use Optional<V> as the value type of your map instead.

Suppression

Suppress false positives by adding an @SuppressWarnings("ReferenceEquality") annotation to the enclosing element.