Relation between two values in the constructor

[mazurkin]

Simple test of the simple record

    record MyRecord(int total, int used) {

        MyRecord(int total, int used) {
            Preconditions.checkArgument(total >= 0);
            this.total = total;

            Preconditions.checkArgument(used >= 0);
            Preconditions.checkArgument(used <= total);
            this.used = used;
        }
    }

    @Test
    public void testMyRecord() {
        EqualsVerifier
            .forClass(MyRecord.class)
            .verify();
    }

java.lang.AssertionError: EqualsVerifier found a problem in class Test$MyRecord.
-> Record: failed to run constructor for record type Test$MyRecord
  These were the values passed to the constructor: [0, 1]
  If the record does not accept 0 or false as a value for its constructor parameters, consider suppressing Warning.ZERO_FIELDS.
  If the record does not accept any of the given values for its constructor parameters, consider providing prefab values for the types of those fields.

For more information, go to: https://www.jqno.nl/equalsverifier/errormessages
(EqualsVerifier 3.12.3, JDK 17.0.5 on Linux)

Supression suppress(Warning.ZERO_FIELDS) doesn't help as it fails with:

These were the values passed to the constructor: [1, 2]

Probably worth to create withPrefabValues() which takes a name of the constructor's field.

[mazurkin]

also more complicated bean:

  record MyRecord(int total, Collection<String> samples) {

        MyRecord(int total, int used) {
            Preconditions.checkArgument(total >= 0);
            this.total = total;

            Preconditions.checkNonNull(samples)
            Preconditions.checkArgument(samples.size() <= total);
            this.samples = samples;
        }
    }

[jqno]

Thanks for reporting this, this is indeed a problem that I don't have a solution for at the moment...

Your suggestion for adding a withPrefabValues overload which also takes the names of the fields is interesting, but I'm not sure if it's the best solution...I'll have to think about this a little.