Equality

[fabriciofx]

Let's implement Comparison like can see here. I'll handle it.

[yegor256]

@fabriciofx right, let's do it.

[yegor256]

@fabriciofx but let's call it Equality

[fabriciofx]

@yegor256 Ok!

[fabriciofx]

@yegor256 Could you review the PR? Thanks!

[svendiedrichsen]

How about using Bytes.NonNulls when assigning left/right in the Equality constructor? Thus you get some better exceptions. If so you should have some tests using NULL Bytes.

[fabriciofx]

@svendiedrichsen Well, I don't know if it's better. The idea is give to developer the choice of use NonNulls or not. If I put NonNull inside Equality, we remove the power of choice. @yegor256 WDYT?

[svendiedrichsen]

@fabriciofx, @yegor256: I'd say that the Equality object has to be in power to make this decision. But anyway the only difference that using NonNull brings is a better Exception using a proper message. So imho Equality should be in charge of deciding to throw better exceptions.

But in general can't i see the use of NonNull in the first place. Doesn't it violate the first principle as stated for this project? Or shouldn't all objects of this project use such a NonNull implementation? WDYT?

[fabriciofx]

@svendiedrichsen I don't think Equality should use a NonNull implementation. I think it must be simpler possible. @yegor256 WDYT? Should I continue with this issue? Should I close it?

[fabriciofx]

@yegor256 ping!

[yegor256]

@fabriciofx I don't see a link between NonNull and Equality. Anyway, it's necessary to see the code.

[llorllale]

@0crat in

[llorllale]

@0crat assign @fabriciofx

[0crat]

@0crat in (here)

@llorllale Job #308 is now in scope, role is DEV

[0crat]

@0crat assign @fabriciofx (here)

@llorllale The job #308 assigned to @fabriciofx/z, here is why; the budget is 30 minutes, see §4; please, read §8 and §9; if the task is not clear, read this and this

[0crat]

Bug was reported, see §29: +15 point(s) just awarded to @fabriciofx/z

[0crat]

Manual assignment of issues is discouraged, see §19: -5 point(s) just awarded to @llorllale/z

[0crat]

It is strongly discouraged to assign jobs to their creators, see §19: -15 point(s) just awarded to @llorllale/z

[0crat]

@fabriciofx/z this job was assigned to you 5days ago. It will be taken away from you soon, unless you close it, see §8. Read this and this, please.

[0crat]

The user @fabriciofx/z resigned from #308, please stop working. Reason for job resignation: It is older than 10 days, see §8

[0crat]

Resigned on delay, see §8: -30 point(s) just awarded to @fabriciofx/z

[0crat]

The job #308 assigned to @Vatavuk/z, here is why; the budget is 30 minutes, see §4; please, read §8 and §9; if the task is not clear, read this and this

[Vatavuk]

@llorllale Please close this issue since @fabriciofx is inactive. It was solved in #809

[llorllale]

@Vatavuk I agree, thanks.

[0crat]

@elenavolokhova/z please review this job completed by @Vatavuk/z, as in §30; the job will be fully closed and all payments will be made when the quality review is completed

[0crat]

The job #308 is now out of scope

[elenavolokhova]

@svendiedrichsen According to our Policy:

Messages in a job always start with a name of a user they are addressed to;

This comment was not addressed:

How about using Bytes.NonNulls when assigning left/right in the Equality constructor? Thus you get some better exceptions. If so you should have some tests using NULL Bytes.

Please, confirm that you'll follow this rule in future.

[svendiedrichsen]

@elenavolokhova Confirmed.

[elenavolokhova]

@0crat quality acceptable

[0crat]

Order was finished, quality is "acceptable": +30 point(s) just awarded to @Vatavuk/z

[0crat]

Quality review completed: +8 point(s) just awarded to @elenavolokhova/z