Assertions comparing an object to itself are more likely to be bugs due to developer's carelessness.


This rule raises an issue when the actual expression matches the expected expression.

== Noncompliant Code Example

----
assertThat(actual).isEqualTo(actual); // Noncompliant
----

== Compliant Solution

----
assertThat(actual).isEqualTo(expected);
----

== Exceptions

In a unit test validating the ``++equals(...)++`` and ``++hashCode()++`` methods, it's legitimate to compare an object to itself. This rule does not raise an issue for ``++isEqualTo++``, ``++assertEquals++`` or ``++hasSameHashCodeAs++`` when the unit test name contains (case insensitive): ``++equal++``, ``++hash_?code++``, ``++object_?method++``. For example, in tests with the following names: ``++test_equals++``, ``++testEqual++``, ``++test_hashCode++``, ``++test_hash_code++``, ``++test_object_methods++``.

----
class MyClassTest {
  @Test
  void test_equals_and_hash_code() {
    MyClass obj = new MyClass();
    assertThat(obj).isEqualTo(obj); // Compliant
    assertThat(obj).hasSameHashCodeAs(obj); // Compliant
  }
}
----

ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

include::message.adoc[]

include::highlighting.adoc[]

'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]