Expecting actual: [InvoiceBalanceItem [uid=inv_bxntbzc753k8x, number=8390, outstandingAmount=4.0, additionalProperties={status=open, due_date=2025-09-15}]] to contain exactly (and in same order): [InvoiceBalanceItem [uid=inv_bxntbzc753k8x, number=8390, outstandingAmount=4.0, additionalProperties={}]] but some elements were not found: [InvoiceBalanceItem [uid=inv_bxntbzc753k8x, number=8390, outstandingAmount=4.0, additionalProperties={}]] and others were not expected: [InvoiceBalanceItem [uid=inv_bxntbzc753k8x, number=8390, outstandingAmount=4.0, additionalProperties={status=open, due_date=2025-09-15}]] when comparing values using recursive field/property by field/property comparator on all fields/properties using the following configuration: - no overridden equals methods were used in the comparison (except for java types) - these types were compared with the following comparators: - java.lang.Double -> DoubleComparator[precision=1.0E-15] - java.lang.Float -> FloatComparator[precision=1.0E-6] - java.nio.file.Path -> lexicographic comparator (Path natural order) - actual and expected objects and their fields were compared field by field recursively even if they were not of the same type, this allows for example to compare a Person to a PersonDto (call strictTypeChecking(true) to change that behavior). - the introspection strategy used was: DefaultRecursiveComparisonIntrospectionStrategy