Release 8.0.0 #598
Annotations
3 errors
|
InvoicesControllerCreateTest.shouldCreateInvoice:
tests/src/test/java/com/maxio/advancedbilling/controllers/invoices/InvoicesControllerCreateTest.java#L152
Expecting actual:
InvoiceSeller [name=null, address=null, phone=null, logoUrl=null, additionalProperties={tax_id=null}]
to be equal to:
InvoiceSeller [name=Maxio Developer Experience, address=InvoiceAddress [street=Asdf Street, line2=123/444, city=San Antonio, state=TX, zip=78015, country=US, additionalProperties={}], phone=555 111 222, logoUrl=null, additionalProperties={}]
when recursively comparing field by field, but found the following 3 differences:
field/property 'address' differ:
- actual value : null
- expected value: InvoiceAddress [street=Asdf Street, line2=123/444, city=San Antonio, state=TX, zip=78015, country=US, additionalProperties={}]
field/property 'name' differ:
- actual value : null
- expected value: "Maxio Developer Experience"
field/property 'phone' differ:
- actual value : null
- expected value: "555 111 222"
The recursive comparison was performed with this configuration:
- the following fields were ignored in the comparison: address.additionalProperties, additionalProperties
- 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
|
|
InvoicesControllerRecordPaymentForInvoiceTest.shouldRecordPaymentUsingExistingPaymentProfile:
tests/src/test/java/com/maxio/advancedbilling/controllers/invoices/InvoicesControllerRecordPaymentForInvoiceTest.java#L144
Multiple Failures (1 failure)
java.lang.AssertionError:
Expecting actual:
InvoiceSeller [name=null, address=null, phone=null, logoUrl=null, additionalProperties={tax_id=null}]
to be equal to:
InvoiceSeller [name=Maxio Developer Experience, address=InvoiceAddress [street=Asdf Street, line2=123/444, city=San Antonio, state=TX, zip=78015, country=US, additionalProperties={}], phone=555 111 222, logoUrl=null, additionalProperties={}]
when recursively comparing field by field, but found the following 3 differences:
field/property 'address' differ:
- actual value : null
- expected value: InvoiceAddress [street=Asdf Street, line2=123/444, city=San Antonio, state=TX, zip=78015, country=US, additionalProperties={}]
field/property 'name' differ:
- actual value : null
- expected value: "Maxio Developer Experience"
field/property 'phone' differ:
- actual value : null
- expected value: "555 111 222"
The recursive comparison was performed with this configuration:
- the following fields were ignored in the comparison: address.additionalProperties, additionalProperties
- 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
|
|
test
Process completed with exit code 1.
|