Record: failed to run constructor
Record: failed to run constructor for record type Foo
These were the values passed to the constructor: [null, null, null]
If the record does not accept null values for its constructor parameters,
consider suppressing Warning.NULL_FIELDS.
and
Record: failed to run constructor for record type Foo
These were the values passed to the constructor: [0, 0.0, false]
If the record does not accept 0 or false as a value for its constructor parameters,
consider suppressing Warning.ZERO_FIELDS.
and
Record: failed to run constructor for record type Foo
These were the values passed to the constructor: [42, 1337, "invalid"]
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.
Sometimes, a constructor needs to validate its input, throwing an exception on certain values. This can lead to problems when null
is not allowed, and the constructor is part of a record instead of a regular class, like this:
In this case, you can instruct EqualsVerifier to skip the null tests:
For more on dealing with null
, see the chapter in the manual
Likewise, problems can occur when when the value 0
is not allowed, and the constructor is part of a record instead of a regular class, like this:
One of the things EqualsVerifier does, is to run checks with fields set to their default values. For reference types, the default value is null
, which is discussed above. For primitive types, the default value is 0
(or 0.0
, \u0000
, false
). In regular classes, EqualsVerifier bypasses the constructor, so the exception can never be thrown. However, reflection support is much more limited for records, and their constructors cannot be bypassed.
Therefore, we need to signal EqualsVerifier to skip the checks with default values, by suppressing Warning.ZERO_FIELDS
:
Another thing EqualsVerifier does, is to run checks with fields set to certain prefab values. For integral types, these values are 1
and 2
. If these values are not allowed by the record’s constructor either, we need to provide new prefab values as well.
In these cases, the call to EqualsVerifier will look like this:
Note that these fixes can be combined: