JsonLocation in 2.13 only uses identity comparison for "content reference"

[vladt]

In 2.12, JsonLocation.equals() uses equals() to check equality on JsonLocation._sourceRef
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core/blob/2.12/src/main/java/com/fasterxml/jackson/core/JsonLocation.java#L150

In 2.13, JsonLocation._sourceRef was renamed and moved to ContentReference.
JsonLocation.equals() still uses equals() to check equality on JsonLocation._contentReference:
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core/blob/2.13/src/main/java/com/fasterxml/jackson/core/JsonLocation.java#L276
but ContentReference.equals() uses == to check equality on ContentReference._rawContent:
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core/blob/2.13/src/main/java/com/fasterxml/jackson/core/io/ContentReference.java#L360

This changes the behaviour of JsonLocation.equals() between 2.12 and 2.13, breaking client code that relies on JsonLocation.equals().

[cowtowncoder]

I am not sure there is much that can be done here, unfortunately, since it is uncertain if calling equals() on arbitrary source reference is safe or not.
(one could argue that not checking _offset or _length is wrong tho).

But I would be interested in knowing specific use case: what is the content reference in specific case you encounter?
Maybe that case could be addressed.

[vladt]

In my case, the source/content reference is a java.io.File.

Here's a small class to reproduce the problem. It prints "true" for 2.12.5 and "false" for 2.13.1.

package mytest;

import java.io.File;

import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonLocation;

public class TestJsonLocation
{
  public static void main(String[] args) {
    JsonLocation jsonLocation1 = new JsonLocation(new File("foo.json"), 1, 2, 3);
    JsonLocation jsonLocation2 = new JsonLocation(new File("foo.json"), 1, 2, 3);
    System.out.println(jsonLocation1.equals(jsonLocation2));
  }
}

[cowtowncoder]

Yeah this is tricky. I guess it'd be possible to implement logic for some well-known types like:

• java.io.File
• java.net.URL
• maybe String?

to consider equality. It'd be clunky and not extensible. But would resolve the immediate issue.

[vladt]

Please see my comment at c5aa1e1#r64115421
I'm not sure if it's valid though.