I saw many questions about this, and tried to solve the problem, but after one hour of googling and a lots of trial & error, I still can't fix it. I hope some of you catch the problem.
This is what I get:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Comparison method violates its general contract!
at java.util.ComparableTimSort.mergeHi(ComparableTimSort.java:835)
at java.util.ComparableTimSort.mergeAt(ComparableTimSort.java:453)
at java.util.ComparableTimSort.mergeForceCollapse(ComparableTimSort.java:392)
at java.util.ComparableTimSort.sort(ComparableTimSort.java:191)
at java.util.ComparableTimSort.sort(ComparableTimSort.java:146)
at java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:472)
at java.util.Collections.sort(Collections.java:155)
...
And this is my comparator:
@Override
public int compareTo(Object o) {
if(this == o){
return 0;
}
CollectionItem item = (CollectionItem) o;
Card card1 = CardCache.getInstance().getCard(cardId);
Card card2 = CardCache.getInstance().getCard(item.getCardId());
if (card1.getSet() < card2.getSet()) {
return -1;
} else {
if (card1.getSet() == card2.getSet()) {
if (card1.getRarity() < card2.getRarity()) {
return 1;
} else {
if (card1.getId() == card2.getId()) {
if (cardType > item.getCardType()) {
return 1;
} else {
if (cardType == item.getCardType()) {
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
}
return -1;
}
}
return 1;
}
}
Any idea?
This question is related to
java
compare
migration
java-7
comparator
if (card1.getRarity() < card2.getRarity()) {
return 1;
However, if card2.getRarity() is less than card1.getRarity() you might not return -1.
You similarly miss other cases. I would do this, you can change around depending on your intent:
public int compareTo(Object o) {
if(this == o){
return 0;
}
CollectionItem item = (CollectionItem) o;
Card card1 = CardCache.getInstance().getCard(cardId);
Card card2 = CardCache.getInstance().getCard(item.getCardId());
int comp=card1.getSet() - card2.getSet();
if (comp!=0){
return comp;
}
comp=card1.getRarity() - card2.getRarity();
if (comp!=0){
return comp;
}
comp=card1.getSet() - card2.getSet();
if (comp!=0){
return comp;
}
comp=card1.getId() - card2.getId();
if (comp!=0){
return comp;
}
comp=card1.getCardType() - card2.getCardType();
return comp;
}
}
I got the same error with a class like the following StockPickBean. Called from this code:
List<StockPickBean> beansListcatMap.getValue();
beansList.sort(StockPickBean.Comparators.VALUE);
public class StockPickBean implements Comparable<StockPickBean> {
private double value;
public double getValue() { return value; }
public void setValue(double value) { this.value = value; }
@Override
public int compareTo(StockPickBean view) {
return Comparators.VALUE.compare(this,view); //return
Comparators.SYMBOL.compare(this,view);
}
public static class Comparators {
public static Comparator<StockPickBean> VALUE = (val1, val2) ->
(int)
(val1.value - val2.value);
}
}
After getting the same error:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Comparison method violates its general contract!
I changed this line:
public static Comparator<StockPickBean> VALUE = (val1, val2) -> (int)
(val1.value - val2.value);
to:
public static Comparator<StockPickBean> VALUE = (StockPickBean spb1,
StockPickBean spb2) -> Double.compare(spb2.value,spb1.value);
That fixes the error.
Consider the following case:
First, o1.compareTo(o2) is called. card1.getSet() == card2.getSet() happens to be true and so is card1.getRarity() < card2.getRarity(), so you return 1.
Then, o2.compareTo(o1) is called. Again, card1.getSet() == card2.getSet() is true. Then, you skip to the following else, then card1.getId() == card2.getId() happens to be true, and so is cardType > item.getCardType(). You return 1 again.
From that, o1 > o2, and o2 > o1. You broke the contract.
It might also be an OpenJDK bug... (not in this case but it is the same error)
If somebody like me stumbles upon this answer regarding the
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Comparison method violates its general contract!
then it might also be a bug in the Java-Version. I have a compareTo running since several years now in some applications. But suddenly it stopped working and throws the error after all compares were done (i compare 6 Attributes before returning "0").
Now I just found this Bugreport of OpenJDK:
You can use the following class to pinpoint transitivity bugs in your Comparators:
/**
* @author Gili Tzabari
*/
public final class Comparators
{
/**
* Verify that a comparator is transitive.
*
* @param <T> the type being compared
* @param comparator the comparator to test
* @param elements the elements to test against
* @throws AssertionError if the comparator is not transitive
*/
public static <T> void verifyTransitivity(Comparator<T> comparator, Collection<T> elements)
{
for (T first: elements)
{
for (T second: elements)
{
int result1 = comparator.compare(first, second);
int result2 = comparator.compare(second, first);
if (result1 != -result2)
{
// Uncomment the following line to step through the failed case
//comparator.compare(first, second);
throw new AssertionError("compare(" + first + ", " + second + ") == " + result1 +
" but swapping the parameters returns " + result2);
}
}
}
for (T first: elements)
{
for (T second: elements)
{
int firstGreaterThanSecond = comparator.compare(first, second);
if (firstGreaterThanSecond <= 0)
continue;
for (T third: elements)
{
int secondGreaterThanThird = comparator.compare(second, third);
if (secondGreaterThanThird <= 0)
continue;
int firstGreaterThanThird = comparator.compare(first, third);
if (firstGreaterThanThird <= 0)
{
// Uncomment the following line to step through the failed case
//comparator.compare(first, third);
throw new AssertionError("compare(" + first + ", " + second + ") > 0, " +
"compare(" + second + ", " + third + ") > 0, but compare(" + first + ", " + third + ") == " +
firstGreaterThanThird);
}
}
}
}
}
/**
* Prevent construction.
*/
private Comparators()
{
}
}
Simply invoke Comparators.verifyTransitivity(myComparator, myCollection) in front of the code that fails.
I had the same symptom. For me it turned out that another thread was modifying the compared objects while the sorting was happening in a Stream. To resolve the issue, I mapped the objects to immutable temporary objects, collected the Stream to a temporary Collection and did the sorting on that.
I ran into a similar problem where I was trying to sort a n x 2 2D array named contests which is a 2D array of simple integers. This was working for most of the times but threw a runtime error for one input:-
Arrays.sort(contests, (row1, row2) -> {
if (row1[0] < row2[0]) {
return 1;
} else return -1;
});
Error:-
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Comparison method violates its general contract!
at java.base/java.util.TimSort.mergeHi(TimSort.java:903)
at java.base/java.util.TimSort.mergeAt(TimSort.java:520)
at java.base/java.util.TimSort.mergeForceCollapse(TimSort.java:461)
at java.base/java.util.TimSort.sort(TimSort.java:254)
at java.base/java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:1441)
at com.hackerrank.Solution.luckBalance(Solution.java:15)
at com.hackerrank.Solution.main(Solution.java:49)
Looking at the answers above I tried adding a condition for equals and I don't know why but it worked. Hopefully we must explicitly specify what should be returned for all cases (greater than, equals and less than):
Arrays.sort(contests, (row1, row2) -> {
if (row1[0] < row2[0]) {
return 1;
}
if(row1[0] == row2[0]) return 0;
return -1;
});
I had to sort on several criterion (date, and, if same date; other things...). What was working on Eclipse with an older version of Java, did not worked any more on Android : comparison method violates contract ...
After reading on StackOverflow, I wrote a separate function that I called from compare() if the dates are the same. This function calculates the priority, according to the criteria, and returns -1, 0, or 1 to compare(). It seems to work now.
It also has something to do with the version of JDK. If it does well in JDK6, maybe it will have the problem in JDK 7 described by you, because the implementation method in jdk 7 has been changed.
Look at this:
Description: The sorting algorithm used by java.util.Arrays.sort and (indirectly) by java.util.Collections.sort has been replaced. The new sort implementation may throw an IllegalArgumentException if it detects a Comparable that violates the Comparable contract. The previous implementation silently ignored such a situation. If the previous behavior is desired, you can use the new system property, java.util.Arrays.useLegacyMergeSort, to restore previous mergesort behaviour.
I don't know the exact reason. However, if you add the code before you use sort. It will be OK.
System.setProperty("java.util.Arrays.useLegacyMergeSort", "true");
Source: Stackoverflow.com