"Comparison method violates its general contract!"

Question

Your comparator is not transitive.

Let A be the parent of B, and B be the parent of C. Since A > B and B > C, then it must be the case that A > C. However, if your comparator is invoked on A and C, it would return zero, meaning A == C. This violates the contract and hence throws the exception.

It's rather nice of the library to detect this and let you know, rather than behave erratically.

One way to satisfy the transitivity requirement in compareParents() is to traverse the getParent() chain instead of only looking at the immediate ancestor.

Just because this is what I got when I Googled this error, my problem was that I had

if (value < other.value)
  return -1;
else if (value >= other.value)
  return 1;
else
  return 0;

the value >= other.value should (obviously) actually be value > other.value so that you can actually return 0 with equal objects.

The violation of the contract often means that the comparator is not providing the correct or consistent value when comparing objects. For example, you might want to perform a string compare and force empty strings to sort to the end with:

if ( one.length() == 0 ) {
    return 1;                   // empty string sorts last
}
if ( two.length() == 0 ) {
    return -1;                  // empty string sorts last                  
}
return one.compareToIgnoreCase( two );

But this overlooks the case where BOTH one and two are empty - and in that case, the wrong value is returned (1 instead of 0 to show a match), and the comparator reports that as a violation. It should have been written as:

if ( one.length() == 0 ) {
    if ( two.length() == 0 ) {
        return 0;               // BOth empty - so indicate
    }
    return 1;                   // empty string sorts last
}
if ( two.length() == 0 ) {
    return -1;                  // empty string sorts last                  
}
return one.compareToIgnoreCase( two );

Even if your compareTo is holds transitivity in theory, sometimes subtle bugs mess things up... such as floating point arithmetic error. It happened to me. this was my code:

public int compareTo(tfidfContainer compareTfidf) {
    //descending order
    if (this.tfidf > compareTfidf.tfidf)
        return -1;
    else if (this.tfidf < compareTfidf.tfidf)
        return 1;
    else
        return 0;

}   

The transitive property clearly holds, but for some reason I was getting the IllegalArgumentException. And it turns out that due to tiny errors in floating point arithmetic, the round-off errors where causing the transitive property to break where they shouldn't! So I rewrote the code to consider really tiny differences 0, and it worked:

public int compareTo(tfidfContainer compareTfidf) {
    //descending order
    if ((this.tfidf - compareTfidf.tfidf) < .000000001)
        return 0;
    if (this.tfidf > compareTfidf.tfidf)
        return -1;
    else if (this.tfidf < compareTfidf.tfidf)
        return 1;
    return 0;
}   

Editing VM Configuration worked for me.

-Djava.util.Arrays.useLegacyMergeSort=true

In our case were were getting this error because we had accidentally flipped the order of comparison of s1 and s2. So watch out for that. It was obviously way more complicated than the following but this is an illustration:

s1 == s2   
    return 0;
s2 > s1 
    return 1;
s1 < s2 
    return -1;

In my case I was doing something like the following:

if (a.someField == null) {
    return 1;
}

if (b.someField == null) {
    return -1;
}

if (a.someField.equals(b.someField)) {
    return a.someOtherField.compareTo(b.someOtherField);
}

return a.someField.compareTo(b.someField);

What I forgot to check was when both a.someField and b.someField are null.