Java error: Comparison method violates its general contract

Question

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?

Answer 1

The exception message is actually pretty descriptive. The contract it mentions is transitivity: if A > B and B > C then for any A, B and C: A > C. I checked it with paper and pencil and your code seems to have few holes:

if (card1.getRarity() < card2.getRarity()) {
  return 1;

you do not return -1 if card1.getRarity() > card2.getRarity().

---

if (card1.getId() == card2.getId()) {
  //...
}
return -1;

You return -1 if ids aren't equal. You should return -1 or 1 depending on which id was bigger.

---

Take a look at this. Apart from being much more readable, I think it should actually work:

if (card1.getSet() > card2.getSet()) {
    return 1;
}
if (card1.getSet() < card2.getSet()) {
    return -1;
};
if (card1.getRarity() < card2.getRarity()) {
    return 1;
}
if (card1.getRarity() > card2.getRarity()) {
    return -1;
}
if (card1.getId() > card2.getId()) {
    return 1;
}
if (card1.getId() < card2.getId()) {
    return -1;
}
return cardType - item.getCardType();  //watch out for overflow!

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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");

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

        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;

    }
}