OpenSAML user discussion

[Chad La Joie <>]

Because the equals() being used is Object.equals() which simply checks 
for reference equality, i.e. nameid1 == nameid2.  Yes, the class should 
override equals() if there is a thought that equals() will be used in 
that manner.

Tom Scavo wrote:
> The unit test
>
>     public void testSAMLNameIdentifier() throws Exception {
>         SAMLNameIdentifier nameid1 =
>             SAMLNameIdentifier.getInstance(new FileInputStream(xmlpath));
>         SAMLNameIdentifier nameid2 = (SAMLNameIdentifier) nameid1.clone();
>         assertEquals("Name identifiers are not equal", nameid1, nameid2);
>     }
>
> fails with the following error message:
>
> Name identifiers are not equal expected:<<NameIdentifier
> xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:assertion"
> Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName">uid=By-Tor,ou=tobes,dc=hades,dc=com</NameIdentifier>>
> but was:<<NameIdentifier xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:assertion"
> Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName">uid=By-Tor,ou=tobes,dc=hades,dc=com</NameIdentifier>>
>
> If I replace the call to assertEquals with
>
>         assertEquals("Serialized name identifiers are not equal",
>                      nameid1.toString(), nameid2.toString());
>
> the test succeeds.
>
> Why does a straight 'equals' test fail?  Should SAMLNameIdentifier (or
> its superclass SAMLObject) define an 'equals' method?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom

--
Chad La Joie             2052-C Harris Bldg.
OIS-Middleware           202.687.0124