StatusOr.equals() cannot compare Status instances

[panchenko]

StatusOr has been introduced in #11330
The implemented equals() method tries to compare value or status.
However, Status.equals() intentionally does not compare its fields.

grpc-java/api/src/main/java/io/grpc/Status.java

Lines 654 to 660 in ca4819a

	* Equality on Statuses is not well defined. Instead, do comparison based on their Code with
	* {@link #getCode}. The description and cause of the Status are unlikely to be stable, and
	* additional fields may be added to Status in the future.
	*/
	@Override
	public boolean equals(Object obj) {
	return super.equals(obj);

The corresponding StatusOr test compares same Status instance and passes

grpc-java/api/src/test/java/io/grpc/StatusOrTest.java

Lines 62 to 63 in ca4819a

	public void equals_sameStatuses() {
	assertThat(StatusOr.fromStatus(Status.ABORTED)).isEqualTo(StatusOr.fromStatus(Status.ABORTED));

but would fail if there is a description

String msg = "1";
assertThat(StatusOr.fromStatus(Status.ABORTED.withDescription(msg)))
    .isEqualTo(StatusOr.fromStatus(Status.ABORTED.withDescription(msg)));

[ejona86]

@kannanjgithub, what were you thinking the change here would be? Given the following would fail without using StatusOr, I don't really know what the expectation would be:

assertThat(Status.ABORTED.withDescription(msg))
    .isEqualTo(Status.ABORTED.withDescription(msg));

[kannanjgithub]

@panchenko notice Eric's reply above. We kept Status.equals use references equality intentionally to avoid using it that way and instead do equality check on Status.code.
Is the concern you raised about StatusOr.equals failing if there is a description specifically about unit test, or in production code? If it is just about unit testing and you are using google.common.truth, we could make StatusOr expose a truth subject value with just the code so that the snippet you described works.

[panchenko]

@kannanjgithub I am fine with the current Status.equals behaviour (which is a bit inconvenient in tests, but as you mentioned there ways to deal with that).
The concern is about this new StatusOr which could cause confusion,
I guess that could be addressed with more documentation for StatusOr.