Model equality check is broken in many models

[benortiz]

Description

Across many models with "additionalAttributes", the equality check effectively only checks if additionalAttributes is equal. See lines 273 and 274 below.

datadog-api-client-ruby/lib/datadog_api_client/v2/models/service_definition_v2_dot2.rb

Lines 256 to 275 in 130eb02

	def ==(o)
	return true if self.equal?(o)
	self.class == o.class &&
	application == o.application &&
	ci_pipeline_fingerprints == o.ci_pipeline_fingerprints &&
	contacts == o.contacts &&
	dd_service == o.dd_service &&
	description == o.description &&
	extensions == o.extensions &&
	integrations == o.integrations &&
	languages == o.languages &&
	lifecycle == o.lifecycle &&
	links == o.links &&
	schema_version == o.schema_version &&
	tags == o.tags &&
	team == o.team &&
	tier == o.tier &&
	type == o.type
	additional_properties == o.additional_properties
	end

Since this is so widespread, it seems like an issue with code generation. When regenerated with the fix to this issue, the individual code might change like so:

           tier == o.tier &&
-          type == o.type
+          type == o.type &&
           additional_properties == o.additional_properties

To Reproduce

Initialize any two different models that can have additionalAttributes and run an equality comparison:

> DatadogAPIClient::V2::ServiceDefinitionV2Dot2.new == DatadogAPIClient::V2::ServiceDefinitionV1.new
=> true

Or initialize the same model but with different properties and run an equality comparison:

> DatadogAPIClient::V2::ServiceDefinitionV2Dot2.new(dd_service: "serviceA") == DatadogAPIClient::V2::ServiceDefinitionV2Dot2.new(dd_service: "serviceB")
=> true

Expected behavior

1. No two objects of different classes ought to be equivalent.
2. When comparing instances of the same classes with different model property values, they should not be equivalent.

Environment and Versions:
A clear and precise description of your setup:

• Ruby 3.2.6
• DatadogAPIClient 2.28.1
• Also present in master.

[nkzou]

Hey there, thanks for reporting this - we've patched the code generator and a new release will be made sometime next week that includes this bugfix. Thanks again!