FeatureMerger and FeatureJoiner do not match visually identical values

They look the same indeed, hmmm…

Could it be a difference in encoding perhaps? Wild guess but you never know…

In the FeatureMerger you can access the Text Editor and use functions, if you try @Uppercase() with both of them, maybe that’ll work.

Have you checked for non-printing characters?

Zero width spaces are often the culprit in these sorts of scenarios in my experience

Regular expression for a zero width space

[\x{200B}]

Another thing to try is using a TextEncoder and set to URL (Percent Encoding) to look at whether the encoded text still looks the same

Two things that look the same, aren’t actually the same

Thank you ​@redgeographics I did try the Uppercase method but sadly that didn’t change the results.
​@ebygomm since your proposed methods included the encoding issue Hans suggested before I went with the TextEncoder set to URL (PercentEncoding)… nothing 😣. Also the search for zero width spaces returned no occurence of such things.

If you test for that value on both supplier and requestor do you get features passing?

Yes, I tested both the supplier and the requestor but the FeatureMerger was not capable to merge them.

But, there is something fishy here. When I use the ConvertEncoding string function in the text editor and convert the seemingly identical values to fme-binary then value for bassin are:

Supplier: 62617373696E

Requestor: 666D655F666561747572655F74797065
 

Your requestor is the value fme_feature_type based on that, not the value bassin

​@ebygomm you are so right! I corrected the missing value reference in the string function and now I can see the value for bassin is on both occations (supplier/requestor): 62617373696E

However, the FeatureMerger still cannot make a single match.