Datasets:

---

feedback-to-code

/

mozzarella

like 1

Follow

Feedback-2-Code 7

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Nice catch! I'll review the PR!", "Hey @mockitoguy @andreisilviudragnea, I think this PR has introduced a new bug (or a regression if you like).\r\n\r\nThe problem arises when using Deep Stubs, as every call in a deep stub counts as used stubbing, but if you end up stubbing that mock for real this change will change the state of the original stubbing and your test will fail with an `UnnecessaryStubbingException`\r\n\r\nThe following example is in Scala, I don't have a running Java project at hand, but I can provide a 100% Java example if this is not enough to explain the problem\r\n\r\n```scala\r\n class Foo {\r\n def userClass: Bar = {...}\r\n }\r\n class Bar {\r\n def callMeMaybe: Baz = {...}\r\n }\r\n class Baz {\r\n def callMe: Option[String] = {...}\r\n }\r\n\r\nval aFoo = mock[Foo](DefaultAnswers.ReturnsDeepStubs)\r\naFoo.userClass.callMeMaybe.callMe returns Some(\"my number\")\r\naFoo.userClass.callMeMaybe.callMe.value shouldBe \"my number\"\r\n```\r\n\r\nThat code will fail as there are 2 stubbings for `callMe`, one automatically created by the deep stub (see `ReturnsDeepStubs.class` line 67) and one for the actual stubbing I'm making to return `Some(\"my number\")`.\r\n", "This also breaks tests that needs to legitimately stub the same invocation multiple times. Particularly with invocations that have to arguments (since all invocations will match a previous stub). See https://github.com/mockito/mockito/commit/ce1632ddd6c55a7e85bec606536aa582a3b3aea1#diff-90b7e8e4bd136ee96421dc2adde3a918R71.\r\n\r\nA simple common example is when stubbing a `Clock`:\r\n```\r\n@Mock\r\nprivate Clock clock;\r\n\r\n@Test \r\nvoid test() {\r\n Instant instant1 = Instant.ofEpochMillis(...);\r\n Instant instant2 = instant1.plus(...);\r\n\r\n when(clock.instant()).thenReturn(instant1);\r\n // do something at instant1\r\n\r\n when(clock.instant()).thenReturn(instant2);\r\n // do something at instant2\r\n}\r\n```", "@pkoenig10 yes, although that may not be the best example as you could use a chain of `thenReturn()` and have a single stubbing.\r\nThat said, for a non-experienced user that may not be obvious at all, so we'd have to weight it.", "It's not obvious to me how you would work around this if your code calls `clock.instant()` a large or variable number of times. I find the suggested work around to be pretty verbose and unergonomic:\r\n```\r\nwhen(clock.instant())\r\n .thenReturn(instant1)\r\n .thenReturn(instant1)\r\n // repeat however many times is necessary\r\n .thenReturn(instant2)\r\n .thenReturn(instant2)\r\n // repeat however many times is necessary\r\n```\r\n\r\nI think the best and simplest way to improve this behavior is to not unmark the previous stubbing if it has been used. If the stubbing has not previously been used, then I think the current behavior is appropriate. Unfortunately this does seem like it will be a simple fix since the a second stubbing causes a previous stubbing to be marked as used.", "@pkoenig10 I fail to see how that is less verbose than multiple stubbings, but in any case, that's not the point.\r\nI think this change should be reverted until it can be given a deeper thought. do you agree? @mockito/developers ?", "Revert in progress: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1878" ]

[ "Testing for arguments won't work in all cases, just use ```s.matches(invocation)```", "There is no need to search for stubbed invocation this way. You can grab it from ```this.invocationForStubbing.getInvocation()```.", "This is good work! We can pass null to \"reset\" the stubbing state. Do you mind updating the javadoc on those methods and write that we allow null parameter?", "The name does not seem correct - I don't think this use case is related to implicit eq matchers, for example:\r\n\r\n```\r\nwhen(mock.foo(any()).then(...)\r\nwhen(mock.foo(anyString()).then(...)\r\n```\r\n\r\nPerhaps it's worth adding test case for this, too.", "Those are neat tests! In addition, I'd love to see coverage for the following use case:\r\n\r\n```\r\nwhen(mock.foo(anyString()).thenReturn(x);\r\nwhen(mock.foo(\"foo\")).thenReturn(x);\r\n```\r\n\r\nIn above, we also should report 2 unused stubs. This way, we cover the case with arg matcher.", "This is a good e2e test.\r\n\r\nCan you add coverage for the same use case but with the \"willReturn(x).when(...)\" stubbing style? This should \"just\" work without new changes but adding extra coverage would be nice for our codebase :-)", "Done.", "Done.", "I have updated the javadoc of the two methods.", "Done.", "If the test contains, for example, the `mock.foo(\"bar\");` call, the test should report only one unused stubbing (the one with the `\"foo\"` argument). What did you mean by 2 unused stubs in this case?", "Done.", "I meant this:\r\n\r\n```\r\nwhen(mock.foo(anyString()).thenReturn(x);\r\nwhen(mock.foo(\"foo\")).thenReturn(x);\r\n//2 unused stubbings\r\n```\r\n\r\n```\r\nwhen(mock.foo(anyString()).thenReturn(x);\r\nwhen(mock.foo(\"foo\")).thenReturn(x);\r\n\r\nmock.foo(\"foo\")\r\n//1 unused stubbing\r\n```\r\n\r\nHope it makes sense!", "Got it." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/reporting/Pluralizer.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/InvocationContainerImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/StubbedInvocationMatcher.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/invocation/Invocation.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/reporting/Pluralizer.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/InvocationContainerImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/StubbedInvocationMatcher.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/invocation/Invocation.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/reporting/PluralizerTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/junitrule/StrictJUnitRuleTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/junitrunner/UnusedStubsExceptionMessageTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/stubbing/StrictStubbingTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Could you send us a PR to fix this?", "Wouldn't it be easier if you just added the missing `</code>` and `of`? It's just two words.", "Yeah, if you could open a PR to make that change we can fix it 😄 ", "Closed due to too complicated workflow.", "Let's reopen so that someone else can make the PR." ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/exceptions/misusing/UnnecessaryStubbingException.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/exceptions/misusing/UnnecessaryStubbingException.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Hello, I've taken a look at the issue and it is still apparent in commit 560adf377677a4a2c658a0b24e2f9c2e0b373c20. It appears to be that `thenThrow(Class)` instantiates the Throwable when it is called rather than instantiating it upon mock interaction.\r\n\r\n### Background\r\nTo why this leads to the behaviour described in the issue is that the Throwable is passed to `thenThrow(Throwable)` which instantiates a custom Answer with `new ThrowsException(throwable)` and passes into `thenAnswer(Answer)`. This Answer, of course, stores the Throwable and throws it with every repeat mock interaction.\r\n\r\nBefore the merge, `thenThrow(Class)` used to call `thenAnswer(Answer)` directly with its own custom Answer, ThrowsExceptionClass. This Answer instantiated the Exception with each mock interaction.\r\n\r\n### Suggested Solution\r\nMy suggestion is to introduce an Answer similar to ThrowsExceptionClass described above (or a modified version of ThrowsException) and have `thenThrow(Class)` create that and call `thenAnswer(Answer)`.\r\n\r\nI can think of two ways to implement the suggestion. Both ways involve storing the Class\\<Throwable\\> and using Objenesis to instantiate the Throwable in the new Answer class, however:\r\n\r\n1. Create the new Answer class with similar code to ThrowsException but instead of throwing the stored Throwable it uses a new instance based of the stored Class\\<Throwable\\>.\r\n2. Modify ThrowsException to use a protected getter method for the Throwable. Then extend ThrowsException with the new Answer for Class\\<Throwable\\> which overrides the getter method to instantiate a new Throwable.\r\n\r\nOption 1 doesn't modify existing behaviour that works but has more duplicate code. Option 2 offers less duplicate code but modifies existing behaviour that works.\r\n\r\nI prefer option 2.\r\n", "Happy to review a PR for this. We probably need to make a few iterations on the design, but agreed we can fix this issue.\r\n\r\nHowever, if the necessary changes appear to be complicated, I am inclined to close this as working as intended." ]

[ "Instead of `expected = `, use `assertThrows` and assert on the exception that it is of the correct exception class and it has the correct message.", "Let's name this `ThrowsExceptionForClassType` to make it clear we are passing in the `.class` itself.", "The change has been done. The class, references and associated variables have been updated.", "I've replaced `expected = ` but I can't find the import for `assertThrows`. I think the tests are configured for JUnit 4 only and `assertThrows` was introduced in 5. If you have Jupiter configured in another test source then I can migrate it to there and do the necessary alterations.\r\n\r\nFor the current tests, I've used `Assertions.catchThrowable` and `Assertions.catchThrowableOfType` as an alternative.", "Ah I misremembered the name. In AssertJ it is called `assertThatThrownBy`: https://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/assertj-core-features-highlight.html#exception-assertion" ]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/BaseStubbing.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/StubberImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/ThrowsException.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/BaseStubbing.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/StubberImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/AbstractThrowsException.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/ThrowsException.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/ThrowsExceptionForClassType.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/AbstractThrowsExceptionTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/ThrowsExceptionForClassTypeTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/ThrowsExceptionTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/stubbing/StubbingWithThrowablesTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Feel free to open a PR and we can take a look 😄 " ]

[ "Nit: Use full Java block comments (e.g. lines starting with `*`)", "Nit: change this link to https://github.com/gradle/gradle/blob/58538513a3bff3b7015718976fe1304e23f40694/subprojects/core/src/main/java/org/gradle/api/internal/file/archive/ZipCopyAction.java#L42-L57", "This runs the tests as well, which is not what we want. We only want to package the jar, to not incur a high cost on our CI. Can we only package the jar and verify the checksums on that?", "Oh, ofc, we can run `assemble` instead of `build` which creates the artifacts but doesn't run the tests. My mistake!" ]

[]

[ ".gitignore", ".travis.yml", "build.gradle", "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle" ]

[ ".gitignore", ".travis.yml", "build.gradle", "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle", "gradle/mockito-core/reproducible-build.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Could you paste the full build output? You can wrap it in `<details></details>` here on github to prevent a wall of text.\r\n\r\nAlso, feel free to open your PR and happy to take a look.", "PR created - https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1895 \r\nplease verify on unix\r\n\r\n(there are 2 commits because at first I didnt know that v2 is in maintenance only, so I created new branch from release/3.x hence the second commit)" ]

[]

[]

[ "config/checkstyle/checkstyle.xml" ]

[ "config/checkstyle/checkstyle.xml" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/matchers/MatchersTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsDeepStubs.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsDeepStubs.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/stubbing/DeepStubbingTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Not pretty but this seems to work if I use a `VerificationListener` and manually log the error:\r\n\r\n\r\n```\r\nimport static org.mockito.Mockito.description;\r\nimport static org.mockito.Mockito.spy;\r\nimport static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;\r\n\r\nimport org.junit.Test;\r\nimport org.mockito.Mockito;\r\nimport org.mockito.MockitoFramework;\r\nimport org.mockito.listeners.VerificationListener;\r\n\r\npublic class ExampleTest {\r\n @Test\r\n public void shouldFailWithDescription() {\r\n MockitoFramework framework = Mockito.framework();\r\n String failureMessage = \"Failed to call doSomethingElse\";\r\n\r\n // not all test failures will print the description so we have to manually log it =(\r\n VerificationListener listener = verificationEvent -> {\r\n if (verificationEvent.getVerificationError() != null) {\r\n System.out.println(\"FAILURE: \" + failureMessage);\r\n }\r\n };\r\n framework.addListener(listener);\r\n\r\n Dependency dependency = spy(Dependency.class);\r\n SystemUnderTest systemUnderTest = new SystemUnderTest();\r\n systemUnderTest.doSomething(dependency);\r\n verify(dependency, description(failureMessage)).doSomethingElse(false);\r\n\r\n // not sure if we need to remove for next test, or if mockito will auto-clear\r\n framework.removeListener(listener);\r\n }\r\n\r\n static class SystemUnderTest {\r\n void doSomething(Dependency dependency) {\r\n dependency.doSomethingElse(true); // <---- TEST FAILS BECAUSE WE PASS WRONG ARGS\r\n }\r\n }\r\n\r\n static class Dependency {\r\n void doSomethingElse(boolean value) {\r\n // ...\r\n }\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\nnow prints out \r\n\r\n```\r\nFAILURE: Failed to call doSomethingElse\r\n\r\nArgument(s) are different! Wanted:\r\ndependency.doSomethingElse(false);\r\n-> at com.example.ExampleTest$Dependency.doSomethingElse(ExampleTest.java:47)\r\nActual invocation has different arguments:\r\ndependency.doSomethingElse(true);\r\n-> at com.example.ExampleTest$SystemUnderTest.doSomething(ExampleTest.java:40)\r\n\r\nComparison Failure: \r\nExpected :dependency.doSomethingElse(false);\r\nActual :dependency.doSomethingElse(true);\r\n```", "I would like to analyze this issue and eventually provide fixes. ", "I can also verify the same issue.", "Seems like a bug. Please submit a PR. Thanks!", "The cause of this is that Reporter.argumentsAreDifferent() can return\r\n\r\n- an org.mockito.exceptions.verification.opentest4j.ArgumentsAreDifferent, a subclass of org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError\r\n- an org.mockito.exceptions.verification.junit.ArgumentsAreDifferent, a subclass of junit.framework.ComparisonFailure\r\n\r\naccording to whether opentest or junit is available in the classpath. Neither of these, crucially, extends MockitoAssertionError. Hence the exception is not caught in Description.verify and wrapped in a MockitoAssertionError with the description. That would only happen if neither opentest nor junit were in the classpath.\r\n\r\nI think the catch block there should also catch these other exceptions and handle them in a similar way to include the description text.", "It's extending those because of tooling and IDE support, I believe. In IntelliJ IDEA for example, this error is displayed really nice. You can see and compare the differences on the arguments.", "The various ArgumentsAreDifferent exceptions come from org.mockito.internal.junit.ExceptionFactory, which deals solely with that condition. The header comment of MockitoAssertionError suggests it should be the base of all verification errors triggered by verify() methods. So maybe some refactoring is required. \r\n\r\nI don't know enough to say whether the solution is to handle the exceptions which are actually being thrown or change to throw subclasses of MockitoAssertionError which would then fix the issue.", "Created a PR with a possible solution: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1949" ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/exceptions/base/MockitoAssertionError.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/verification/Description.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/exceptions/base/MockitoAssertionError.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/verification/Description.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/DescriptionTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/verification/DescriptionTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Feel free to open a PR with the version bump 😄 " ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I think this commit is part of the problem: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1567/files", "> I think this commit is part of the problem: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1567/files\r\n\r\nI tried with mockito 2.22.0, which should be a release before the commit, but the error is still there. https://github.com/mockito/mockito/releases?after=v2.23.0\r\n\r\nedit: what fixed the issue for me was removing the `mock-maker-inline` resource file", "The inline mockmaker is not supported on Android (as listed in the exception). However, we should probably not crash before we can show that message to the user. I would welcome a PR to fix this problem.", "@TimvdLippe What should people do for android then? Kotlin uses final classes only.", "@raphw What is our advice for Android? I don't remember what our final resolution was for inline + android for Kotlin.", "I just started using https://mockk.io/. Its Kotlin friendly also", "On Android, the inline mock maker won't work (neither will Mockk which uses the same approach as we do). It does not support the instrumentation API alltogether.\r\n\r\nI do agree that the error message is misleading. Currently preparing a PR to improve this.", "You can achieve this by using com.linkedin.dexmaker:dexmaker-mockito-inline for APIs >= 28" ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/InjectingAnnotationEngine.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/InjectingAnnotationEngine.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Feel free to open a PR :)" ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "README.md" ]

[ "README.md" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I would be happy to review a PR that updates our version of Objenesis 😄 ", "I'll check the contribution guide, though I can't promise much. So far Java 11 compile is not top priority in my team." ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle", "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle", "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I just discovered that the error happens when I launch all my unit tests in the Maven module, but it's fine if I run the test or the test class only.\r\n\r\n```sh\r\n$ cd myproject/my-mvn-module-1\r\n$ mvn test\r\n#\r\n# [ERROR] MyBeanTest.test1 » StackOverflow\r\n#\r\n$ mvn -Dtest=MyBeanTest test\r\n# \r\n# Tests run: 7, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0\r\n#\r\n$ mvn -Dtest=MyBeanTest#test1 test\r\n# \r\n# Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0\r\n#\r\n```\r\n\r\nMaven configuration (in the root pom.xml) :\r\n```xml\r\n<plugin>\r\n <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>\r\n <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>\r\n <version>2.22.2</version>\r\n <configuration>\r\n <skipTests>${skip.unit.tests}</skipTests>\r\n <includes>\r\n <include>**/*Test.java</include>\r\n </includes>\r\n <argLine>-Dnet.bytebuddy.experimental=true @{argLine} -Dfile.encoding=${project.reporting.outputEncoding}</argLine>\r\n <trimStackTrace>false</trimStackTrace>\r\n </configuration>\r\n</plugin>\r\n```", "Thanks for reporting. Can you supply an example test case? It looks like an exception is supposed to be thrown but the constructor mocking intercepts its creation where something causes another exception which is again passed to the handler.\r\n\r\nDo you mock exceptions somewhere?\r\n\r\nAlso, could you share the bottom of the stack trace which is where the circularity is introduced.", "Seeing the same thing myself, although I don't have a stable reproduction scenario. The same was observed with `3.5.0`", "Could you try the latest release to see if the problem still occurs?", "Sorry I was not clear originally, I saw the problem at first on `3.5.0` but still see it with `3.5.2`.", "@raphw \r\n\r\nYes I mock some exceptions in other test classes but the ones who ends with StackoverflowError. I will take some time today or next week to try to reproduce the bug in a small project.\r\n\r\nThe full stacktrace :\r\n```\r\njava.lang.StackOverflowError\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.handleConstruction(MockMethodDispatcher.java:53)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.ClassCastException.<init>(ClassCastException.java:58)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.ClassCastException.<init>(ClassCastException.java:58)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.ClassCastException.<init>(ClassCastException.java:58)\r\n\t/* [...] */\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.ClassCastException.<init>(ClassCastException.java:58)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.ClassCastException.<init>(ClassCastException.java:58)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\t/* end of stacktrace */\r\n```", "This can't be the full stack trace since it needs to origin somewhere. Maybe it's cut off in the print?\r\n\r\nI think I know the problem and tried to fix it. Unfortunately, we have some release issues but you could build *release/3.x* locally and try if the problem still occurs.", "I'm seeing the same error when trying to go from 3.4.6 to 3.5.0.\r\n```\r\njava.lang.StackOverflowError\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.isConstructorMock(MockMethodDispatcher.java:57)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException.<init>(MockitoException.java:34)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:273)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.handleConstruction(MockMethodDispatcher.java:69)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException.<init>(MockitoException.java:34)\r\n... \r\n```\r\nseems to be related to using a @Spy in the test class, when I change the @Spy to an @Mock the error goes away. What seems odd in my case is everything is ok until there are more than 15 tests in the class. 15 tests will pass and any additional tests will fail.\r\n\r\nThe message of the first exception is `Unexpected spy for java.util.AbstractMap on instance of java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap` ", "@raphw Same issue with v3.5.5.\r\n\r\nStacktrace :\r\n```\r\njava.lang.StackOverflowError\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:273)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.handleConstruction(MockMethodDispatcher.java:69)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException.<init>(MockitoException.java:34)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:273)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.handleConstruction(MockMethodDispatcher.java:69)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException.<init>(MockitoException.java:34)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:273)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.handleConstruction(MockMethodDispatcher.java:69)\r\n [...]\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException.<init>(MockitoException.java:34)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:273)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.handleConstruction(MockMethodDispatcher.java:69)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException.<init>(MockitoException.java:34)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:273)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.handleConstruction(MockMethodDispatcher.java:69)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Exception.<init>(Exception.java:66)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.RuntimeException.<init>(RuntimeException.java:62)\r\n\tat org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException.<init>(MockitoException.java:34)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:273)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n```", "@jdussouillez That gets us one step closer but I needed to add an exception for when the error is thrown. Could you build the *constructor-dispatch* branch locally and see what exception you get in your setup?", "@raphw I installed v3.5.6 from the *constructor-dispatch* branch : no more errors, all the tests were executed and passed. So I guess commit https://github.com/mockito/mockito/commit/eaa12bfc018ed00fcd35588dc900d657a9740e32 fixes the issue.\r\n\r\nFeel free to ask if you want me to do more tests.", "That's strange since the exception indicates a scenario that should not occur. I merely fixed the recursion.\r\n\r\nCan you set a breakppint to see why this happens? What instance is created during spy construction? ", "@raphw I didn't succeed in setting breakpoints but I added some logs (before [this line](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/constructor-dispatch/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java#L268)).\r\n\r\nPatch : \r\n```diff\r\ndiff --git a/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java b/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java\r\nindex 96477f477..6b37ea09e 100644\r\n--- a/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java\r\n+++ b/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java\r\n@@ -265,6 +265,9 @@ public class InlineByteBuddyMockMaker\r\n } else if (type.isInstance(spy)) {\r\n return spy;\r\n } else {\r\n+ System.out.println(\"type = \" + type.getName());\r\n+ System.out.println(\"object = \" + object);\r\n+ System.out.println(\"spy = \" + spy.getClass().getName());\r\n isSuspended.set(true);\r\n try {\r\n // Unexpected construction of non-spied object\r\n```\r\n\r\nLogs (type is always `java.util.AbstractMap`):\r\n```\r\ntype = java.util.AbstractMap\r\nobject = {}\r\nspy = com.myproject.bean.MyBean1\r\n\r\ntype = java.util.AbstractMap\r\nobject = {}\r\nspy = com.myproject.bean.MyBean2\r\n\r\ntype = java.util.AbstractMap\r\nobject = {}\r\nspy = com.myproject.bean.MyBean3\r\n[...]\r\n```", "Could you also add a stack trace at the same spot? (`Thread.dump()`)", "Code snippet to dump : \r\n```java\r\ntry {\r\n Thread.dumpStack();\r\n} catch (Throwable t) {\r\n System.out.println(\"error while dumping stack: \" + t.getMessage());\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\n\r\n1. Logs using [`Thread.dumpStack()`](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/Thread.html#dumpStack()) **after** `isSuspended.set(true);`\r\n\r\n```\r\ntype = java.util.AbstractMap\r\nobject = {}\r\nspy = com.myproject.bean.MyBeanTest$TestClass\r\n<dump>\r\njava.lang.Exception: Stack trace\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.Thread.dumpStack(Thread.java:1388)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$new$3(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:272)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.MockMethodAdvice.handleConstruction(MockMethodAdvice.java:176)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.inject.MockMethodDispatcher.handleConstruction(MockMethodDispatcher.java:69)\r\n\tat java.base/java.util.AbstractMap.<init>(AbstractMap.java)\r\n\tat java.base/java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap.<init>(ConcurrentHashMap.java:828)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.<init>(ClassLoader.java:333)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.<init>(ClassLoader.java:457)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingClassLoader.<init>(ClassDefiner.java:72)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.ClassDefiner$1.run(ClassDefiner.java:60)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.ClassDefiner$1.run(ClassDefiner.java:58)\r\n\tat java.base/java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.ClassDefiner.defineClass(ClassDefiner.java:57)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.MethodAccessorGenerator$1.run(MethodAccessorGenerator.java:400)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.MethodAccessorGenerator$1.run(MethodAccessorGenerator.java:394)\r\n\tat java.base/java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.MethodAccessorGenerator.generate(MethodAccessorGenerator.java:393)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.MethodAccessorGenerator.generateConstructor(MethodAccessorGenerator.java:92)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:55)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:490)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.util.reflection.ReflectionMemberAccessor.lambda$newInstance$0(ReflectionMemberAccessor.java:26)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.lambda$newInstance$4(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:631)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.util.reflection.ReflectionMemberAccessor.newInstance(ReflectionMemberAccessor.java:26)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.newInstance(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:626)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.doCreateMock(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:373)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.createSpy(InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.java:349)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.util.MockUtil.createMock(MockUtil.java:44)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.MockitoCore.mock(MockitoCore.java:61)\r\n\tat org.mockito.Mockito.spy(Mockito.java:2033)\r\n\tat com.myproject.bean.MyBeanTest.test1(MyBeanTest.java:274)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:566)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.commons.util.ReflectionUtils.invokeMethod(ReflectionUtils.java:686)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.MethodInvocation.proceed(MethodInvocation.java:60)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.InvocationInterceptorChain$ValidatingInvocation.proceed(InvocationInterceptorChain.java:131)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.extension.TimeoutExtension.intercept(TimeoutExtension.java:149)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.extension.TimeoutExtension.interceptTestableMethod(TimeoutExtension.java:140)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.extension.TimeoutExtension.interceptTestMethod(TimeoutExtension.java:84)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.ExecutableInvoker$ReflectiveInterceptorCall.lambda$ofVoidMethod$0(ExecutableInvoker.java:115)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.ExecutableInvoker.lambda$invoke$0(ExecutableInvoker.java:105)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.InvocationInterceptorChain$InterceptedInvocation.proceed(InvocationInterceptorChain.java:106)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.InvocationInterceptorChain.proceed(InvocationInterceptorChain.java:64)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.InvocationInterceptorChain.chainAndInvoke(InvocationInterceptorChain.java:45)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.InvocationInterceptorChain.invoke(InvocationInterceptorChain.java:37)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.ExecutableInvoker.invoke(ExecutableInvoker.java:104)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.ExecutableInvoker.invoke(ExecutableInvoker.java:98)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.descriptor.TestMethodTestDescriptor.lambda$invokeTestMethod$6(TestMethodTestDescriptor.java:212)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.descriptor.TestMethodTestDescriptor.invokeTestMethod(TestMethodTestDescriptor.java:208)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.descriptor.TestMethodTestDescriptor.execute(TestMethodTestDescriptor.java:137)\r\n\tat org.junit.jupiter.engine.descriptor.TestMethodTestDescriptor.execute(TestMethodTestDescriptor.java:71)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$5(NodeTestTask.java:135)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$7(NodeTestTask.java:125)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.Node.around(Node.java:135)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$8(NodeTestTask.java:123)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.executeRecursively(NodeTestTask.java:122)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.execute(NodeTestTask.java:80)\r\n\tat java.base/java.util.ArrayList.forEach(ArrayList.java:1541)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.invokeAll(SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.java:38)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$5(NodeTestTask.java:139)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$7(NodeTestTask.java:125)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.Node.around(Node.java:135)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$8(NodeTestTask.java:123)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.executeRecursively(NodeTestTask.java:122)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.execute(NodeTestTask.java:80)\r\n\tat java.base/java.util.ArrayList.forEach(ArrayList.java:1541)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.invokeAll(SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.java:38)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$5(NodeTestTask.java:139)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$7(NodeTestTask.java:125)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.Node.around(Node.java:135)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$8(NodeTestTask.java:123)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.executeRecursively(NodeTestTask.java:122)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.execute(NodeTestTask.java:80)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.submit(SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.java:32)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.HierarchicalTestExecutor.execute(HierarchicalTestExecutor.java:57)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.HierarchicalTestEngine.execute(HierarchicalTestEngine.java:51)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.launcher.core.DefaultLauncher.execute(DefaultLauncher.java:220)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.launcher.core.DefaultLauncher.lambda$execute$6(DefaultLauncher.java:188)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.launcher.core.DefaultLauncher.withInterceptedStreams(DefaultLauncher.java:202)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.launcher.core.DefaultLauncher.execute(DefaultLauncher.java:181)\r\n\tat org.junit.platform.launcher.core.DefaultLauncher.execute(DefaultLauncher.java:128)\r\n\tat org.apache.maven.surefire.junitplatform.JUnitPlatformProvider.invokeAllTests(JUnitPlatformProvider.java:150)\r\n\tat org.apache.maven.surefire.junitplatform.JUnitPlatformProvider.invoke(JUnitPlatformProvider.java:124)\r\n\tat org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.invokeProviderInSameClassLoader(ForkedBooter.java:384)\r\n\tat org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.runSuitesInProcess(ForkedBooter.java:345)\r\n\tat org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.execute(ForkedBooter.java:126)\r\n\tat org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.main(ForkedBooter.java:418)\r\n</dump>\r\n```\r\n\r\n2. Logs using [`Thread.dumpStack()`](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/Thread.html#dumpStack()) **before** `isSuspended.set(true);`\r\n\r\n```\r\ntype = java.util.AbstractMap\r\nobject = {}\r\nspy = com.myproject.library.LibraryBean1\r\n<dump>\r\ntype = java.lang.Throwable\r\nobject = java.lang.Exception\r\nspy = com.myproject.library.LibraryBean1\r\n<dump>\r\ntype = java.lang.Throwable\r\nobject = java.lang.Exception\r\nspy = com.myproject.library.LibraryBean1\r\n\r\n[...]\r\n\r\nerror while dumping stack: Unexpected spy for java.lang.Throwable on instance of java.lang.Exception\r\n</dump>\r\nerror while dumping stack: Unexpected spy for java.lang.Throwable on instance of java.lang.Exception\r\n</dump>\r\nerror while dumping stack: Unexpected spy for java.lang.Throwable on instance of java.lang.Exception\r\n</dump>\r\nerror while dumping stack: Unexpected spy for java.lang.Throwable on instance of java.lang.Exception\r\n</dump>\r\nerror while dumping stack: Unexpected spy for java.lang.Throwable on instance of java.lang.Exception\r\n</dump>\r\n```", "I thought it would be related to class loading.\r\n\r\nI am curious however how you end uo with the reflection member accessor. It should be the instrumentation based one. Are you using the latest build? ", "> Are you using the latest build?\r\n\r\nI pulled the *constructor-dispatch* branch this morning before giving you the `Thread.dumpStack()` output. I just switched to branch *release/3.x* (3.5.6, next 3.5.7), applied my logs and run my tests again : same results.\r\n", "Strange, I'll investigate. Could you make sure that you don't have a stale version? You are using *mockito-inline* or are you configuring the mock maker manually? ", "> Could you make sure that you don't have a stale version?\r\n\r\nI already checked using `mvn dependency:tree` but it says I'm using 3.5.7 (I'm using the *release/3.x* branch).\r\nI will try to copy my project, use v3.5.2 and remove code step by step until I can reproduce the bug with only a few files so I can provide you a reproducible example.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n> You are using mockito-inline or are you configuring the mock maker manually?\r\n\r\nI'm using mockito-core :\r\n\r\n```xml\r\n<dependency>\r\n <groupId>org.mockito</groupId>\r\n <artifactId>mockito-core</artifactId>\r\n <version>3.5.7</version>\r\n <scope>test</scope>\r\n</dependency>\r\n```\r\n\r\nAnd I do not configure anything manually. I just have the `src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker` config file which contains\r\n```\r\nmock-maker-inline\r\n```\r\n", "That explains it. You can drop the config and just use the inline artifact which defines the nock maker for you. The member accessor is another plugin which requires manual activation using a similar file if you don't use the other artifact. ", "> You can drop the config and just use the inline artifact which defines the nock maker for you.\r\n\r\nI used mockito-inline v3.5.6, all tests passed but 3. The 3 that fails are new ones (not the ones who failed before) and none of them use Mockito (but all of them are on enums, apparently `MyEnum.values()` returns an array with null values inside). But they're executed correctly when running them manually, class by class ([like I did before](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2011#issuecomment-677610343))\r\n\r\nDo you know how can I generate the inline JAR from the sources ? I can't provide you the logs I added in the source with mockito-inline because the JAR is not generated by `./gradlew -x check clean build`.", "@raphw Thank you for the fix and the time spent on this. It works great !" ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "subprojects/inline/src/test/java/org/mockitoinline/InitializationTest.java", "subprojects/inline/src/test/java/org/mockitoinline/PluginTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Should be fixed with #2006", "We still have issues with 3.5.2. We are unable to update to new version and use `assembleAndroidTest` task.\r\n\r\n```\r\n/usr/local/gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/225c46d0e9f10ff5ef3f4d9a009c4924/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar: D8: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n\r\n```", "@kozaxinan Are you certain that you are using 3.5.2 and aren't accidentally using an older version of either Mockito or ByteBuddy? We have had confirmations from other users that 3.5.2 fixed the issue you are seeing, so it would be good to double check that you have the correct version.", "@TimvdLippe I confirm the issue still occurs also in our project with the exact same error.\r\n- mockito-core 3.5.2\r\n- mockito-android 3.5.2\r\n- mockito-inline 3.5.2\r\n- objenesis 3.1\r\n- bytebuddy 1.10.13", "Looks like the issue was introduced in objenesis 3.x (upgraded in https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1998)\r\nForcing objenesis to 2.6 makes `assembleAndroidTest` task succeed.", "Aha, thanks for letting us know. I will create a revert.", "Still getting this error with 3.5.7", "Here's the stacktrace that I get when using 3.5.7:\r\n\r\n```\r\n/Users/azizbekian/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/63e24576c0e1d1e5b675c1c61e4e5727/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar: D8: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\nStack trace:\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.errors.a.a(:7)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:58)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:104)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:53)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.C.b(:43)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:35)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:10)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.TrustedListenableFutureTask$TrustedFutureInterruptibleTask.runInterruptibly(TrustedListenableFutureTask.java:125)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.InterruptibleTask.run(InterruptibleTask.java:69)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.TrustedListenableFutureTask.run(TrustedListenableFutureTask.java:78)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.MoreExecutors$DirectExecutorService.execute(MoreExecutors.java:322)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.AbstractExecutorService.submit(AbstractExecutorService.java:134)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractListeningExecutorService.submit(AbstractListeningExecutorService.java:66)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractListeningExecutorService.submit(AbstractListeningExecutorService.java:36)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:3)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:10)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.d(:29)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.b(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.W.a(:30)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.run(:11)\r\n at com.android.builder.dexing.D8DexArchiveBuilder.convert(D8DexArchiveBuilder.java:116)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.process(DexingTransform.kt:296)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.processNonIncrementally(DexingTransform.kt:243)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.doTransform(DexingTransform.kt:153)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.access$doTransform(DexingTransform.kt:69)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform$transform$1.invoke(DexingTransform.kt:104)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform$transform$1.invoke(DexingTransform.kt:69)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.tasks.BlocksUtilsKt.recordArtifactTransformSpan(BlocksUtils.kt:33)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.transform(DexingTransform.kt:100)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformer.transform(DefaultTransformer.java:193)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$TransformerExecution.execute(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:332)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.lambda$execute$0(ExecuteStep.java:32)\r\n at java.util.Optional.map(Optional.java:215)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.execute(ExecuteStep.java:32)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.execute(ExecuteStep.java:26)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CleanupOutputsStep.execute(CleanupOutputsStep.java:67)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CleanupOutputsStep.execute(CleanupOutputsStep.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveInputChangesStep.execute(ResolveInputChangesStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveInputChangesStep.execute(ResolveInputChangesStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CancelExecutionStep.execute(CancelExecutionStep.java:43)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.TimeoutStep.executeWithoutTimeout(TimeoutStep.java:73)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.TimeoutStep.execute(TimeoutStep.java:54)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CatchExceptionStep.execute(CatchExceptionStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CreateOutputsStep.execute(CreateOutputsStep.java:44)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SnapshotOutputsStep.execute(SnapshotOutputsStep.java:54)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SnapshotOutputsStep.execute(SnapshotOutputsStep.java:38)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.BroadcastChangingOutputsStep.execute(BroadcastChangingOutputsStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.executeWithoutCache(CacheStep.java:159)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.execute(CacheStep.java:72)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.execute(CacheStep.java:43)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.StoreExecutionStateStep.execute(StoreExecutionStateStep.java:44)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.StoreExecutionStateStep.execute(StoreExecutionStateStep.java:33)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.RecordOutputsStep.execute(RecordOutputsStep.java:38)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.RecordOutputsStep.execute(RecordOutputsStep.java:24)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.executeBecause(SkipUpToDateStep.java:92)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.lambda$execute$0(SkipUpToDateStep.java:85)\r\n at java.util.Optional.map(Optional.java:215)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.execute(SkipUpToDateStep.java:55)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.execute(SkipUpToDateStep.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveChangesStep.execute(ResolveChangesStep.java:76)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveChangesStep.execute(ResolveChangesStep.java:37)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.java:26)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveCachingStateStep.execute(ResolveCachingStateStep.java:94)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveCachingStateStep.execute(ResolveCachingStateStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.execute(CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.execute(CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.java:53)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ValidateStep.execute(ValidateStep.java:74)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.lambda$execute$2(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:78)\r\n at java.util.Optional.orElseGet(Optional.java:267)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.execute(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:78)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.execute(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsStartedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsStartedStep.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.LoadExecutionStateStep.execute(LoadExecutionStateStep.java:40)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.LoadExecutionStateStep.execute(LoadExecutionStateStep.java:28)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.impl.DefaultWorkExecutor.execute(DefaultWorkExecutor.java:33)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.lambda$call$2(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:200)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.fireTransformListeners(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:269)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.access$300(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.call(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:178)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.call(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$CallableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:409)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$CallableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:399)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$1.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:157)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:242)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:150)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.call(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:94)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DelegatingBuildOperationExecutor.call(DelegatingBuildOperationExecutor.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.lambda$doTransform$0(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.lambda$withWorkspace$0(ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:81)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.LockOnDemandCrossProcessCacheAccess.withFileLock(LockOnDemandCrossProcessCacheAccess.java:90)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheAccess.withFileLock(DefaultCacheAccess.java:191)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultPersistentDirectoryStore.withFileLock(DefaultPersistentDirectoryStore.java:177)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheFactory$ReferenceTrackingCache.withFileLock(DefaultCacheFactory.java:201)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.withWorkspace(ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:76)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.lambda$withWorkspace$0(AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:55)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LocalManualCache$1.load(LocalCache.java:4718)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LoadingValueReference.loadFuture(LocalCache.java:3445)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.loadSync(LocalCache.java:2194)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.lockedGetOrLoad(LocalCache.java:2153)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.get(LocalCache.java:2043)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache.get(LocalCache.java:3851)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LocalManualCache.get(LocalCache.java:4713)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.withWorkspace(AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:55)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.doTransform(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.access$000(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$1.invoke(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:141)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.CacheableInvocation$1.invoke(CacheableInvocation.java:58)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.TransformationOperation.run(TransformationOperation.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$RunnableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:395)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$RunnableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:387)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$1.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:157)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:242)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:150)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.access$1500(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$ParentPreservingQueueWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:437)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.runOperation(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:231)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.access$600(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:173)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable$1.create(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:210)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable$1.create(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:204)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.work.DefaultWorkerLeaseService.withLocks(DefaultWorkerLeaseService.java:180)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.runBatch(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:204)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.run(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:178)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ExecutorPolicy$CatchAndRecordFailures.onExecute(ExecutorPolicy.java:64)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ManagedExecutorImpl$1.run(ManagedExecutorImpl.java:48)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ThreadFactoryImpl$ManagedThreadRunnable.run(ThreadFactoryImpl.java:56)\r\n at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)\r\n Suppressed: java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: com.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractFuture.getDoneValue(AbstractFuture.java:552)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractFuture.get(AbstractFuture.java:513)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.FluentFuture$TrustedFuture.get(FluentFuture.java:86)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:14)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:9)\r\n ... 114 more\r\n [CIRCULAR REFERENCE:com.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)]\r\nCaused by: com.android.tools.r8.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:633)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:674)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.r.n.A.a(:236)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.o.a(:153)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:133)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.a(:93)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.a(:71)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.buildIR(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.C0.buildIR(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.T.a(:152)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:412)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:53)\r\n ... 127 more\r\n\r\n\r\n```", "I updated all mockito packages to 3.5.9 but unfortunately I do get still the same error as above.", "This still seems to fail for me:\r\n```\r\nExecution failed for task ':mergeDexGplayDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':gplayDebugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=18, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /home/tobi/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/66df4f0b18795a51947f8881933478f9/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n\r\n```\r\n\r\nI removed \r\n`androidTestImplementation \"org.mockito:mockito-core:$mockitoVersion\"`\r\nand changed:\r\n```\r\ntestImplementation (\"com.nhaarman.mockitokotlin2:mockito-kotlin:2.2.0\") {\r\n exclude group: \"org.mockito\", module: \"mockito-core\"\r\n }\r\n```\r\n\r\nIf you want to test it: https://github.com/nextcloud/android/pull/6768\r\n", "This is still happening in 3.5.10:\r\n\r\n- https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/rKzc6MVhBf/\r\n- https://github.com/relaycorp/relaynet-gateway-android/pull/120", "@gnarea You are depending on Objenesis 3, which is incompatible with Android <26. Please downgrade to Objenesis 2 and depend on `mockito-android`. For more info, see the context in #2024", "@TimvdLippe looks like `mockito-core` still has objenesis 3.1 as a dependency. \r\n```\r\n+--- project :my-project\r\n| \\--- org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.10.13\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy-agent:1.10.13\r\n| \\--- org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1\r\n\r\n+--- org.mockito:mockito-android:3.5.10\r\n| +--- org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10 (*)\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy-android:1.10.13\r\n| | +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.10.13\r\n| | \\--- com.jakewharton.android.repackaged:dalvik-dx:9.0.0_r3\r\n| \\--- org.objenesis:objenesis:[2.6, 3.0) -> 3.1\r\n```", "@francescocervone That is correct. For non-Android projects, they can use Objenesis 3 just fine.", "@TimvdLippe it's pretty common for Android projects having some pure JVM Gradle modules, not depending on Android. In that case we must depend on `mockito-core` which depends on Objenesis 3. What do you suggest in that case?\r\n\r\nAnyway, even if we don't depend directly on `mockito-core`, we get the same error on `mockito-core` (I suppose that's because `mockito-android` depends on `mockito-core`).\r\n```\r\n> Transform artifact mockito-core-3.5.10.jar (org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10) with DexingNoClasspathTransform\r\nD8: Private interface methods are only supported starting with Android N (--min-api 24): java.lang.Object org.mockito.plugins.MemberAccessor.lambda$newInstance$0(java.lang.reflect.Constructor, java.lang.Object[])\r\nStack trace:\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.a: Private interface methods are only supported starting with Android N (--min-api 24): java.lang.Object org.mockito.plugins.MemberAccessor.lambda$newInstance$0(java.lang.reflect.Constructor, java.lang.Object[])\r\n\r\n[ stacktrace ]\r\n\r\n* What went wrong:\r\nExecution failed for task ':app:mergeExtDexDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':app:debugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform mockito-core-3.5.10.jar (org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=false, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingNoClasspathTransform: /Users/me/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/9ebcc121d44dc6f808610b5ee83414a2/jetified-mockito-core-3.5.10.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```\r\n\r\nDo you need an example project?", "@francescocervone That last stacktrace is yet another issue that is new to me, as it complains about private interface methods. That seems to be unrelated to Objenesis. The code in question is https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/b6ae6cf12b93ef9445e524224375aab1eb76129d/src/main/java/org/mockito/plugins/MemberAccessor.java#L24-L28\r\n\r\nI guess older versions of Android do not support default interface methods. I am not sure what to do here, as that seems to be a problem where Android did not support all features of Java 8. Since Mockito 3 targets Java 8, that would be incompatible with older versions of Android.\r\n\r\nCan you use Mockito 2 solely for tests running on older versions of Android?", "> Can you use Mockito 2 solely for tests running on older versions of Android?\r\n\r\nNo, because this is a compilation error which depends on the minimum supported Android version. Almost every Android project should use Mockito 2 until android 26 will be the \"generally accepted\" minimum sdk supported version (probably in at least 5 years 😄).", "@francescocervone What I mean is that you have 2 test suites. 1 testsuite for all tests >= 26 and 1 testsuite for all tests <26. For the testsuite >= 26 you can use Mockito 3 + Objenesis 3, as they support Java 8+. For the testsuite <26 you can use Mockito 2 + Objenesis 2, as they support Java 6+. By splitting up the test suites, you can use modern Mockito for modern Android and older Mockito for older Android. That should work right?", "Also to reiterate, we have introduced Animal Sniffer to ensure we don't break Android again. We set the target to 24 per https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2006/files#diff-c197962302397baf3a4cc36463dce5eaR104 which seemed the most reasonable cut-off for Java 8 support that Mockito 3 relies on. Therefore, rather than having a cut-off at 26, we would be talking about a cut-off at 24. I am not sure when the Android community moves past that cut-off?", "@TimvdLippe as far as I know you cannot have 2 test suites in the same android project compiling against 2 Android versions. The minimum Android supported version is a property (`minSdkVersion`) defined in the android project's `build.gradle` file through the Android Gradle Plugin.\r\n\r\n> I am not sure when the Android community moves past that cut-off? \r\n\r\nMaybe [this chart](https://gs.statcounter.com/android-version-market-share/mobile-tablet/worldwide) can be helpful? In my case, we currently support Android 21 as min SDK.", "We could try to update Animal Sniffer to level 21 and see what the effect is. If we can make `mockito-core` compatible with that, without introducing breaking changes for the wider Java ecosystem, then I am open to that. However, when @raphw tried that previously, it turned out that a large portion of `mockito-core` was *already* incompatible. This led us to believe that we would have already broken our users and (since we hadn't received complaints before), 24 felt like the best option.\r\n\r\n3.5.0 was a big release and a lot of work went into it to support modern Java, which is probably the reason we have hit numerous issues with it. I wonder how many changes in 3.5.0 affect compatibility compared to previous Mockito releases. Could you clone Mockito and try to work out what changes are required to make Mockito compatible with 21? Then we can assess breakages and go from there.", "Reopening this issue, as I think it is clear by now we are going to need support from developers working in the Android ecosystem on figuring out how to resolve these issues.", "FYI: at least in my case, the workaround suggested above worked: https://github.com/relaycorp/relaynet-gateway-android/pull/120. But that project doesn't have JVM modules (they're all external deps). We're also supporting API 21+.", "@TimvdLippe \r\n>Could you clone Mockito and try to work out what changes are required to make Mockito compatible with 21?\r\n\r\nI will.", "If I remember correctly, types like predicate and function are not available which are part of our public API. This can be fixed but requires breaking public API. ", "@gnarea , that didn't work for my setup, minSdk = 21:\r\n\r\n```\r\n* What went wrong:\r\nExecution failed for task ':app:mergeExtDexDevDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':app:devDebugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /Users/azizbekian/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/adb8b362b2ccf145263475708478d34b/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```", "@raphw If I remember correctly, we are already shipping `Optional` and `Function` in our public API prior to 3.5.0. Since Android tests were passing with 3.4.0, I don't think including these symbols in our public API is problematic. Therefore, I don't think we should be changing these types in our API. (This is also what confuses me the most, as to why some parts work and why other parts don't work, even though Animal Sniffer is claiming nothing should in theory work)", "I'm not an Android expert. `DefineClassHelper` is only used by specific instantiators that are not used in Android. So ideally this class can be excluded from the compilation by Dex it should solve the problem.", "@TimvdLippe I played a little bit with mockito and the issue I mentioned [in this comment](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-688321579) is solved by adding in the android project's build.gradle:\r\n```gradle\r\nandroid {\r\n compileOptions {\r\n sourceCompatibility JavaVersion.VERSION_1_8\r\n targetCompatibility JavaVersion.VERSION_1_8\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\nAndroid Gradle Plugin 3.0 and higher [supports default interface methods](https://developer.android.com/studio/releases/gradle-plugin#j8-library-desugaring).\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nThe objenesis 3.x issue included in `mockito-core` mentioned [here](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-688252464) instead can be avoided by excluding objenesis from `mockito-core` or any library/project depending on `mockito-core`:\r\n```gradle\r\ndependencies {\r\n androidTestImplementation 'org.mockito:mockito-android:3.5.10'\r\n androidTestImplementation('org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10') {\r\n exclude group: 'org.objenesis'\r\n }\r\n androidTestImplementation(project(':depending-on-mockito-core')) {\r\n exclude group: 'org.objenesis'\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\nThis workaround is a little bit inconvenient IMHO, but solves the issue.", "@francescocervone Thanks for the investigation. With regards to your first solution, can we automatically apply that to `mockito-android` or do users of that artifact need to specify it in their `build.gradle`? For the latter, if you solely depend on `mockito-android` you should be good to go. If that is inconvenient, maybe it can be solved in Objenesis 3 instead (not sure if that is possible).", "@TimvdLippe \r\n> can we automatically apply that to mockito-android or do users of that artifact need to specify it in their build.gradle?\r\n\r\nUsers need to specify it in their `build.gradle`.\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\n> if you solely depend on mockito-android you should be good to go\r\n\r\nTrue, but I think this \"solution\" is pretty weak. For example, if the project declares [`mockito-kotlin`](https://github.com/nhaarman/mockito-kotlin) dependency, objenesis must be excluded since `mockito-kotlin` depends on `mockito-core`. In general, if the android project depends on some module/project/library depending on `mockito-core`, the workaround must be applied.", "Again, I'm not sure but can't you just exclude `DefineClassHelper`? That will solve the problem and no need to remove Objenesis. I don't think I can solve it from the Objenesis side. If I can please tell me why? Deploy an objenesis-android excluding these classes will just make everything really messy.", "@henri-tremblay is there a way to exclude a class from the compilation of a library? How can we exclude `DefineClassHelper`?\r\nEven if we were able to exclude that class: Objenesis is built with Java 8 and it's likely to introduce similar issues in future. This circle will end when one of these classes using some unsupported Java 8 feature, will be part of the Objenesis core and we will not be able to just \"exclude\" it.", "@TimvdLippe there is a handier workaround for objenesis 3.x, without excluding it from `mockito-core`.\r\nIn root `build.gradle` we can add:\r\n```gradle\r\nallprojects {\r\n configurations.all {\r\n resolutionStrategy.force 'org.objenesis:objenesis:2.6'\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```", "@francescocervone I don't know. That's why I was saying \"Not an Android expert\" :-) Let me ask around. It's sad to downgrade to Android 2. The other solution would be to split objenesis in 2. One with the core instantiators and one with the exotic ones. Can you hack the objenesis jar to remote this class and just compile with the new jar to tell me if it works?", "Ok. I had some feedback from @mhausherr. The error is in R8. So we could ignore like this in `proguard-rules.pro`:\r\n```\r\n-assumenosideeffects class org.objenesis.instanciator.util.DefineClassHelper {\r\n *;\r\n}\r\n```", "@henri-tremblay 🤔 It cannot be R8. R8 obfuscates, optimizes and shrinks the code in release builds. It doesn't run in test unless you don't explicitly enable it also for debug builds.\r\nMore info here -> https://developer.android.com/studio/build/shrink-code", "@jakewharton (if I remember correctly, you know a lot more about minification, R8 and problems like this. If that's not the case, please let me know and feel free to ignore this message)\r\n\r\nHey Jake,\r\n\r\nPlease see the above messages regarding problems with Mockito transitively depending on Objenesis 3 which broke Android compatibility. However, Objenesis compilation broke, despite the class in question not being used in Android tests. As such, the class could be removed with the proguard configuration @henri-tremblay (maintainer of Objenesis) posted.\r\n\r\n@francescocervone thinks that is not the appropriate solution, as R8 should not be performing these kind of cleanups.\r\n\r\nSadly I am lacking the knowledge to figure out what is the appropriate solution here and how we can move forward and I had hoped you would be able to help us figuring out.\r\n\r\nThanks in advance for your time and once again, if you prefer not to be involved, feel free to say so and I will try to find another domain expert 😄 ", "@TimvdLippe I didn't say that R8 should not be performing these kind of cleanups. I said that R8 is not involved at all, therefore the R8 rule suggested by @henri-tremblay is not a valid workaround. ", "@TimvdLippe I created #2053 to fix this issue. With range usage in `strictly` tag, gradle fails to force dependency. I verified with our project. For androidTest, If we just use moctiko-android and exclude mockito-core from mockito-kotlin (or any dependency that has mockito-core), there shouldnt be any issue. \r\nThis fix still not great but until objenesis supports android sdk < 26, it should work.", "For anyone who is looking to contribute, please check out the upstream issue at https://github.com/easymock/objenesis/issues/79", "I am going to close this issue in favor of https://github.com/easymock/objenesis/issues/79", "I have pushed the changes moving some instantiators in a new project. Could you please check if it works?", "Release 3.2 was done. It should work now.", "Using version 3.8.0:\r\n\r\n```\r\nExecution failed for task ':App:mergeExtDexDebug'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':App:debugRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-transform=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /home/circleci/.gradle/caches/modules-2/files-2.1/org.objenesis/objenesis/3.1/48f12deaae83a8dfc3775d830c9fd60ea59bbbca/objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```", "Release 3.2 of _Objenesis_ was done, Mockito still needs to have its dependency updated to 3.2. \r\n\r\nThis can be worked around by declaring the Objenesis dependency yourself like `implementation 'org.objenesis:objenesis:3.2` and rely on gradle's dependency resolution to go with the 3.2 version instead of the 3.1 currently included with Mockito", "@PaulKlauser Do you mind sending us a PR which updates the version?", "https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2249", "Could you consider publishing this to Maven as well?", "Mockito 3.9.0 should be published to Maven Central: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/runs/2288011033?check_suite_focus=true", "Thanks! It's still at 3.8.0 on [mvnrepository](https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.mockito/mockito-core) and [maven](https://search.maven.org/search?q=a:mockito-core) but I suppose it can take several hours for the change to propagate.", "Yes these systems take a while to obtain the new information. 3.9.0 is published here: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/mockito/mockito-core/3.9.0/", "Just mentioning that I had [this exact crash](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-686925445) and upgrading to 3.9.0 from 3.8.0 fixed it.\r\n\r\n However, it might be worth mentioning that any Android project that is just using `JCenter` as a repository will not return the right information for latest version. Android projects need to begin adding `mavenCentral()` as a repository, which previously was unnecessary because JCenter mirrored Maven Central. That's changing and it's because of this that my particular project didn't recognize the 3.9.0 update.\r\n```\r\nrepositories {\r\n google()\r\n mavenCentral() <-- many projects need to add this, explicitly\r\n jcenter()\r\n maven { url 'https://jitpack.io' }\r\n}\r\n```", "https://blog.gradle.org/jcenter-shutdown" ]

[ "Can we make this version `[2.6, 3.0[`, so that we also allow all Objenesis 2.x versions?", "```suggestion\r\n 'Objenesis 3.x does not work with android api 25 and below.\\n' +\r\n 'If you have mockito-android or mockito-kotlin, exclude mockito-core from them.\\n' +\r\n 'implementation(\"com.nhaarman.mockitokotlin2:mockito-kotlin\") {\\n' +\r\n ' exlcude group: \"org.mockito\", module: \"mockito-core\"\\n' +\r\n '}\\n' +\r\n```", "Updated text and added pr and issue links for further details.", "Updated versions and test locally. It works as expected.", "```suggestion\r\n 'MOCKITO DEPENDENCY PROBLEM:\\n' +\r\n '\\n' +\r\n 'Mockito core uses Objenesis 3.x and Objenesis 3.x does not work with android api 25 and below.\\n' +\r\n 'If you have mockito-core dependency with mockito-android, remove mockito-core.\\n' +\r\n 'If you have mockito-kotlin, exclude mockito-core.\\n' +\r\n 'implementation(\"com.nhaarman.mockitokotlin2:mockito-kotlin\") {\\n' +\r\n ' exclude group: \"org.mockito\", module: \"mockito-core\"\\n' +\r\n '}\\n' +\r\n 'For more information please check; \\n' +\r\n ' https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2024\\n' +\r\n ' https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2007\\n'\r\n```" ]

[ "android", "please contribute" ]

[ "build.gradle", "gradle/dependencies.gradle", "subprojects/android/android.gradle" ]

[ "build.gradle", "gradle/dependencies.gradle", "subprojects/android/android.gradle" ]

[ "subprojects/osgi-test/osgi-test.gradle" ]

[ "keyword_issue_to_pr", "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "In this case, the mock is not registered correctly. Mockito has no knowledge of Spring and could not do much about this. Have you adressed this issue with Spring? How do you get hold of this proxied instance?", "``` java\r\n@SpringBootTest\r\n@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)\r\n@AutoConfigureMockMvc\r\npublic class AppGroupClusterActionTest {\r\n\r\n @Autowired\r\n private MockMvc mockMvc;\r\n\r\n @MockBean\r\n private AppGroupClusterService appGroupClusterService;\r\n\r\n @SpyBean\r\n private AppGroupClusterAction appGroupClusterAction;\r\n\r\n @Captor\r\n private ArgumentCaptor<Object[]> argumentCaptor;\r\n\r\n @Test\r\n public void testUpdateExecuteAuditSpel() throws Exception {\r\n ServiceResult mockRes = new ServiceResult();\r\n mockRes.setSuccess(true);\r\n doReturn(mockRes).when(appGroupClusterService).update(\r\n Mockito.any(), Mockito.any(), Mockito.any(),\r\n Mockito.any(), Mockito.any(), Mockito.any(),\r\n Mockito.any(), Mockito.any(), Mockito.any());\r\n\r\n mockMvc.perform(\r\n MockMvcRequestBuilders.post(\"/platforms/{platform}/appGroupNames/{appGroupName}/clusterNames/{clusterName}/update\",\r\n \"platform\", \"appGroupName\", \"clusterName\").content(\"{}\"))\r\n .andExpect(status().isOk())\r\n .andReturn();\r\n\r\n// not work\r\n// verify(appGroupClusterAction).addAfterAuditResult(argumentCaptor.capture());\r\n verify((AppGroupClusterAction) AopTestUtils.getTargetObject(appGroupClusterAction)).addAfterAuditResult(argumentCaptor.capture());\r\n assertArrayEquals(argumentCaptor.getValue(), new Object[]{\"appGroupName\", \"platform\", \"clusterName\", \"{}\"});\r\n\r\n verify((AppGroupClusterAction) AopTestUtils.getTargetObject(appGroupClusterAction)).addAfterAuditResult(argumentCaptor.capture());\r\n assertArrayEquals(argumentCaptor.getValue(), new Object[]{\"appGroupName\", \"platform\", \"clusterName\", \"{}\"});\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\nthis is the code. I haven't addressed this issue with Spring, because it works before mockito3.4.0, I don't know whether the mockito need to be compatible with before？", "I'd say this issue would need to be adressed in Spring. I assume that the `MockBean` does not actually get the object injected that Mockito issues.", "I've [taken a look at this from the Spring Boot side of things](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/issues/22416#issuecomment-670464669). The TL;DR is that Spring's creating a CGLib proxy of the spy that Mockito has created. This proxied spy is passed into `when` and `SubclassByteBuddyMockMaker` correctly identifies that it's a mock while `InlineByteBuddyMockMaker` does not. You can work around the problem by passing the target of Spring's proxy (the Mockito spy) into `when`, but my expectation is that the two mock makers should have the same ability to identify a mock and both should cope with the spy having been proxied.\r\n\r\n> I haven't addressed this issue with Spring, because it works before mockito3.4.0\r\n\r\nI should also note that, in my testing, this isn't the case. The problem exists with Mockito 3.4, 3.3, and 3.1 with the difference in behaviour depending on whether or not you're using mockito-inline.", "@raphw @mockitoguy can you help?", "Thanks for filing the issue. Could you please provide us a minimal reproduction case that we can clone/download to debug the issue? Thanks in advance!", "Sorry, I missed this. \r\n\r\nThe reason this works with the `SubclassByteBuddyMockMaker` is that Spring proxies the (internal) `MockAccess` interface which we implement in the mock to extract the mock state which is stored in a field of the mock instance. We could just as much had read that field directly to avoid the interface; and this wouldn't even be such a bad idea as it less pollutes the reflection API. But at this time, when we call our internal interface method, it gets redirected to the actual proxy by Spring which is why this functions (accidentally).\r\n\r\nThe reason it does not work with the `InlineByteBuddyMockMaker` is that we cannot implement interfaces in a class after it has been loaded. The whole premise of the inline mock maker is to keep changes invisible to make use of the retransformation facilities even after class loading. Therefore, we need to identify mocks by the object identity which changes once Spring changes the object. We cannot change this, from our perspective nothing is broken.\r\n\r\nFrom Mockito's side things are simple: if you do not provide \"our\" mock objects to us, we do not guarantee to work, not in the past or in the future. That it does currently work with the subclass mock maker facility is rather accidental and might change in the future. If Spring cannot do anything about this, you'd need to unproxy the objects explicitly.", "> If Spring cannot do anything about this\r\n\r\nAs things stand, I don't believe we can as there's no opportunity for Spring to remove its proxy when the proxied spy is passed into `given` or `when`.\r\n\r\nI've [wondered in the past](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/issues/22281#issuecomment-665762299) if Mockito could offer a low-level API that provides a mechanism for pre-processing the instance that's passed in, but concluded that it wouldn't be broadly usable. I'd be delighted if someone who's more familiar with Mockito's internals believes it could be done.\r\n\r\nIn the absence of some inspiration on the Mockito side, our [current plan](https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/issues/22742) is to make it easier for users to work with both the Spring proxy and the \"bare\" Mockito spy.\r\n\r\n", "I could certainly add a mechanism for this, it would not create too much overhead and we already have a plugin mechanism in place for it. We would just add a non-operational mechanism by default but allow frameworks to unwrap \"their\" mocks. You could declare this by Mockito's default plugin mechanism.\r\n\r\nI will look into adding something like this to Mockito.", "@wilkinsona\r\n\r\nI just added an API. Could you try the *mock-resolver-plugin* branch where Spring would need to implement the `MockResolver` interface as a public class with a default constructor and add a file *org.mockito.plugins.MockResolver* to the *mockito-extensions* folder with the fully qualified class name. The resolver needs to check if a mock instance can be unwrapped and return this instance if applicable.\r\n\r\nThis way, I think this problem can be solved and Spring stops relying on the implementation detail. ", "Thanks, @raphw. I think this moves things in the right direction and allows almost all of our Mockito-related tests to pass with the inline mock maker.\r\n\r\nI am, however, still seeing a failure when calling `Mockito.reset(T)` with a spy that has been proxied with CGLib. The `MockHandler` is retrieved successfully (as our resolver removes the CGLib proxy) but it then fails in `InlineByteBuddyMockMaker.resetMock(Object, MockHandler, MockCreationSettings)` as the mock that is passed in is still CGLib-proxied. I wonder if reset should resolve the mock and use that both for getting the handler and for calling the mock maker? Something like this:\r\n\r\n```java\r\npublic static <T> void resetMock(T mock) {\r\n mock = resolve(mock);\r\n MockHandler oldHandler = getMockHandler(mock);\r\n MockCreationSettings settings = oldHandler.getMockSettings();\r\n MockHandler newHandler = createMockHandler(settings);\r\n\r\n mockMaker.resetMock(mock, newHandler, settings);\r\n}\r\n```", "Good catch! I'll fix that up! ", "I updated the branch and doublechecked that I did not miss anything else. Let me know if this works for you!", "@wilkinsona Did you have a chance to validate my latest revision of this?", "Not yet, sorry. I'll try and take another look at it this week.", "It took a little longer than I'd hoped, but I've just tried the updated branch and all of Spring Boot's Mockito-related tests now pass with the inline mock maker. Thank you.", "@raphw @wilkinsona Can someone tell me how I can leverage or otherwise take advantage of whatever fix was made in #2042 and get my @SpyBeans to work correctly with Mockito of any version? I've tried changing my version from v3.4.0 to v3.6.0 (where the change was ultimately merged) but that alone has not improved the situation. Thanks in advance!" ]

[ "Nit: extract this out in a private method and use that below as well.", "Can we add a test that uses multiple resolvers? I can think of the following scenarios:\r\n\r\n1. Multiple resolvers, no match\r\n2. Multiple resolvers, one match\r\n3. Multiple resolvers, multiple match\r\n\r\nFor scenario 3, should we throw maybe? What if it is order-dependent? Should we continue iterating over the resolvers until none match?", "I think multiple resolvers should be allowed. You can technically add several in your specified order and decompose multiple levels of nesting. It's of course an obscure scenario, but it makes sense to not forbid it since it would be extra work. I can add the tests you suggest.", "Fully agree, I hope for some feedback first, too.", "Hmm, registering multiple converters in a test is not quite that easy since it would require multiple modules. I don't think its worth the noise to add this functionality just for testing such a simple corner case.", "Understood. How would that work when a user wants to integrate with multiple frameworks that all expose a resolver?", "They would all expose their resolver and they would be invoked in their registration order. For instance, let's say Hibernate offered a Mockito-based mocking API but returns Hibernate proxies on mocks. Those proxies are by definition never Spring Beans. But if one passed a Spring bean or a Hibernate proxy, both would traverse the resolver chain and be unpacked accordingly.\r\n\r\nI assume that normally, only one resolver would apply to any wrapped mock but since Mockito should remain agnostic to this, that would be the best approach in my eyes.", "Why were the generic parameters removed from this and the other methods? I understand that they are not used, but I wonder if there are unintended side-effects of this change.", "Just as a cleanup on the side since I am touching the code already. The generic type is erased to `Object` and has no other function, that's why I removed it. No impact on source or binary compatibility.", "This needs to be marked as `@Incubating`", "Arghs, I missed this and just hit merge. Sorry, we can still add this, though.", "Yes let's still add it." ]

[ "awaiting response" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/PluginFinder.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/PluginInitializer.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/PluginLoader.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/PluginRegistry.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/Plugins.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockMethodAdvice.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/DefaultMockingDetails.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/MockUtil.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/plugins/MockMaker.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/PluginFinder.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/PluginInitializer.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/PluginLoader.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/PluginRegistry.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/Plugins.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockMethodAdvice.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/DefaultMockingDetails.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/MockUtil.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/plugins/MockMaker.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/plugins/MockResolver.java" ]

[ "subprojects/extTest/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/plugins/resolver/MockResolverTest.java", "subprojects/extTest/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/plugins/resolver/MyMockResolver.java", "subprojects/extTest/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/plugins/switcher/PluginSwitchTest.java", "subprojects/extTest/src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockResolver" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Fragments can be a bit of a pain.\r\n\r\n@rotty3000 could offer some advice here - he did the OSGi metadata port for the JUnit 5 project itself. They had a similar problem, in that some of the bundles relied on internal packages of other bundles. I think that they ended up exporting the \"internal\" packages, but flagged them with an attribute to mark them as \"internal use only\".", "I would also like to see a solution to this issue. Making the mockito-junit-jupiter jar into a fragment which exports the `MockitoExtension` package and attaches to mockito-core does sound like a good plan.", "I've got a set of changes that makes mockito-junit-jupiter work in OSGi using the same strategy that junit5 used to identify \"friend\" packages that are exported but not intended for public use outside of _mockito_.\r\n\r\n@raphw do you think your team would be interested?", "Looks good to me, I had a look at the build and I know too little about OSGi to understand the effect the API guardian dependencies have but since the classes only carry annotations and the dependency is not required, I do not see any chance of a regression.\r\n\r\n@TimvdLippe - could you have a second look, you know the build better then me. To me it looks like a good merge.", "For your edification:\r\na) apiguardian does not bring with it any runtime dependencies (confirmed by the OSGi metadata)\r\nb) the interaction between [API guardian and bnd is explained here](https://bnd.bndtools.org/instructions/export-apiguardian.html)\r\nc) the build adds a `verifyOSGi` gradle task glued onto `check` to make sure that future changes do not break the relationship required between mockito-core and mockito-junit-jupiter such that they continue working together in OSGi", "Today I tried a recent version of Mockito 5 with OSGi but it doesn't work anymore, see also #2708. :disappointed: \r\nPerhaps some of the commenters here can help with fixing it?", "@wborn Unfortunately I don't have a lot of experience with OSGi, but would be happy to review a PR that fixes it (with an included regression test). Apologies for the breakage!", "I think there needs to be some form of import of the boot loader package that we add. Not sure if such an import is considered in OSGi, but I'd need a reproduction to look into it." ]

[ "It's not clear to me why this part was removed and what changed it. Could you please add a comment to the functionality that replaces it to explain why we need it? (E.g. reproducible jars) And could you update your commit message to explain the change that was made.", "Could you add an example in the comment what would be invalid?", "bnd has this feature builtin! I enabled it by adding `-noextraheaders: true` rendering this code obsolete.", "if you diff the results before and after (which I did to double check) you will see what I mean :)", "An error will cause the build to fail with something like this:\r\n```\r\n> Task :junit-jupiter:verifyOSGi FAILED\r\nResolution failed. Capabilities satisfying the following requirements could not be found:\r\n [<<INITIAL>>]\r\n ⇒ osgi.identity: (osgi.identity=org.mockito.junit-jupiter)\r\n ⇒ [org.mockito.junit-jupiter version=3.5.11]\r\n ⇒ osgi.wiring.package: (osgi.wiring.package=com.foo)\r\n```\r\nI triggered this failure by manually importing a fake package `com.foo` (to replicate some package which cannot be satisfied by the available runtime dependencies) which is the same effect for any change that would inadvertently break the OSGi support.\r\nIf such a failure ever happens, you can ping me and I would be more than happy to help track down the reason (though I think it might become obvious to you pretty quickly :) )" ]

[]

[ "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle", "subprojects/junit-jupiter/junit-jupiter.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle", "subprojects/junit-jupiter/junit-jupiter.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Should be fixed with #2006", "We still have issues with 3.5.2. We are unable to update to new version and use `assembleAndroidTest` task.\r\n\r\n```\r\n/usr/local/gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/225c46d0e9f10ff5ef3f4d9a009c4924/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar: D8: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n\r\n```", "@kozaxinan Are you certain that you are using 3.5.2 and aren't accidentally using an older version of either Mockito or ByteBuddy? We have had confirmations from other users that 3.5.2 fixed the issue you are seeing, so it would be good to double check that you have the correct version.", "@TimvdLippe I confirm the issue still occurs also in our project with the exact same error.\r\n- mockito-core 3.5.2\r\n- mockito-android 3.5.2\r\n- mockito-inline 3.5.2\r\n- objenesis 3.1\r\n- bytebuddy 1.10.13", "Looks like the issue was introduced in objenesis 3.x (upgraded in https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1998)\r\nForcing objenesis to 2.6 makes `assembleAndroidTest` task succeed.", "Aha, thanks for letting us know. I will create a revert.", "Still getting this error with 3.5.7", "Here's the stacktrace that I get when using 3.5.7:\r\n\r\n```\r\n/Users/azizbekian/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/63e24576c0e1d1e5b675c1c61e4e5727/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar: D8: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\nStack trace:\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.errors.a.a(:7)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:58)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:104)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:53)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.C.b(:43)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:35)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:10)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.TrustedListenableFutureTask$TrustedFutureInterruptibleTask.runInterruptibly(TrustedListenableFutureTask.java:125)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.InterruptibleTask.run(InterruptibleTask.java:69)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.TrustedListenableFutureTask.run(TrustedListenableFutureTask.java:78)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.MoreExecutors$DirectExecutorService.execute(MoreExecutors.java:322)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.AbstractExecutorService.submit(AbstractExecutorService.java:134)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractListeningExecutorService.submit(AbstractListeningExecutorService.java:66)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractListeningExecutorService.submit(AbstractListeningExecutorService.java:36)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:3)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:10)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.d(:29)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.b(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.W.a(:30)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.run(:11)\r\n at com.android.builder.dexing.D8DexArchiveBuilder.convert(D8DexArchiveBuilder.java:116)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.process(DexingTransform.kt:296)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.processNonIncrementally(DexingTransform.kt:243)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.doTransform(DexingTransform.kt:153)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.access$doTransform(DexingTransform.kt:69)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform$transform$1.invoke(DexingTransform.kt:104)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform$transform$1.invoke(DexingTransform.kt:69)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.tasks.BlocksUtilsKt.recordArtifactTransformSpan(BlocksUtils.kt:33)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.transform(DexingTransform.kt:100)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformer.transform(DefaultTransformer.java:193)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$TransformerExecution.execute(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:332)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.lambda$execute$0(ExecuteStep.java:32)\r\n at java.util.Optional.map(Optional.java:215)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.execute(ExecuteStep.java:32)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.execute(ExecuteStep.java:26)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CleanupOutputsStep.execute(CleanupOutputsStep.java:67)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CleanupOutputsStep.execute(CleanupOutputsStep.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveInputChangesStep.execute(ResolveInputChangesStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveInputChangesStep.execute(ResolveInputChangesStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CancelExecutionStep.execute(CancelExecutionStep.java:43)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.TimeoutStep.executeWithoutTimeout(TimeoutStep.java:73)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.TimeoutStep.execute(TimeoutStep.java:54)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CatchExceptionStep.execute(CatchExceptionStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CreateOutputsStep.execute(CreateOutputsStep.java:44)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SnapshotOutputsStep.execute(SnapshotOutputsStep.java:54)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SnapshotOutputsStep.execute(SnapshotOutputsStep.java:38)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.BroadcastChangingOutputsStep.execute(BroadcastChangingOutputsStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.executeWithoutCache(CacheStep.java:159)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.execute(CacheStep.java:72)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.execute(CacheStep.java:43)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.StoreExecutionStateStep.execute(StoreExecutionStateStep.java:44)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.StoreExecutionStateStep.execute(StoreExecutionStateStep.java:33)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.RecordOutputsStep.execute(RecordOutputsStep.java:38)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.RecordOutputsStep.execute(RecordOutputsStep.java:24)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.executeBecause(SkipUpToDateStep.java:92)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.lambda$execute$0(SkipUpToDateStep.java:85)\r\n at java.util.Optional.map(Optional.java:215)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.execute(SkipUpToDateStep.java:55)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.execute(SkipUpToDateStep.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveChangesStep.execute(ResolveChangesStep.java:76)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveChangesStep.execute(ResolveChangesStep.java:37)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.java:26)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveCachingStateStep.execute(ResolveCachingStateStep.java:94)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveCachingStateStep.execute(ResolveCachingStateStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.execute(CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.execute(CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.java:53)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ValidateStep.execute(ValidateStep.java:74)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.lambda$execute$2(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:78)\r\n at java.util.Optional.orElseGet(Optional.java:267)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.execute(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:78)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.execute(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsStartedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsStartedStep.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.LoadExecutionStateStep.execute(LoadExecutionStateStep.java:40)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.LoadExecutionStateStep.execute(LoadExecutionStateStep.java:28)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.impl.DefaultWorkExecutor.execute(DefaultWorkExecutor.java:33)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.lambda$call$2(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:200)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.fireTransformListeners(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:269)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.access$300(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.call(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:178)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.call(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$CallableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:409)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$CallableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:399)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$1.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:157)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:242)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:150)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.call(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:94)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DelegatingBuildOperationExecutor.call(DelegatingBuildOperationExecutor.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.lambda$doTransform$0(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.lambda$withWorkspace$0(ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:81)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.LockOnDemandCrossProcessCacheAccess.withFileLock(LockOnDemandCrossProcessCacheAccess.java:90)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheAccess.withFileLock(DefaultCacheAccess.java:191)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultPersistentDirectoryStore.withFileLock(DefaultPersistentDirectoryStore.java:177)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheFactory$ReferenceTrackingCache.withFileLock(DefaultCacheFactory.java:201)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.withWorkspace(ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:76)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.lambda$withWorkspace$0(AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:55)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LocalManualCache$1.load(LocalCache.java:4718)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LoadingValueReference.loadFuture(LocalCache.java:3445)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.loadSync(LocalCache.java:2194)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.lockedGetOrLoad(LocalCache.java:2153)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.get(LocalCache.java:2043)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache.get(LocalCache.java:3851)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LocalManualCache.get(LocalCache.java:4713)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.withWorkspace(AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:55)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.doTransform(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.access$000(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$1.invoke(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:141)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.CacheableInvocation$1.invoke(CacheableInvocation.java:58)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.TransformationOperation.run(TransformationOperation.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$RunnableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:395)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$RunnableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:387)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$1.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:157)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:242)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:150)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.access$1500(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$ParentPreservingQueueWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:437)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.runOperation(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:231)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.access$600(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:173)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable$1.create(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:210)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable$1.create(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:204)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.work.DefaultWorkerLeaseService.withLocks(DefaultWorkerLeaseService.java:180)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.runBatch(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:204)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.run(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:178)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ExecutorPolicy$CatchAndRecordFailures.onExecute(ExecutorPolicy.java:64)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ManagedExecutorImpl$1.run(ManagedExecutorImpl.java:48)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ThreadFactoryImpl$ManagedThreadRunnable.run(ThreadFactoryImpl.java:56)\r\n at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)\r\n Suppressed: java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: com.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractFuture.getDoneValue(AbstractFuture.java:552)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractFuture.get(AbstractFuture.java:513)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.FluentFuture$TrustedFuture.get(FluentFuture.java:86)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:14)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:9)\r\n ... 114 more\r\n [CIRCULAR REFERENCE:com.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)]\r\nCaused by: com.android.tools.r8.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:633)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:674)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.r.n.A.a(:236)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.o.a(:153)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:133)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.a(:93)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.a(:71)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.buildIR(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.C0.buildIR(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.T.a(:152)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:412)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:53)\r\n ... 127 more\r\n\r\n\r\n```", "I updated all mockito packages to 3.5.9 but unfortunately I do get still the same error as above.", "This still seems to fail for me:\r\n```\r\nExecution failed for task ':mergeDexGplayDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':gplayDebugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=18, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /home/tobi/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/66df4f0b18795a51947f8881933478f9/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n\r\n```\r\n\r\nI removed \r\n`androidTestImplementation \"org.mockito:mockito-core:$mockitoVersion\"`\r\nand changed:\r\n```\r\ntestImplementation (\"com.nhaarman.mockitokotlin2:mockito-kotlin:2.2.0\") {\r\n exclude group: \"org.mockito\", module: \"mockito-core\"\r\n }\r\n```\r\n\r\nIf you want to test it: https://github.com/nextcloud/android/pull/6768\r\n", "This is still happening in 3.5.10:\r\n\r\n- https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/rKzc6MVhBf/\r\n- https://github.com/relaycorp/relaynet-gateway-android/pull/120", "@gnarea You are depending on Objenesis 3, which is incompatible with Android <26. Please downgrade to Objenesis 2 and depend on `mockito-android`. For more info, see the context in #2024", "@TimvdLippe looks like `mockito-core` still has objenesis 3.1 as a dependency. \r\n```\r\n+--- project :my-project\r\n| \\--- org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.10.13\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy-agent:1.10.13\r\n| \\--- org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1\r\n\r\n+--- org.mockito:mockito-android:3.5.10\r\n| +--- org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10 (*)\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy-android:1.10.13\r\n| | +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.10.13\r\n| | \\--- com.jakewharton.android.repackaged:dalvik-dx:9.0.0_r3\r\n| \\--- org.objenesis:objenesis:[2.6, 3.0) -> 3.1\r\n```", "@francescocervone That is correct. For non-Android projects, they can use Objenesis 3 just fine.", "@TimvdLippe it's pretty common for Android projects having some pure JVM Gradle modules, not depending on Android. In that case we must depend on `mockito-core` which depends on Objenesis 3. What do you suggest in that case?\r\n\r\nAnyway, even if we don't depend directly on `mockito-core`, we get the same error on `mockito-core` (I suppose that's because `mockito-android` depends on `mockito-core`).\r\n```\r\n> Transform artifact mockito-core-3.5.10.jar (org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10) with DexingNoClasspathTransform\r\nD8: Private interface methods are only supported starting with Android N (--min-api 24): java.lang.Object org.mockito.plugins.MemberAccessor.lambda$newInstance$0(java.lang.reflect.Constructor, java.lang.Object[])\r\nStack trace:\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.a: Private interface methods are only supported starting with Android N (--min-api 24): java.lang.Object org.mockito.plugins.MemberAccessor.lambda$newInstance$0(java.lang.reflect.Constructor, java.lang.Object[])\r\n\r\n[ stacktrace ]\r\n\r\n* What went wrong:\r\nExecution failed for task ':app:mergeExtDexDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':app:debugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform mockito-core-3.5.10.jar (org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=false, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingNoClasspathTransform: /Users/me/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/9ebcc121d44dc6f808610b5ee83414a2/jetified-mockito-core-3.5.10.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```\r\n\r\nDo you need an example project?", "@francescocervone That last stacktrace is yet another issue that is new to me, as it complains about private interface methods. That seems to be unrelated to Objenesis. The code in question is https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/b6ae6cf12b93ef9445e524224375aab1eb76129d/src/main/java/org/mockito/plugins/MemberAccessor.java#L24-L28\r\n\r\nI guess older versions of Android do not support default interface methods. I am not sure what to do here, as that seems to be a problem where Android did not support all features of Java 8. Since Mockito 3 targets Java 8, that would be incompatible with older versions of Android.\r\n\r\nCan you use Mockito 2 solely for tests running on older versions of Android?", "> Can you use Mockito 2 solely for tests running on older versions of Android?\r\n\r\nNo, because this is a compilation error which depends on the minimum supported Android version. Almost every Android project should use Mockito 2 until android 26 will be the \"generally accepted\" minimum sdk supported version (probably in at least 5 years 😄).", "@francescocervone What I mean is that you have 2 test suites. 1 testsuite for all tests >= 26 and 1 testsuite for all tests <26. For the testsuite >= 26 you can use Mockito 3 + Objenesis 3, as they support Java 8+. For the testsuite <26 you can use Mockito 2 + Objenesis 2, as they support Java 6+. By splitting up the test suites, you can use modern Mockito for modern Android and older Mockito for older Android. That should work right?", "Also to reiterate, we have introduced Animal Sniffer to ensure we don't break Android again. We set the target to 24 per https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2006/files#diff-c197962302397baf3a4cc36463dce5eaR104 which seemed the most reasonable cut-off for Java 8 support that Mockito 3 relies on. Therefore, rather than having a cut-off at 26, we would be talking about a cut-off at 24. I am not sure when the Android community moves past that cut-off?", "@TimvdLippe as far as I know you cannot have 2 test suites in the same android project compiling against 2 Android versions. The minimum Android supported version is a property (`minSdkVersion`) defined in the android project's `build.gradle` file through the Android Gradle Plugin.\r\n\r\n> I am not sure when the Android community moves past that cut-off? \r\n\r\nMaybe [this chart](https://gs.statcounter.com/android-version-market-share/mobile-tablet/worldwide) can be helpful? In my case, we currently support Android 21 as min SDK.", "We could try to update Animal Sniffer to level 21 and see what the effect is. If we can make `mockito-core` compatible with that, without introducing breaking changes for the wider Java ecosystem, then I am open to that. However, when @raphw tried that previously, it turned out that a large portion of `mockito-core` was *already* incompatible. This led us to believe that we would have already broken our users and (since we hadn't received complaints before), 24 felt like the best option.\r\n\r\n3.5.0 was a big release and a lot of work went into it to support modern Java, which is probably the reason we have hit numerous issues with it. I wonder how many changes in 3.5.0 affect compatibility compared to previous Mockito releases. Could you clone Mockito and try to work out what changes are required to make Mockito compatible with 21? Then we can assess breakages and go from there.", "Reopening this issue, as I think it is clear by now we are going to need support from developers working in the Android ecosystem on figuring out how to resolve these issues.", "FYI: at least in my case, the workaround suggested above worked: https://github.com/relaycorp/relaynet-gateway-android/pull/120. But that project doesn't have JVM modules (they're all external deps). We're also supporting API 21+.", "@TimvdLippe \r\n>Could you clone Mockito and try to work out what changes are required to make Mockito compatible with 21?\r\n\r\nI will.", "If I remember correctly, types like predicate and function are not available which are part of our public API. This can be fixed but requires breaking public API. ", "@gnarea , that didn't work for my setup, minSdk = 21:\r\n\r\n```\r\n* What went wrong:\r\nExecution failed for task ':app:mergeExtDexDevDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':app:devDebugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /Users/azizbekian/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/adb8b362b2ccf145263475708478d34b/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```", "@raphw If I remember correctly, we are already shipping `Optional` and `Function` in our public API prior to 3.5.0. Since Android tests were passing with 3.4.0, I don't think including these symbols in our public API is problematic. Therefore, I don't think we should be changing these types in our API. (This is also what confuses me the most, as to why some parts work and why other parts don't work, even though Animal Sniffer is claiming nothing should in theory work)", "I'm not an Android expert. `DefineClassHelper` is only used by specific instantiators that are not used in Android. So ideally this class can be excluded from the compilation by Dex it should solve the problem.", "@TimvdLippe I played a little bit with mockito and the issue I mentioned [in this comment](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-688321579) is solved by adding in the android project's build.gradle:\r\n```gradle\r\nandroid {\r\n compileOptions {\r\n sourceCompatibility JavaVersion.VERSION_1_8\r\n targetCompatibility JavaVersion.VERSION_1_8\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\nAndroid Gradle Plugin 3.0 and higher [supports default interface methods](https://developer.android.com/studio/releases/gradle-plugin#j8-library-desugaring).\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nThe objenesis 3.x issue included in `mockito-core` mentioned [here](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-688252464) instead can be avoided by excluding objenesis from `mockito-core` or any library/project depending on `mockito-core`:\r\n```gradle\r\ndependencies {\r\n androidTestImplementation 'org.mockito:mockito-android:3.5.10'\r\n androidTestImplementation('org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10') {\r\n exclude group: 'org.objenesis'\r\n }\r\n androidTestImplementation(project(':depending-on-mockito-core')) {\r\n exclude group: 'org.objenesis'\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\nThis workaround is a little bit inconvenient IMHO, but solves the issue.", "@francescocervone Thanks for the investigation. With regards to your first solution, can we automatically apply that to `mockito-android` or do users of that artifact need to specify it in their `build.gradle`? For the latter, if you solely depend on `mockito-android` you should be good to go. If that is inconvenient, maybe it can be solved in Objenesis 3 instead (not sure if that is possible).", "@TimvdLippe \r\n> can we automatically apply that to mockito-android or do users of that artifact need to specify it in their build.gradle?\r\n\r\nUsers need to specify it in their `build.gradle`.\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\n> if you solely depend on mockito-android you should be good to go\r\n\r\nTrue, but I think this \"solution\" is pretty weak. For example, if the project declares [`mockito-kotlin`](https://github.com/nhaarman/mockito-kotlin) dependency, objenesis must be excluded since `mockito-kotlin` depends on `mockito-core`. In general, if the android project depends on some module/project/library depending on `mockito-core`, the workaround must be applied.", "Again, I'm not sure but can't you just exclude `DefineClassHelper`? That will solve the problem and no need to remove Objenesis. I don't think I can solve it from the Objenesis side. If I can please tell me why? Deploy an objenesis-android excluding these classes will just make everything really messy.", "@henri-tremblay is there a way to exclude a class from the compilation of a library? How can we exclude `DefineClassHelper`?\r\nEven if we were able to exclude that class: Objenesis is built with Java 8 and it's likely to introduce similar issues in future. This circle will end when one of these classes using some unsupported Java 8 feature, will be part of the Objenesis core and we will not be able to just \"exclude\" it.", "@TimvdLippe there is a handier workaround for objenesis 3.x, without excluding it from `mockito-core`.\r\nIn root `build.gradle` we can add:\r\n```gradle\r\nallprojects {\r\n configurations.all {\r\n resolutionStrategy.force 'org.objenesis:objenesis:2.6'\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```", "@francescocervone I don't know. That's why I was saying \"Not an Android expert\" :-) Let me ask around. It's sad to downgrade to Android 2. The other solution would be to split objenesis in 2. One with the core instantiators and one with the exotic ones. Can you hack the objenesis jar to remote this class and just compile with the new jar to tell me if it works?", "Ok. I had some feedback from @mhausherr. The error is in R8. So we could ignore like this in `proguard-rules.pro`:\r\n```\r\n-assumenosideeffects class org.objenesis.instanciator.util.DefineClassHelper {\r\n *;\r\n}\r\n```", "@henri-tremblay 🤔 It cannot be R8. R8 obfuscates, optimizes and shrinks the code in release builds. It doesn't run in test unless you don't explicitly enable it also for debug builds.\r\nMore info here -> https://developer.android.com/studio/build/shrink-code", "@jakewharton (if I remember correctly, you know a lot more about minification, R8 and problems like this. If that's not the case, please let me know and feel free to ignore this message)\r\n\r\nHey Jake,\r\n\r\nPlease see the above messages regarding problems with Mockito transitively depending on Objenesis 3 which broke Android compatibility. However, Objenesis compilation broke, despite the class in question not being used in Android tests. As such, the class could be removed with the proguard configuration @henri-tremblay (maintainer of Objenesis) posted.\r\n\r\n@francescocervone thinks that is not the appropriate solution, as R8 should not be performing these kind of cleanups.\r\n\r\nSadly I am lacking the knowledge to figure out what is the appropriate solution here and how we can move forward and I had hoped you would be able to help us figuring out.\r\n\r\nThanks in advance for your time and once again, if you prefer not to be involved, feel free to say so and I will try to find another domain expert 😄 ", "@TimvdLippe I didn't say that R8 should not be performing these kind of cleanups. I said that R8 is not involved at all, therefore the R8 rule suggested by @henri-tremblay is not a valid workaround. ", "@TimvdLippe I created #2053 to fix this issue. With range usage in `strictly` tag, gradle fails to force dependency. I verified with our project. For androidTest, If we just use moctiko-android and exclude mockito-core from mockito-kotlin (or any dependency that has mockito-core), there shouldnt be any issue. \r\nThis fix still not great but until objenesis supports android sdk < 26, it should work.", "For anyone who is looking to contribute, please check out the upstream issue at https://github.com/easymock/objenesis/issues/79", "I am going to close this issue in favor of https://github.com/easymock/objenesis/issues/79", "I have pushed the changes moving some instantiators in a new project. Could you please check if it works?", "Release 3.2 was done. It should work now.", "Using version 3.8.0:\r\n\r\n```\r\nExecution failed for task ':App:mergeExtDexDebug'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':App:debugRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-transform=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /home/circleci/.gradle/caches/modules-2/files-2.1/org.objenesis/objenesis/3.1/48f12deaae83a8dfc3775d830c9fd60ea59bbbca/objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```", "Release 3.2 of _Objenesis_ was done, Mockito still needs to have its dependency updated to 3.2. \r\n\r\nThis can be worked around by declaring the Objenesis dependency yourself like `implementation 'org.objenesis:objenesis:3.2` and rely on gradle's dependency resolution to go with the 3.2 version instead of the 3.1 currently included with Mockito", "@PaulKlauser Do you mind sending us a PR which updates the version?", "https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2249", "Could you consider publishing this to Maven as well?", "Mockito 3.9.0 should be published to Maven Central: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/runs/2288011033?check_suite_focus=true", "Thanks! It's still at 3.8.0 on [mvnrepository](https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.mockito/mockito-core) and [maven](https://search.maven.org/search?q=a:mockito-core) but I suppose it can take several hours for the change to propagate.", "Yes these systems take a while to obtain the new information. 3.9.0 is published here: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/mockito/mockito-core/3.9.0/", "Just mentioning that I had [this exact crash](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-686925445) and upgrading to 3.9.0 from 3.8.0 fixed it.\r\n\r\n However, it might be worth mentioning that any Android project that is just using `JCenter` as a repository will not return the right information for latest version. Android projects need to begin adding `mavenCentral()` as a repository, which previously was unnecessary because JCenter mirrored Maven Central. That's changing and it's because of this that my particular project didn't recognize the 3.9.0 update.\r\n```\r\nrepositories {\r\n google()\r\n mavenCentral() <-- many projects need to add this, explicitly\r\n jcenter()\r\n maven { url 'https://jitpack.io' }\r\n}\r\n```", "https://blog.gradle.org/jcenter-shutdown" ]

[]

[ "android", "please contribute" ]

[ "subprojects/android/android.gradle" ]

[ "subprojects/android/android.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Seems like we hit this issue after we fixed an initial typo in #2070. Do you mind sending a PR to change it to a capital V?", "Done, thanks for quick response!" ]

[]

[]

[ "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[ "continuous integration" ]

[ ".github/workflows/ci.yml" ]

[ ".github/workflows/ci.yml" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[ "continuous integration" ]

[ ".github/workflows/ci.yml" ]

[ ".github/workflows/ci.yml" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "@mockitoguy might be able to provide more insight, but I think we create our Jar on this line: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/78b22fcf814c33e87585afed387cd9db0b6d36a5/gradle/java-publication.gradle#L32\r\n\r\nWe would welcome PRs for this issue. Hopefully the link provides enough context to figure out how to resolve the problem?", "The commit message for fde5abb includes [ci maven-central-release] - should this cause a release to be published to maven central?\r\nI can't see a new release there at the moment, not sure if there is usually a delay?", "It should have, but it seems like it incorrectly concluded it didn't include the message. Filed #2110", "On it." ]

[]

[ "please contribute", "build" ]

[ "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/mockito-core/osgi.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "on it", "Should work now and there is a version in maven central: https://bintray.com/mockito/maven/mockito/3.6.28#central" ]

[]

[ "bug", "continuous integration" ]

[ ".github/workflows/ci.yml", "gradle/shipkit.gradle" ]

[ ".github/workflows/ci.yml", "gradle/shipkit.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "gradle/java-publication.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/java-publication.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "No, this might be a simple oversight. @raphw I think we can reverse the order? We would need to add an overload and then deprecate the existing one, which we can delete in Mockito 4.0.0.", "No, I don't think I had an intention with the order, possibly to have the lambda last what often works better with languages like Kotlin. But I think consistency is the better goal. ", "@bohni Do you mind sending us a PR with the added method + deprecation?", "OK, I will take a look" ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/MockedStatic.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/MockedStaticImpl.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/MockedStatic.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/MockedStaticImpl.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "The release diff (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/compare/v3.6.0...v3.6.28) points to #2098 most likely. Can you do a bisect to figure out if that is indeed the problematic PR?", "Possibly related and maybe helpful in diagnosing is that attempting to work around this issue by adding an explicit stub for `toString` (e.g. `when(someMock.toString()).thenReturn(\"someMock\")`) will cause a `MissingMethodInvocationException`:\r\n\r\n```text\r\norg.mockito.exceptions.misusing.MissingMethodInvocationException: \r\nwhen() requires an argument which has to be 'a method call on a mock'.\r\nFor example:\r\n when(mock.getArticles()).thenReturn(articles);\r\n\r\nAlso, this error might show up because:\r\n1. you stub either of: final/private/equals()/hashCode() methods.\r\n Those methods *cannot* be stubbed/verified.\r\n Mocking methods declared on non-public parent classes is not supported.\r\n2. inside when() you don't call method on mock but on some other object.\r\n```", "Could you try downgrading ByteBuddy to 1.10.15 and see if that resolves the issue?", "I can confirm. I am facing the same issue when upgrading from 3.2.0 to 3.7.7.", "Hi there,\r\n\r\nI came across this bug and decided to have a look. I cannot reproduce it. Maybe I've got something wrong here. Anyway, I provided a test repository with a test build which we may use to get behind things here.\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/JanMosigItemis/mockito_issue_2154\r\n\r\nLet me know how things go 👋", "Hi @JanMosigItemis \r\n\r\nI was able to reproduce the issue with your test repository. Just replace \"mockito-core\" with \"mockito-inline\"\r\n\r\n```\r\n <dependency>\r\n <groupId>org.mockito</groupId>\r\n <artifactId>mockito-core</artifactId>\r\n <version>${mockito.version}</version>\r\n <scope>test</scope>\r\n </dependency>\r\n```\r\n\r\n```\r\n <dependency>\r\n <groupId>org.mockito</groupId>\r\n <artifactId>mockito-inline</artifactId>\r\n <version>${mockito.version}</version>\r\n <scope>test</scope>\r\n </dependency>\r\n```\r\n\r\nYou should get:\r\n```\r\n[INFO] -------------------------------------------------------\r\n[INFO] T E S T S\r\n[INFO] -------------------------------------------------------\r\n[INFO] Running de.itemis.jmo.mockito.issue2154.MockitoIssue2154JUnit5Test\r\n[ERROR] Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.526 s <<< FAILURE! - in de.itemis.jmo.mockito.issue2154.MockitoIssue2154JUnit5Test\r\n[ERROR] test_stubbed_to_string_works Time elapsed: 0.054 s <<< ERROR!\r\norg.mockito.exceptions.misusing.MissingMethodInvocationException: \r\n\r\nwhen() requires an argument which has to be 'a method call on a mock'.\r\nFor example:\r\n when(mock.getArticles()).thenReturn(articles);\r\n\r\nAlso, this error might show up because:\r\n1. you stub either of: final/private/equals()/hashCode() methods.\r\n Those methods *cannot* be stubbed/verified.\r\n Mocking methods declared on non-public parent classes is not supported.\r\n2. inside when() you don't call method on mock but on some other object.\r\n\r\n\tat de.itemis.jmo.mockito.issue2154.MockitoIssue2154JUnit5Test.test_stubbed_to_string_works(MockitoIssue2154JUnit5Test.java:26)\r\n\r\n[INFO] Running de.itemis.jmo.mockito.issue2154.MockitoIssue2154JUnit4Test\r\n[ERROR] Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.041 s <<< FAILURE! - in de.itemis.jmo.mockito.issue2154.MockitoIssue2154JUnit4Test\r\n[ERROR] test_stubbed_to_string_works Time elapsed: 0.018 s <<< ERROR!\r\norg.mockito.exceptions.misusing.MissingMethodInvocationException: \r\n\r\nwhen() requires an argument which has to be 'a method call on a mock'.\r\nFor example:\r\n when(mock.getArticles()).thenReturn(articles);\r\n\r\nAlso, this error might show up because:\r\n1. you stub either of: final/private/equals()/hashCode() methods.\r\n Those methods *cannot* be stubbed/verified.\r\n Mocking methods declared on non-public parent classes is not supported.\r\n2. inside when() you don't call method on mock but on some other object.\r\n\r\n\tat de.itemis.jmo.mockito.issue2154.MockitoIssue2154JUnit4Test.test_stubbed_to_string_works(MockitoIssue2154JUnit4Test.java:26)\r\n\r\n[INFO] \r\n[INFO] Results:\r\n[INFO] \r\n[ERROR] Errors: \r\n[ERROR] MockitoIssue2154JUnit4Test.test_stubbed_to_string_works:26 MissingMethodInvocation\r\n[ERROR] MockitoIssue2154JUnit5Test.test_stubbed_to_string_works:26 MissingMethodInvocation\r\n[INFO] \r\n[ERROR] Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 0\r\n```\r\n\r\nLet me know if this info is enough for you or if I should fork your repo.", "Thx @pitschr I can reproduce now. The problem is also present in the latest mockito-inline release 3.7.7.", "@TimvdLippe I downgraded to byte buddy 1.10.15 via maven exclusion and got the same result.", "I had a hunch that in https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2098/files#diff-749d9baac17dc6e18e7db9ee686a840d65ac746dc291b591b37834ba4c8261d1R273 the line `targets.remove(Object.class);` could be the culprit. I removed it on my local machine, build mockito-inline 3.7.9 and used it in my test repo. Works like a charm. Now I've got too few internal mockito knowledge in order to come up with a decent PR on this, bc I don't know exactly why this line has been introduced and if it would be safe to simply remove it. Any thoughts on this?", "Thanks for the investigation @JanMosigItemis ! In general, if our full test suite passes with that line removed, it should be safe to do so. Please add a regression test to our test suite as well and then feel free to open a PR for it!", "Ok, I'll try." ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineByteBuddyMockMakerTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Sadly we can't guarantee yet that Mockito fully works on JDK 17, given that Gradle doesn't support JDK 16+ (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2211#issuecomment-782884920) That said, I can publish a new release to Maven Central this week, which seems appropriate regardless of JDK 17 support." ]

[]

[]

[ "version.properties" ]

[ "version.properties" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Should be fixed with #2006", "We still have issues with 3.5.2. We are unable to update to new version and use `assembleAndroidTest` task.\r\n\r\n```\r\n/usr/local/gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/225c46d0e9f10ff5ef3f4d9a009c4924/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar: D8: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n\r\n```", "@kozaxinan Are you certain that you are using 3.5.2 and aren't accidentally using an older version of either Mockito or ByteBuddy? We have had confirmations from other users that 3.5.2 fixed the issue you are seeing, so it would be good to double check that you have the correct version.", "@TimvdLippe I confirm the issue still occurs also in our project with the exact same error.\r\n- mockito-core 3.5.2\r\n- mockito-android 3.5.2\r\n- mockito-inline 3.5.2\r\n- objenesis 3.1\r\n- bytebuddy 1.10.13", "Looks like the issue was introduced in objenesis 3.x (upgraded in https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1998)\r\nForcing objenesis to 2.6 makes `assembleAndroidTest` task succeed.", "Aha, thanks for letting us know. I will create a revert.", "Still getting this error with 3.5.7", "Here's the stacktrace that I get when using 3.5.7:\r\n\r\n```\r\n/Users/azizbekian/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/63e24576c0e1d1e5b675c1c61e4e5727/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar: D8: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\nStack trace:\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.errors.a.a(:7)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:58)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:104)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:53)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.C.b(:43)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:35)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:10)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.TrustedListenableFutureTask$TrustedFutureInterruptibleTask.runInterruptibly(TrustedListenableFutureTask.java:125)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.InterruptibleTask.run(InterruptibleTask.java:69)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.TrustedListenableFutureTask.run(TrustedListenableFutureTask.java:78)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.MoreExecutors$DirectExecutorService.execute(MoreExecutors.java:322)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.AbstractExecutorService.submit(AbstractExecutorService.java:134)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractListeningExecutorService.submit(AbstractListeningExecutorService.java:66)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractListeningExecutorService.submit(AbstractListeningExecutorService.java:36)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:3)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:10)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.d(:29)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.b(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.W.a(:30)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.D8.run(:11)\r\n at com.android.builder.dexing.D8DexArchiveBuilder.convert(D8DexArchiveBuilder.java:116)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.process(DexingTransform.kt:296)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.processNonIncrementally(DexingTransform.kt:243)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.doTransform(DexingTransform.kt:153)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.access$doTransform(DexingTransform.kt:69)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform$transform$1.invoke(DexingTransform.kt:104)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform$transform$1.invoke(DexingTransform.kt:69)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.tasks.BlocksUtilsKt.recordArtifactTransformSpan(BlocksUtils.kt:33)\r\n at com.android.build.gradle.internal.dependency.BaseDexingTransform.transform(DexingTransform.kt:100)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformer.transform(DefaultTransformer.java:193)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$TransformerExecution.execute(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:332)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.lambda$execute$0(ExecuteStep.java:32)\r\n at java.util.Optional.map(Optional.java:215)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.execute(ExecuteStep.java:32)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ExecuteStep.execute(ExecuteStep.java:26)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CleanupOutputsStep.execute(CleanupOutputsStep.java:67)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CleanupOutputsStep.execute(CleanupOutputsStep.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveInputChangesStep.execute(ResolveInputChangesStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveInputChangesStep.execute(ResolveInputChangesStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CancelExecutionStep.execute(CancelExecutionStep.java:43)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.TimeoutStep.executeWithoutTimeout(TimeoutStep.java:73)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.TimeoutStep.execute(TimeoutStep.java:54)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CatchExceptionStep.execute(CatchExceptionStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CreateOutputsStep.execute(CreateOutputsStep.java:44)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SnapshotOutputsStep.execute(SnapshotOutputsStep.java:54)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SnapshotOutputsStep.execute(SnapshotOutputsStep.java:38)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.BroadcastChangingOutputsStep.execute(BroadcastChangingOutputsStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.executeWithoutCache(CacheStep.java:159)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.execute(CacheStep.java:72)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CacheStep.execute(CacheStep.java:43)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.StoreExecutionStateStep.execute(StoreExecutionStateStep.java:44)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.StoreExecutionStateStep.execute(StoreExecutionStateStep.java:33)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.RecordOutputsStep.execute(RecordOutputsStep.java:38)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.RecordOutputsStep.execute(RecordOutputsStep.java:24)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.executeBecause(SkipUpToDateStep.java:92)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.lambda$execute$0(SkipUpToDateStep.java:85)\r\n at java.util.Optional.map(Optional.java:215)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.execute(SkipUpToDateStep.java:55)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipUpToDateStep.execute(SkipUpToDateStep.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveChangesStep.execute(ResolveChangesStep.java:76)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveChangesStep.execute(ResolveChangesStep.java:37)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsFinishedStep.java:26)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveCachingStateStep.execute(ResolveCachingStateStep.java:94)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ResolveCachingStateStep.execute(ResolveCachingStateStep.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.execute(CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.execute(CaptureStateBeforeExecutionStep.java:53)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.ValidateStep.execute(ValidateStep.java:74)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.lambda$execute$2(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:78)\r\n at java.util.Optional.orElseGet(Optional.java:267)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.execute(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:78)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.SkipEmptyWorkStep.execute(SkipEmptyWorkStep.java:34)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.legacy.MarkSnapshottingInputsStartedStep.execute(MarkSnapshottingInputsStartedStep.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.LoadExecutionStateStep.execute(LoadExecutionStateStep.java:40)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.steps.LoadExecutionStateStep.execute(LoadExecutionStateStep.java:28)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.execution.impl.DefaultWorkExecutor.execute(DefaultWorkExecutor.java:33)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.lambda$call$2(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:200)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.fireTransformListeners(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:269)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.access$300(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.call(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:178)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$2.call(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$CallableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:409)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$CallableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:399)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$1.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:157)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:242)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:150)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.call(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:94)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DelegatingBuildOperationExecutor.call(DelegatingBuildOperationExecutor.java:36)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.lambda$doTransform$0(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.lambda$withWorkspace$0(ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:81)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.LockOnDemandCrossProcessCacheAccess.withFileLock(LockOnDemandCrossProcessCacheAccess.java:90)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheAccess.withFileLock(DefaultCacheAccess.java:191)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultPersistentDirectoryStore.withFileLock(DefaultPersistentDirectoryStore.java:177)\r\n at org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheFactory$ReferenceTrackingCache.withFileLock(DefaultCacheFactory.java:201)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.withWorkspace(ImmutableTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:76)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.lambda$withWorkspace$0(AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:55)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LocalManualCache$1.load(LocalCache.java:4718)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LoadingValueReference.loadFuture(LocalCache.java:3445)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.loadSync(LocalCache.java:2194)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.lockedGetOrLoad(LocalCache.java:2153)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment.get(LocalCache.java:2043)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache.get(LocalCache.java:3851)\r\n at com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$LocalManualCache.get(LocalCache.java:4713)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.withWorkspace(AbstractCachingTransformationWorkspaceProvider.java:55)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.doTransform(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:175)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.access$000(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:79)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory$1.invoke(DefaultTransformerInvocationFactory.java:141)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.CacheableInvocation$1.invoke(CacheableInvocation.java:58)\r\n at org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.transform.TransformationOperation.run(TransformationOperation.java:39)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$RunnableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:395)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$RunnableBuildOperationWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:387)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$1.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:157)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:242)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:150)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.access$1500(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:49)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationExecutor$ParentPreservingQueueWorker.execute(DefaultBuildOperationExecutor.java:437)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.runOperation(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:231)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.access$600(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:173)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable$1.create(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:210)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable$1.create(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:204)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.work.DefaultWorkerLeaseService.withLocks(DefaultWorkerLeaseService.java:180)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.runBatch(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:204)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.operations.DefaultBuildOperationQueue$WorkerRunnable.run(DefaultBuildOperationQueue.java:178)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ExecutorPolicy$CatchAndRecordFailures.onExecute(ExecutorPolicy.java:64)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ManagedExecutorImpl$1.run(ManagedExecutorImpl.java:48)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149)\r\n at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624)\r\n at org.gradle.internal.concurrent.ThreadFactoryImpl$ManagedThreadRunnable.run(ThreadFactoryImpl.java:56)\r\n at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)\r\n Suppressed: java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: com.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractFuture.getDoneValue(AbstractFuture.java:552)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractFuture.get(AbstractFuture.java:513)\r\n at com.google.common.util.concurrent.FluentFuture$TrustedFuture.get(FluentFuture.java:86)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:14)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.utils.U0.a(:9)\r\n ... 114 more\r\n [CIRCULAR REFERENCE:com.android.tools.r8.errors.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)]\r\nCaused by: com.android.tools.r8.a: MethodHandle.invoke and MethodHandle.invokeExact are only supported starting with Android O (--min-api 26)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:633)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:674)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.r.n.A.a(:236)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.o.a(:153)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.N.a(:133)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.a(:93)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.a(:71)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.l.buildIR(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.C0.buildIR(:1)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.graph.T.a(:152)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.a(:412)\r\n at com.android.tools.r8.ir.conversion.O.b(:53)\r\n ... 127 more\r\n\r\n\r\n```", "I updated all mockito packages to 3.5.9 but unfortunately I do get still the same error as above.", "This still seems to fail for me:\r\n```\r\nExecution failed for task ':mergeDexGplayDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':gplayDebugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=18, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /home/tobi/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/66df4f0b18795a51947f8881933478f9/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n\r\n```\r\n\r\nI removed \r\n`androidTestImplementation \"org.mockito:mockito-core:$mockitoVersion\"`\r\nand changed:\r\n```\r\ntestImplementation (\"com.nhaarman.mockitokotlin2:mockito-kotlin:2.2.0\") {\r\n exclude group: \"org.mockito\", module: \"mockito-core\"\r\n }\r\n```\r\n\r\nIf you want to test it: https://github.com/nextcloud/android/pull/6768\r\n", "This is still happening in 3.5.10:\r\n\r\n- https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/rKzc6MVhBf/\r\n- https://github.com/relaycorp/relaynet-gateway-android/pull/120", "@gnarea You are depending on Objenesis 3, which is incompatible with Android <26. Please downgrade to Objenesis 2 and depend on `mockito-android`. For more info, see the context in #2024", "@TimvdLippe looks like `mockito-core` still has objenesis 3.1 as a dependency. \r\n```\r\n+--- project :my-project\r\n| \\--- org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.10.13\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy-agent:1.10.13\r\n| \\--- org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1\r\n\r\n+--- org.mockito:mockito-android:3.5.10\r\n| +--- org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10 (*)\r\n| +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy-android:1.10.13\r\n| | +--- net.bytebuddy:byte-buddy:1.10.13\r\n| | \\--- com.jakewharton.android.repackaged:dalvik-dx:9.0.0_r3\r\n| \\--- org.objenesis:objenesis:[2.6, 3.0) -> 3.1\r\n```", "@francescocervone That is correct. For non-Android projects, they can use Objenesis 3 just fine.", "@TimvdLippe it's pretty common for Android projects having some pure JVM Gradle modules, not depending on Android. In that case we must depend on `mockito-core` which depends on Objenesis 3. What do you suggest in that case?\r\n\r\nAnyway, even if we don't depend directly on `mockito-core`, we get the same error on `mockito-core` (I suppose that's because `mockito-android` depends on `mockito-core`).\r\n```\r\n> Transform artifact mockito-core-3.5.10.jar (org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10) with DexingNoClasspathTransform\r\nD8: Private interface methods are only supported starting with Android N (--min-api 24): java.lang.Object org.mockito.plugins.MemberAccessor.lambda$newInstance$0(java.lang.reflect.Constructor, java.lang.Object[])\r\nStack trace:\r\ncom.android.tools.r8.a: Private interface methods are only supported starting with Android N (--min-api 24): java.lang.Object org.mockito.plugins.MemberAccessor.lambda$newInstance$0(java.lang.reflect.Constructor, java.lang.Object[])\r\n\r\n[ stacktrace ]\r\n\r\n* What went wrong:\r\nExecution failed for task ':app:mergeExtDexDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':app:debugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform mockito-core-3.5.10.jar (org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=false, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingNoClasspathTransform: /Users/me/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/9ebcc121d44dc6f808610b5ee83414a2/jetified-mockito-core-3.5.10.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```\r\n\r\nDo you need an example project?", "@francescocervone That last stacktrace is yet another issue that is new to me, as it complains about private interface methods. That seems to be unrelated to Objenesis. The code in question is https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/b6ae6cf12b93ef9445e524224375aab1eb76129d/src/main/java/org/mockito/plugins/MemberAccessor.java#L24-L28\r\n\r\nI guess older versions of Android do not support default interface methods. I am not sure what to do here, as that seems to be a problem where Android did not support all features of Java 8. Since Mockito 3 targets Java 8, that would be incompatible with older versions of Android.\r\n\r\nCan you use Mockito 2 solely for tests running on older versions of Android?", "> Can you use Mockito 2 solely for tests running on older versions of Android?\r\n\r\nNo, because this is a compilation error which depends on the minimum supported Android version. Almost every Android project should use Mockito 2 until android 26 will be the \"generally accepted\" minimum sdk supported version (probably in at least 5 years 😄).", "@francescocervone What I mean is that you have 2 test suites. 1 testsuite for all tests >= 26 and 1 testsuite for all tests <26. For the testsuite >= 26 you can use Mockito 3 + Objenesis 3, as they support Java 8+. For the testsuite <26 you can use Mockito 2 + Objenesis 2, as they support Java 6+. By splitting up the test suites, you can use modern Mockito for modern Android and older Mockito for older Android. That should work right?", "Also to reiterate, we have introduced Animal Sniffer to ensure we don't break Android again. We set the target to 24 per https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2006/files#diff-c197962302397baf3a4cc36463dce5eaR104 which seemed the most reasonable cut-off for Java 8 support that Mockito 3 relies on. Therefore, rather than having a cut-off at 26, we would be talking about a cut-off at 24. I am not sure when the Android community moves past that cut-off?", "@TimvdLippe as far as I know you cannot have 2 test suites in the same android project compiling against 2 Android versions. The minimum Android supported version is a property (`minSdkVersion`) defined in the android project's `build.gradle` file through the Android Gradle Plugin.\r\n\r\n> I am not sure when the Android community moves past that cut-off? \r\n\r\nMaybe [this chart](https://gs.statcounter.com/android-version-market-share/mobile-tablet/worldwide) can be helpful? In my case, we currently support Android 21 as min SDK.", "We could try to update Animal Sniffer to level 21 and see what the effect is. If we can make `mockito-core` compatible with that, without introducing breaking changes for the wider Java ecosystem, then I am open to that. However, when @raphw tried that previously, it turned out that a large portion of `mockito-core` was *already* incompatible. This led us to believe that we would have already broken our users and (since we hadn't received complaints before), 24 felt like the best option.\r\n\r\n3.5.0 was a big release and a lot of work went into it to support modern Java, which is probably the reason we have hit numerous issues with it. I wonder how many changes in 3.5.0 affect compatibility compared to previous Mockito releases. Could you clone Mockito and try to work out what changes are required to make Mockito compatible with 21? Then we can assess breakages and go from there.", "Reopening this issue, as I think it is clear by now we are going to need support from developers working in the Android ecosystem on figuring out how to resolve these issues.", "FYI: at least in my case, the workaround suggested above worked: https://github.com/relaycorp/relaynet-gateway-android/pull/120. But that project doesn't have JVM modules (they're all external deps). We're also supporting API 21+.", "@TimvdLippe \r\n>Could you clone Mockito and try to work out what changes are required to make Mockito compatible with 21?\r\n\r\nI will.", "If I remember correctly, types like predicate and function are not available which are part of our public API. This can be fixed but requires breaking public API. ", "@gnarea , that didn't work for my setup, minSdk = 21:\r\n\r\n```\r\n* What went wrong:\r\nExecution failed for task ':app:mergeExtDexDevDebugAndroidTest'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':app:devDebugAndroidTestRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-desugaring-v2=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /Users/azizbekian/.gradle/caches/transforms-2/files-2.1/adb8b362b2ccf145263475708478d34b/jetified-objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```", "@raphw If I remember correctly, we are already shipping `Optional` and `Function` in our public API prior to 3.5.0. Since Android tests were passing with 3.4.0, I don't think including these symbols in our public API is problematic. Therefore, I don't think we should be changing these types in our API. (This is also what confuses me the most, as to why some parts work and why other parts don't work, even though Animal Sniffer is claiming nothing should in theory work)", "I'm not an Android expert. `DefineClassHelper` is only used by specific instantiators that are not used in Android. So ideally this class can be excluded from the compilation by Dex it should solve the problem.", "@TimvdLippe I played a little bit with mockito and the issue I mentioned [in this comment](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-688321579) is solved by adding in the android project's build.gradle:\r\n```gradle\r\nandroid {\r\n compileOptions {\r\n sourceCompatibility JavaVersion.VERSION_1_8\r\n targetCompatibility JavaVersion.VERSION_1_8\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\nAndroid Gradle Plugin 3.0 and higher [supports default interface methods](https://developer.android.com/studio/releases/gradle-plugin#j8-library-desugaring).\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nThe objenesis 3.x issue included in `mockito-core` mentioned [here](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-688252464) instead can be avoided by excluding objenesis from `mockito-core` or any library/project depending on `mockito-core`:\r\n```gradle\r\ndependencies {\r\n androidTestImplementation 'org.mockito:mockito-android:3.5.10'\r\n androidTestImplementation('org.mockito:mockito-core:3.5.10') {\r\n exclude group: 'org.objenesis'\r\n }\r\n androidTestImplementation(project(':depending-on-mockito-core')) {\r\n exclude group: 'org.objenesis'\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\nThis workaround is a little bit inconvenient IMHO, but solves the issue.", "@francescocervone Thanks for the investigation. With regards to your first solution, can we automatically apply that to `mockito-android` or do users of that artifact need to specify it in their `build.gradle`? For the latter, if you solely depend on `mockito-android` you should be good to go. If that is inconvenient, maybe it can be solved in Objenesis 3 instead (not sure if that is possible).", "@TimvdLippe \r\n> can we automatically apply that to mockito-android or do users of that artifact need to specify it in their build.gradle?\r\n\r\nUsers need to specify it in their `build.gradle`.\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\n> if you solely depend on mockito-android you should be good to go\r\n\r\nTrue, but I think this \"solution\" is pretty weak. For example, if the project declares [`mockito-kotlin`](https://github.com/nhaarman/mockito-kotlin) dependency, objenesis must be excluded since `mockito-kotlin` depends on `mockito-core`. In general, if the android project depends on some module/project/library depending on `mockito-core`, the workaround must be applied.", "Again, I'm not sure but can't you just exclude `DefineClassHelper`? That will solve the problem and no need to remove Objenesis. I don't think I can solve it from the Objenesis side. If I can please tell me why? Deploy an objenesis-android excluding these classes will just make everything really messy.", "@henri-tremblay is there a way to exclude a class from the compilation of a library? How can we exclude `DefineClassHelper`?\r\nEven if we were able to exclude that class: Objenesis is built with Java 8 and it's likely to introduce similar issues in future. This circle will end when one of these classes using some unsupported Java 8 feature, will be part of the Objenesis core and we will not be able to just \"exclude\" it.", "@TimvdLippe there is a handier workaround for objenesis 3.x, without excluding it from `mockito-core`.\r\nIn root `build.gradle` we can add:\r\n```gradle\r\nallprojects {\r\n configurations.all {\r\n resolutionStrategy.force 'org.objenesis:objenesis:2.6'\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```", "@francescocervone I don't know. That's why I was saying \"Not an Android expert\" :-) Let me ask around. It's sad to downgrade to Android 2. The other solution would be to split objenesis in 2. One with the core instantiators and one with the exotic ones. Can you hack the objenesis jar to remote this class and just compile with the new jar to tell me if it works?", "Ok. I had some feedback from @mhausherr. The error is in R8. So we could ignore like this in `proguard-rules.pro`:\r\n```\r\n-assumenosideeffects class org.objenesis.instanciator.util.DefineClassHelper {\r\n *;\r\n}\r\n```", "@henri-tremblay 🤔 It cannot be R8. R8 obfuscates, optimizes and shrinks the code in release builds. It doesn't run in test unless you don't explicitly enable it also for debug builds.\r\nMore info here -> https://developer.android.com/studio/build/shrink-code", "@jakewharton (if I remember correctly, you know a lot more about minification, R8 and problems like this. If that's not the case, please let me know and feel free to ignore this message)\r\n\r\nHey Jake,\r\n\r\nPlease see the above messages regarding problems with Mockito transitively depending on Objenesis 3 which broke Android compatibility. However, Objenesis compilation broke, despite the class in question not being used in Android tests. As such, the class could be removed with the proguard configuration @henri-tremblay (maintainer of Objenesis) posted.\r\n\r\n@francescocervone thinks that is not the appropriate solution, as R8 should not be performing these kind of cleanups.\r\n\r\nSadly I am lacking the knowledge to figure out what is the appropriate solution here and how we can move forward and I had hoped you would be able to help us figuring out.\r\n\r\nThanks in advance for your time and once again, if you prefer not to be involved, feel free to say so and I will try to find another domain expert 😄 ", "@TimvdLippe I didn't say that R8 should not be performing these kind of cleanups. I said that R8 is not involved at all, therefore the R8 rule suggested by @henri-tremblay is not a valid workaround. ", "@TimvdLippe I created #2053 to fix this issue. With range usage in `strictly` tag, gradle fails to force dependency. I verified with our project. For androidTest, If we just use moctiko-android and exclude mockito-core from mockito-kotlin (or any dependency that has mockito-core), there shouldnt be any issue. \r\nThis fix still not great but until objenesis supports android sdk < 26, it should work.", "For anyone who is looking to contribute, please check out the upstream issue at https://github.com/easymock/objenesis/issues/79", "I am going to close this issue in favor of https://github.com/easymock/objenesis/issues/79", "I have pushed the changes moving some instantiators in a new project. Could you please check if it works?", "Release 3.2 was done. It should work now.", "Using version 3.8.0:\r\n\r\n```\r\nExecution failed for task ':App:mergeExtDexDebug'.\r\n> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':App:debugRuntimeClasspath'.\r\n > Failed to transform objenesis-3.1.jar (org.objenesis:objenesis:3.1) to match attributes {artifactType=android-dex, dexing-enable-desugaring=true, dexing-incremental-transform=false, dexing-is-debuggable=true, dexing-min-sdk=21, org.gradle.category=library, org.gradle.libraryelements=jar, org.gradle.status=release, org.gradle.usage=java-runtime}.\r\n > Execution failed for DexingWithClasspathTransform: /home/circleci/.gradle/caches/modules-2/files-2.1/org.objenesis/objenesis/3.1/48f12deaae83a8dfc3775d830c9fd60ea59bbbca/objenesis-3.1.jar.\r\n > Error while dexing.\r\n```", "Release 3.2 of _Objenesis_ was done, Mockito still needs to have its dependency updated to 3.2. \r\n\r\nThis can be worked around by declaring the Objenesis dependency yourself like `implementation 'org.objenesis:objenesis:3.2` and rely on gradle's dependency resolution to go with the 3.2 version instead of the 3.1 currently included with Mockito", "@PaulKlauser Do you mind sending us a PR which updates the version?", "https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2249", "Could you consider publishing this to Maven as well?", "Mockito 3.9.0 should be published to Maven Central: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/runs/2288011033?check_suite_focus=true", "Thanks! It's still at 3.8.0 on [mvnrepository](https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.mockito/mockito-core) and [maven](https://search.maven.org/search?q=a:mockito-core) but I suppose it can take several hours for the change to propagate.", "Yes these systems take a while to obtain the new information. 3.9.0 is published here: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/mockito/mockito-core/3.9.0/", "Just mentioning that I had [this exact crash](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2007#issuecomment-686925445) and upgrading to 3.9.0 from 3.8.0 fixed it.\r\n\r\n However, it might be worth mentioning that any Android project that is just using `JCenter` as a repository will not return the right information for latest version. Android projects need to begin adding `mavenCentral()` as a repository, which previously was unnecessary because JCenter mirrored Maven Central. That's changing and it's because of this that my particular project didn't recognize the 3.9.0 update.\r\n```\r\nrepositories {\r\n google()\r\n mavenCentral() <-- many projects need to add this, explicitly\r\n jcenter()\r\n maven { url 'https://jitpack.io' }\r\n}\r\n```", "https://blog.gradle.org/jcenter-shutdown" ]

[]

[ "android", "please contribute" ]

[ "build.gradle", "gradle/dependencies.gradle", "subprojects/android/android.gradle" ]

[ "build.gradle", "gradle/dependencies.gradle", "subprojects/android/android.gradle" ]

[ "subprojects/osgi-test/osgi-test.gradle" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "PRs welcome 😄 " ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/InOrderImpl.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/InOrderImpl.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/verification/BasicVerificationInOrderTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/reflection/FieldReader.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/reflection/FieldReader.java" ]

[ "subprojects/module-test/src/test/java/org/mockito/moduletest/ModuleAccessTest.java", "subprojects/module-test/src/test/java/org/mockito/moduletest/ModuleUtil.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatcher.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatcher.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "@adrianhescalante You can try mockk instead if you use kotlin", "Yes, I migrated the project to Mockk in the end. Thank you.", "For Kotlin projects, we now recommend `mockito-kotlin`: https://github.com/mockito/mockito-kotlin If you can still reproduce this issue, please open an issue over there and we can investigate further." ]

[ "These appear to be unavailable. Can we remove these and the annotations?", "The same would be required here, assuming that `unbox-impl` also has a pre-known method signature?", "I think we can use `org.mockito.internal.stubbing.answers.InvocationInfo` here, in a similar fashion to how `Returns` uses it: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/80374488162380d006b8ae6da915d940cbf68c7c/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/Returns.java#L32\r\n\r\nIn that case, we can augment `Returns.answer` to use the `InvocationInfo` API and we don't need to update the `OngoingStubbingImpl` interface. E.g. we move `unboxUnderlyingValueIfNeeded` into `Returns.answer`. We can then lazily compute `value` when it is invoked, to be minimally computational impactful.", "In this case, yes I think we should ideally wait for Kotlin 1.5 to ship. Of course we need to be compatible with previous Kotlin versions. Therefore, we could check if the annotation exists on the class and return that?\r\n\r\nSince `Class.getAnnotation` takes a `Class`, the annotation would be on the classpath. Therefore, we can optimize `unboxUnderlyingValueIfNeeded` to only run when the annotation is available. E.g. we load the class based on its string name in a `static {}` block into a field. If that throws a `ClassNotFoundException`, the `Class<?>` field remains `null` and we can short-circuit `unboxUnderlyingValueIfNeeded` to bail if the class is `null`. We use a similar function for some JVM-internals in https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/80374488162380d006b8ae6da915d940cbf68c7c/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/stacktrace/StackTraceFilter.java#L23-L39", "If all inline classes have the annotation, is this still necessary? If I am not mistaken, we can update this method to the following:\r\n\r\n```java\r\npublic static boolean isInlineClassWithAssignableUnderlyingType(\r\n Class<?> inlineClass, Class<?> underlyingType) {\r\n return jvmInlineAnnotation != null\r\n && inlineClass.isAnnotationPresent(jvmInlineAnnotation);\r\n}\r\n```", "Nit:\r\n\r\n```java\r\nif (value == null || jvmIlineAnnotation == null) {\r\n return value;\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\nThen we can remove the if-statement down below and improve the indentation by 1.", "I am assuming that all inline classes have the annotation and also the `unbox-impl` method, do they not? In that case, I think we should throw an explicit exception here that this scenario is unexpected and Mockito can't recover (as returning `boxedValue` here will be wrong, per the original issue. You can add a new exception method to https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/release/3.x/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java", "Just to double-check: when reading https://kotlinlang.org/docs/inline-classes.html#members it mentions the following sentence:\r\n\r\n> To declare an inline class, use the value modifier before the name of the class:\r\n\r\nThe example in question does not include the `@JvmInline` annotation. Does this mean that Kotlin inline classes don't necessarily have the annotation available?\r\n\r\nIf that's the case, then we should probably explicitly call this out in our documentation so that users are aware of this requirement.", "Yes, otherwise, it would be possible to mock a function with different inline class:\r\n```\r\ninline class ICAny(val a: Any)\r\ninline class ICInt(val i: Int)\r\n\r\nfun foo(): ICInt\r\n\r\n`when`(foo()).thenReturn(ICAny)\r\n```\r\nwill try to unbox and then cast the result, failing.", "Well, long story short:\r\nOn JVM, they are required to have the annotation\r\nOn other backends (Native and JS) they do not.\r\n\r\nSo, for our use-case, we can safely assume, that they do have the annotation.", "Oooh I see. Yes that makes sense now. Could we then update the comment to make that a bit clearer?\r\n\r\n```java\r\n// Make sure that the current inline class is also the class that is compatible with the underlying type.\r\n// If we don't make this check, then we would potentially pass a mock of inline type A into a method\r\n// that accepts inline type B.\r\n```" ]

[]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/Returns.java", "subprojects/kotlinTest/kotlinTest.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/Returns.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/KotlinInlineClassUtil.java", "subprojects/kotlinTest/kotlinTest.gradle" ]

[ "subprojects/kotlinTest/src/test/kotlin/org/mockito/kotlin/InlineClassTest.kt" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Rafael, I took a look at this code and it wasn't completely clear to my why we are failing here. The reason that is probably happening is that Mockito first adds the mocked type (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/6f9108b833323345bd926f10914224d3e0a11b80/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassBytecodeGenerator.java#L97) in this case `PackagePrivate` before adding the current classloader: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/6f9108b833323345bd926f10914224d3e0a11b80/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassBytecodeGenerator.java#L99\r\n\r\nSo it looks up the classloader for the mocked type, which is the old classloader. Then it looks up the current classloader (which you changed) and then determines that they don't match. Thus `localMock == false`.\r\n\r\nThis code landed as part of supporting Java 9+ modules: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1582 It wouldn't surprise me if there is an edge case we are missing.\r\n\r\nSince the new classloader delegates to the former, I would have expected the classes to match and thus pass the checks, but they don't. Presumably because of the classloader equality check. Can we be lenient here and allow for child classloaders to be valid as well?", "The reason we fail is that a package-private type is not visible outside of its own class loader. Even if we defined the subclass in the same nominal package, if it was loaded by a different class loader, it could not see its superclass. To avoid this visibility issue, we fail before even attempting to create the mock.\r\n\r\nWe could consider to drop the context class loader if a mocked class is package-private. I am not sure why we need the context class loader to begin with but I assume its related to serialization what tends to be an edge case.", "I can think of a few options:\r\n\r\n1. Ignore the context classloader if the type is package-private. It could have failed anyway... so if it succeeds, might as well reap the benefit.\r\n2. Ignore the package-private restriction for classloaders that are not participating in the java module system, by checking isSealed on the class's package\r\n3. Check to see if the context classloader is a child of the originating classloader, although if a classloader is declaring a parent but not following the delegation patter this might cause a false negative or positive.\r\n4. Just load the stuff as you would, and check each relevant class you load and error if the defining classloader doesn't match.", "I'll mess around a bit more and report back if I figure out what the issue is.", "OK, I have a the minimal fix (as in, it will only affect cases that would have broken before):\r\n\r\nIf the mocked type is a non-interface or non-public, or any of the extra interfaces are non-public, don't include the context classloader in MultipleParentsClassLoader iff the context classloader is a child of the classloader we'd use if it wasn't included.\r\n\r\nThis fixes my issue, and in general likely fixes cases where a context classloader is set that follows the parent-first delegation pattern. I thought about simply removing the context loader entirely, but test authors who hit this can set and unset it in a try-finally block around their mock calls if necessary, and since there's no comments about why it's included I'd be wary of breaking somebody depending on the existing behavior.\r\n\r\nI am going to run this fix through google's internal suite of tests to see if it breaks anything. ", "1. The problem is that it might fail delayed upon deserialization. This might be non-trivial to understand and we should document this restriction somewhere. \r\n2. That won't work. Sealing only affects jars on the same class loader that are defining the same package, this won't work with modules anymore anyways and is taken care of. Package-private classes are however never visible on other class loaders, therefore we must retain the class loader.\r\n3. Is already done to some extend.\r\n4. This is implicit by the multiple parent loader.\r\n\r\nI think the right approach is to exclude the context loader for package-private classes by default since it will never work and to fail if serialization is enabled in addition. ", "> I think the right approach is to exclude the context loader for package-private classes by default since it will never work and to fail if serialization is enabled in addition.\r\n\r\nIt's not just package-private classes - mocking a public non-final-non-interface class also poses problems, since that will break stubbing/verification of package-private methods (#796).\r\n\r\nMy proposed fix:\r\n```java\r\nprivate static boolean needsSamePackageClassLoader(MockFeatures<?> features) {\r\n if (!Modifier.isPublic(features.mockedType.getModifiers())\r\n || !features.mockedType.isInterface()) {\r\n // The mocked type is package private or is not an interface and thus may contain package\r\n // private methods.\r\n return true;\r\n }\r\n for (Class<?> iface : features.interfaces) {\r\n if (!Modifier.isPublic(iface.getModifiers())) {\r\n return true;\r\n }\r\n }\r\n return false;\r\n}\r\n...\r\nMultipleParentClassLoader.Builder loaderBuilder = new MultipleParentClassLoader.Builder()\r\n .appendMostSpecific(getAllTypes(features.mockedType))\r\n .appendMostSpecific(features.interfaces)\r\n .appendMostSpecific(MockAccess.class);\r\nClassLoader contextLoader = currentThread().getContextClassLoader();\r\nboolean shouldIncludeContextLoader = true;\r\nif (needsSamePackageClassLoader(features)) {\r\n // For the generated class to access package-private methods, it must be defined by the\r\n // same classloader as its type. All the other added classloaders are required to load\r\n // the type; if the context classloader is a child of the mocked type's defining\r\n // classloader, it will break a mock that would have worked. Check if the context class\r\n // loader is a child of the classloader we'd otherwise use, and possibly skip it.\r\n ClassLoader candidateLoader = loaderBuilder.build();\r\n for (ClassLoader parent = contextLoader; parent != null; parent = parent.getParent()) {\r\n if (parent == candidateLoader) {\r\n shouldIncludeContextLoader = false;\r\n break;\r\n }\r\n }\r\n}\r\nif (shouldIncludeContextLoader) {\r\n loaderBuilder = loaderBuilder.appendMostSpecific(contextLoader);\r\n}\r\nClassLoader classLoader = loaderBuilder.build();\r\n```\r\n\r\nThe focus was on only changing behavior for cases that failed before. Since we verify that the classloader we define in is a parent of the context classloader, we shouldn't see any problems with serialization, right? Or at least no new problems, as the existing `MultipleParentsClassLoader` relies on `getParent()` to infer the delegation order.", "@charlesmunger Do you mind opening a PR that includes your proposed fix and adds a regression test for your use case? If all tests pass, I am inclined to merge as-is. If we end up breaking anybody else, we should add regression tests for their use cases and modify the implementation accordingly." ]

[ "I'd prefer to avoid the static import here as it's the only use and we tend to not use static imports.", "Not quite sure, why not most specific anymore?", "Move comment to one line.", "Interfaces might declare interfaces of their own.", "We already did this on line 99 in the current implementation, so we don't change this here. Can we clean these up in a follow-up?", "That's OK, as all interface methods are public, and a public interface that extends a package-private interface doesn't require the implementation to be in the same package. All that matters for the generated type is that the directly implemented interfaces are accessible.", "Fixed in new commit, I originally based off a different branch I think", "Let's figure this out in a follow-up. I think we need to reconfigure the formatter to do this.", "Of course, my bad. I was thinking that you iterated over the interfaces of the class but it's of course the directly implemented ones that matter.", "Agreed." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/bugs/creation/PackagePrivateWithContextClassLoaderTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_issue_to_pr" ]

[ "Thanks for filing the issue. Could you please provide us a minimal reproduction case that we can clone/download to debug the issue? Thanks in advance!", "Facing a similar issue. It can be reproduced by following these steps: https://www.baeldung.com/mockito-final\r\nand then debugging through the code. For any variable, in the Variables window, we can see the following\r\n\r\n", "I am able to recreate this in Eclipse with the following example\r\nEclipse: 2020-09 (4.17.0)\r\nJava: jdk1.8.0_201\r\nJUnit: 5.4.2\r\nmockito: 3.6.0 (core buildtime inline testruntime)\r\n\r\nWhen I try to step into the call at\r\nassertEquals(1, myClass.doAThing());\r\n\r\nI get: com.sun.jdi.InternalException: Got error code in reply:35 occurred retrieving 'this' from stack frame.\t\t\r\n\r\n[MockitoInlineTest.txt](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/files/5850429/MockitoInlineTest.txt)\r\n[MyClass.txt](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/files/5850430/MyClass.txt)\r\n", "Let me know if there is any additional data I can add to help get to the bottom of this.\r\n\r\nThanks!\r\nJohn", "Same issue with Mockito-inline 3.8.0 and java 15. This makes tests very difficult to debug, because it makes impossible to debug the code step by step ", "Our team is having this issue as well with 3.9.0. It's a major show-stopper. Would be great if it'd be fixed <3", "Rafael, does this mean we need to generate some more bytecode to make sure that `this` references are working as intended with the inline mockmaker?", "I am afraid we are the wrong place to fix this. Byte Buddy needs to shift the local variable array to add Mockito's logic. For reasons (tm), this requires to move the *this* variable further to the left. It is however still there:\r\n\r\n LocalVariableTable:\r\n Start Length Slot Name Signature\r\n 76 4 2 this Lfoo/Sample;\r\n\r\nIntelliJ could certainly pick this up and make the variable available in the debugger. Normally this is put at slot 0 but the JVM does not require this at all. I think IntelliJ falsely assumes this. If I rename the variable to `this2`, it is even displayed but that would be inconsistent for other parsing processors. This needs to be fixed in IntelliJ.", "Thank you for the explanation! Does anybody want to help us out filing this bug for IntelliJ?", "Would something similar need to be done to get this fixed in eclipse?\r\n\r\nthank you for looking at it!", "Possibly, I have not used Eclipse in a while. This might even relate to the debugger API. ", "As per twitter conversation:\n\nThe JVM spec says that for instance methods, the \"this\" reference is sorted in slot 0 on a stack frame:\n\nhttps://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/jvms-2.html#jvms-2.6.1\n\n\"On instance method invocation, local variable 0 is always used to pass a reference to the object on which the instance method is being invoked (this in the Java programming language).\"\n\nThis is hard coded into the Java debug protocol which is why IDEs like IntelliJ and Eclipse report specific issues with \"this\" but not other variables; there's a specific \"thisObject\" call in the wire protocol (as opposed to a local variable which happens to have the name \"this\"\n\nhttps://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/StackFrameImpl.c#L378\n\nhttps://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/jdk.jdi/com/sun/jdi/StackFrame.html#thisObject", "Why do IDEs not process local variables named 'this' though? It's the very same value, would not make a difference for the user and the verifier certainly considers the byte code legal.\r\n\r\nIt is certainly true that variables are passed on their respective index but they are commonly reassigned within the method what is what happens here. ", "Because in Java, at least, you can't create a variable called \"this\" and in fact it's a synthetic construct generated by the java compiler as a shorthand for local[0].\n\nSecondly the local variable table is optional which can be skipped when generating code using -g:none. In this circumstance it is necessary for the debugger to be able to resolve what the object instance is instead of looking up by name.\n\nThirdly it's what is defined in the debug api which is what IDEs use and which is baked into various assumptions and places within the JVM, including various JIT related operations. This may not be an issue in this case (particularly if it's not called frequently) but for performance reasons the calls to other instance methods will passthrough local[0] implicitly, regardless of what the local variable table has in it.\n\nTL;DR \"this\" isn't a variable in the normal sense and changing the LVT isn't sufficient to make IDEa believe that it is.", "'this' only exists as a Java keyword and you are feee to call it whatever in the language, you like, also in the LVT. The zero slot is in no way privileged. The verifier already tracks if the slot is reassigned to avoid super calls on other identities then the currently dispatched instance. At the same time, it allows such calls if 'this' is reassigned to another slot later from that targeted slot. \r\n\r\nIf I am reading the spec correctly, this is also perfectly legal. It only defines on what slot 'this' is passed to a method. I do neither think such reassignment is affecting the JIT where 'this' is no longer a special variable once the verifier is satisfied. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, Byte Buddy retains the 'this' variable at slot 0. As a matter of fact, that's the point of it. It makes a defensive copy of the original array to function when obfuscators or alternative JVM languages are used which sometimes reassign slots that are no longer used in the code. Therefore, I am wondering what both IDEs are doing if this is both available at slot 0 and on the copied slot that is referrenced in the LVT. It would be available from both locations. ", "I added an exemption for remapping the *this* variable's index. As it is assumed immutable, that exemption works for the *this* variable only but it seems to yield the correct result in the debugger. All other variables are still remapped what is necessary since they might be mutated but the debugger seems to accept this.\r\n\r\nIn this context I noticed another unfortunate break point confusion. Since we prepend the line number to the very beginning of any method in order to add that line number to exceptions we throw from mocked methods, the debugger will stop if a break point is placed in the very first line of a method, even if the mocked path of the inline-mocked method is dispatched. In this case, no variables (including *this*) are displayed since the *real code* is never invoked but the call gets redirected into Mockito's own infrastructure. @TimvdLippe I think we rather have the Mockito exceptions show the right line number rather then not break in the first line of a method in case that a break point is set there, but maybe we should document this somewhere?", "@raphw Yes I think that makes the most sense. We should probably add that caveat to https://javadoc.io/doc/org.mockito/mockito-core/latest/org/mockito/Mockito.html#39", "Is there any way to hot fix this issue locally? ", "@iamkarlson We first need a new release of ByteBuddy. Then we can roll that into Mockito and release Mockito as well. We can do that relatively quickly, so it's mostly blocked on the ByteBuddy release.", "@TimvdLippe would that fix the eclipse as well as IntelliJ ?", "It should fix both. A new release is underway in this minute.", "We will need to wait until 1.11.1 is on Maven Central before we can update our dependency in Mockito.", "It seems like the ByteBuddy release is experiencing some issues: https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/runs/2713960314", "On it, javadoc does not like something, not reproducable locally but I'll find out what it is. ", "Syncing to Central now and should be available throughout the night. We'll update Mockito soon but in the mean time it should be sufficient to simply bump the Byte Buddy dependency to 1.11.1.", "I am waiting for #2312 to get merged (after review) and then we can upload the new version of Mockito to Maven Central.", "> \r\n> \r\n> Syncing to Central now and should be available throughout the night. We'll update Mockito soon but in the mean time it should be sufficient to simply bump the Byte Buddy dependency to 1.11.1.\r\n\r\nI tried upping Byte Buddy to 1.11.1 and still recreated the issue. Will try when the never version of Mokito is uploaded.\r\n\r\nthanks again!", "Mockito 3.11.0 is being pushed to Maven Central atm: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/actions/runs/903060692", "I just took 3.11.0 and reran the test and unfortunately I am still seeing the same issue. Let me know if there is anything else that I can add.", "@jwb441 Could you double-check that you aren't accidentally using an older version of ByteBuddy via a different transitive dependency? I can retest this issue tomorrow.", "I just tested it myself in IntelliJ, and it does now work as expected. There is one caveat, however. If you set the breakpoint in the first line of the method, it will:\r\n\r\na) not contain the *this* reference if stopped in the first line.\r\nb) trigger the breakpoint for mocked method calls.\r\n\r\nThis is something we can hardly avoid, unfortunately. But we should certainly document it in the `Mockito` class.", "@TimvdLippe and @raphw - I missed that part in the discussion so went back and added a few more lines to the method in the spied class and I noticed a few things. If I put the break point in the method that I'm calling it never gets tripped. When I put it in the test and step into it I'm getting the error on line one (expected) and then my next step always jumps to the end of the method - I do get 'this' at that point though.", "still got the same error. I am using mockito-core 4.0.0", "Hi, any progress on that? We have the same issue with mockito-inline 5.2.0. ", "I just tested and I cannot observe this problem. Are you sure that the method is non-static?", "Hi @raphw \r\n\r\nWe are using mockito-core 4.11 and mockito-inline 4.11 in Eclipse IDE. Our tests do not enter the invoked method, and if we force the entry with step into (F5), we get the error reported above:\r\n\r\ncom.sun.jdi.InternalException: Got error code in reply:35 occurred retrieving 'this' from stack frame.\r\n\r\nSurprisingly, if we remove the mockito-inline dependency, these problems disappear and debugging works correctly.\r\n\r\nIs there a bug in mockito-inline? Does it have debugging support?\r\n\r\nThank in advance.", "We do not support older versions. Have you tried with the latest version of Mockito?\r\n\r\nTo me the exception looks like a bug in a different tool, so you might try updating your JVM, too.", "Hello again and thanks for your attention,\r\n\r\nI confirm that with mockito-core 5.12 and modifying the MockerMock to subclass, my code is correctly debugged. But with the default MockMaker (inline) I can't debug, my internal breakpoints are ignored.\r\n\r\nCan you please confirm if MockMaker inline is compatible with debug mode?", "Where are you setting the breakpoint? You mean when invoking the actual method?", "> Where are you setting the breakpoint? You mean when invoking the actual method?\r\n\r\nThe breakpoints that are causing me problems with MockMaker inline (I mean, the execution doesn't stop) are the ones that are in the real methods, invoked by the spied object. ", "If the method has multiple lines: does it also happen in a line further down?", "Update: I just tried the same thing with IntelliJ IDE instead of Eclipse and with IntelliJ all my breakpoints are working correctly.\r\n\r\nMaybe it's easier for everyone to show you my code. I think it's very easy to reproduce. I have a test class SaludoTest.java, which creates a SaludoImpl spy object and then executes the method SaludoImpl.sayHello(). I want the code to stop in the sayHello() method itself.\r\n\r\nI hope this helps. Thank you very much.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n", "I also assume that is not related to the JVM but to the IDE not accepting instrumented code." ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/bugs/creation/PackagePrivateWithContextClassLoaderTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Some more outfall in the Android ecosystem @raphw 😭 ", "@robpridham-bbc I understand that you were not the initial reporters that warranted the 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 releases, but would you maybe be able to contribute regression tests for these setups? We have several subprojects already (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/tree/main/subprojects) and I think it would be worthwhile to have an `androidTest` project. Then we can reproduce these kind of failures and ensure we don't break it again in future releases.\r\n\r\nIf you are not able to contribute these, that's fine of course. Sadly we are no Android experts, but are trying to do our best to support the ecosystem.", "> @robpridham-bbc I understand that you were not the initial reporters that warranted the 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 releases, but would you maybe be able to contribute regression tests for these setups? We have several subprojects already (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/tree/main/subprojects) and I think it would be worthwhile to have an `androidTest` project. Then we can reproduce these kind of failures and ensure we don't break it again in future releases.\r\n> \r\n> If you are not able to contribute these, that's fine of course. Sadly we are no Android experts, but are trying to do our best to support the ecosystem.\r\n\r\nI'm a professional Android specialist, and I'd be happy to contribute as time permits (probably not _imminently_) - my main concern would be how much Android baggage this would bring to the project, i.e. I think the minimum project to replicate this fault might be fairly complex. I'll have a think about this. If you fancy a chat about it, I can find time for a Zoom call or whatever else in UK business hours.", "I think if we start with a regression test for #2316 we can more easily investigate what it would require. As I understand #2316 even a very basic setup would have caught that issue. For that, I am assuming we need the Android SDK to download, but other than that we should be good?\r\n\r\nGiven the wide usage of Mockito in the Android ecosystem, I think adding this as a dependency is a justifiable move. Especially since we already include numerous other ecosystem dependencies, such as Kotlin, Groovy and JUnit Jupiter.", "Arghs, indeed. Fixed on master of Byte Buddy. Needed a fallback for the reflection dispatcher if dynamic class generation is not supported. Byte Buddy started to create an intermediate dispatcher in a separate class loader to avoid reflective calls to stem from its own context, otherwise method handle lookups might leak, for instance. For Android, this does of course break things.\r\n\r\nWill be fixed in the next version.", "> I think if we start with a regression test for #2316 we can more easily investigate what it would require. As I understand #2316 even a very basic setup would have caught that issue. For that, I am assuming we need the Android SDK to download, but other than that we should be good?\r\n> \r\n> Given the wide usage of Mockito in the Android ecosystem, I think adding this as a dependency is a justifiable move. Especially since we already include numerous other ecosystem dependencies, such as Kotlin, Groovy and JUnit Jupiter.\r\n\r\nPerhaps open a new issue for establishing some tests and we can go from there. Regression tests themselves are definitely feasible but it depends a little what you want - the easiest option for the Android-uninitiated is to get hold of Android Studio (a version of IntelliJ) which can self-manage the SDK and a lot of the underlying components, but obviously that's only really suited to manually executed tests. If you're looking to run a test suite on a CI server, for example, it's a bit different. Either way, as well as the tests, it probably wants some maintenance documentation so contributors can keep it current. Let's figure this out." ]

[]

[]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "This will be fixed soonish. In the mean time, run with - Dnet.bytebuddy.experimental=true" ]

[]

[]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle" ]

[ "gradle/dependencies.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "To create a mock a subclass of a mock is created through SubclassBytecodeGenerator.mockClass() here we can see that hashCode method is intercepted and handled by MockMethodInterceptor.ForHashCode. Here the code returns System.identityHashCode(thiz) as the hashcode where thiz is the object returned by Mockito.spy(). Same is the case of equals, where this==that is returned when equals is called.\r\n\r\n@TimvdLippe shoud we add handling to delegate the call to hashCode and equals of spied object ?", "Hm, I guess we could? I wonder if any tests start failing after that, but if they all pass I am okay with making that change yeah 👍 ", "I have opened a pull request [here](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2369).\r\n@TimvdLippe could you please review it.", "This issue needs to be reopened because it still reproduces with v3.12.4\r\n\r\nWas fixed in v3.12.0 by 123beb8311ed6303ba71d682cff8434fe36b7f0f, but 1a8946f19cb8c677fe779f8acbda97e284f7d61f reverted the fix.\r\ne1f98555ec904e8f8150cb24fa90392393cad9be also removed the test added by initial fix.", "@raphw why was https://github.com/mockito/mockito/commit/1a8946f19cb8c677fe779f8acbda97e284f7d61f needed? (Note that the type cache was fixed 2h before your commit: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/commit/4f81d4f1de676f845d6ee111eb6285dbdd5935c6)", "We use the same generated classes for both spy and mock classes. This is why we had to unify the behaviour. Internally, a spy is nothing but a mock with a prefefined delegatory answer. This is why a spy needs to behave like a mock.\r\n\r\nGenerally, I agree with that this behaviour would to be preferred. But it would require a lot of internal refactoring as we often rely on the hashcode/equals properties of mocks.", "Stumbled upon this today.\r\n\r\nIf this cannot be fixed in the near future I would suggest to at least document this e.g. in de JavaDoc of `@Spy` annotation and Mockito.spy method." ]

[ "I am not sure if I follow why this line was changed. Could you elaborate as to why?", "Consider the test [PartialMockingWithSpiesTest.shouldAllowStubbingOfMethodsThatDelegateToOtherMethods](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/6f9108b833323345bd926f10914224d3e0a11b80/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/spies/PartialMockingWithSpiesTest.java#L81).\r\nNow the call to getName is handled by [MockMethodInterceptor.DispatcherDefaultingToRealMethod.interceptSuperCallable](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/6f9108b833323345bd926f10914224d3e0a11b80/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockMethodInterceptor.java#L135) here the interceptor will not be null and it will go to interceptor.doIntercept. This finally leads to [InvocationMatcher.matches](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/123beb8311ed6303ba71d682cff8434fe36b7f0f/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/invocation/InvocationMatcher.java#L79)\r\n\r\nNow with changes in this pull request the call to equals is again delegated to MockMethodInterceptor.DispatcherDefaultingToRealMethod and it will come at same place. And this way it leads to stackoverflow. Earlier equals of spy was this==that. So i just replced equals with ==.", "Awesome, thanks for the explanation! That makes sense to me 😄 ", "Haha Thanks. Had missed to put links to the classes." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMaker.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockFeatures.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassByteBuddyMockMaker.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassBytecodeGenerator.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/invocation/InvocationMatcher.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMaker.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockFeatures.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassByteBuddyMockMaker.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/SubclassBytecodeGenerator.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/invocation/InvocationMatcher.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/TypeCachingMockBytecodeGeneratorTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/spies/SpyingOnRealObjectsTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Just to double-check that I understand the behavior of `@CheckReturnValue`. If we were to add it to `org.mockito.Mockito`, it can automatically ignore any method that returns `void`?", "Indeed, it only affects non-void methods. Additionally, it's often easier to add it to the class, and if there are methods where it is _OK_ to ignore the return value, then those methods would be marked with `@CanIgnoreReturnValue`." ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentCaptor.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatchers.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/stubbing/Stubber.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentCaptor.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatchers.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/stubbing/Stubber.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/StaticMockingExperimentTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/InvalidStateDetectionTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/misuse/DetectingMisusedMatchersTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/stacktrace/ClickableStackTracesWhenFrameworkMisusedTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/stacktrace/ModellingDescriptiveMessagesTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/verification/VerificationExcludingStubsTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_issue_to_pr", "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Yes, I ran into the same issue. Fix is up at #2380 Apologies for the breakage!" ]

[]

[]

[ "build.gradle" ]

[ "build.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_issue_to_pr", "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I am experiencing a similar issue after upgrading to version 3.12.0.\r\nMore specifically, the `AnnotatedSagaRepositoryTest#testLoadedFromNestedUnitOfWorkAfterCreateAndStore` test (found [here](https://github.com/AxonFramework/AxonFramework/blob/2eeacc4e225d0f3739b0c7d4e4ba37358795407c/modelling/src/test/java/org/axonframework/modelling/saga/repository/AnnotatedSagaRepositoryTest.java#L91)) has started failing, and it follows a similar pattern as described by @cushon.\r\nYou can find the failing issue in the GitHub Actions under Axon Framework issue [#1913](https://github.com/AxonFramework/AxonFramework/pull/1913).", "Thanks for reporting! Taking a look now to figure out what is going on here.", "Fix up at #2395", "3.12.1 is currently being pushed to Maven Central. It should be available in a couple of hours.", "Thanks for the quick fix here, @TimvdLippe. I can confirm that 3.12.1 solved the aforementioned problem for Axon Framework." ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/InOrderImpl.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/InOrderImpl.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/spies/SpiesWithRealEqualsAndInOrderTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I have the same issue after upgrade from `3.11.2` to `3.12.1`, i.e. the mock is not equal to itself.\r\nHere is an example of the recent failure in CI https://github.com/real-logic/agrona/runs/3401033492?check_suite_focus=true:\r\n```\r\n\r\nBroadcastReceiverTest > shouldReceiveTwoMessagesFromBuffer() FAILED\r\n java.lang.AssertionError: \r\n Expected: is <Mock for UnsafeBuffer, hashCode: 0>\r\n but: was <Mock for UnsafeBuffer, hashCode: 0>\r\n at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:20)\r\n at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:6)\r\n at org.agrona.concurrent.broadcast.BroadcastReceiverTest.shouldReceiveTwoMessagesFromBuffer(BroadcastReceiverTest.java:131)\r\n```\r\n\r\nThe issue is only reproducible in CI and only on Linux but is green locally or on Windows in CI.", "Hm, the fallout of #2331 is indeed unfortunate. Apologies for the inconvenience.\r\n\r\nLooking at the problems listed in this issue, the `HashSet` problem seems to me like it is working as intended. E.g. Mockito now correctly identifies a call on the mock (namely `.hashCode()`) and the code wasn't expecting that call to be there. I think it is fair to argue that the previous behavior was fine, but I think there is a reasonable argument to make that the new behavior is better.\r\n\r\nWith the second problem (that @vyazelenko also appears to run into), seems to be an issue with `Hamcrest` and `assertThat`. The issue is puzzling, as Mockito now correctly delegates any calls to `equals` to the mock. E.g. the real implementation of `equals` is called, which should be both safe (per the `Object` interface) and semantically more correct. I wonder if this might be an issue in Hamcrest itself (or at least the integration of both Hamcrest and Mockito).\r\n\r\nWhile I think the new behavior is the way to go, especially in the `.hashCode()` situation, I think it is fair to introduce some way to ignore such calls. I wonder if we can add a setting on a mock that would say \"you can call hashCode/equals and we don't mind\" or something.\r\n\r\nWould that be a workable solution for you?", "Hm, wait. I just realized that both linked tests are using *mocks*, not *spies*. Then this behavior is unexpected and is a regression indeed. We should probably update the code from #2369 to only apply to *spies*.\r\n\r\nWould one of you be willing to contribute a potential fix for this?", "@TimvdLippe Here is a reproducer for this issue:\r\n```java\r\npublic class TestMockito\r\n{\r\n private final long time = System.currentTimeMillis();\r\n\r\n public boolean equals(final Object o)\r\n {\r\n if (!(o instanceof TestMockito))\r\n {\r\n return false;\r\n }\r\n return time == ((TestMockito)o).time;\r\n }\r\n\r\n public int hashCode()\r\n {\r\n return Long.hashCode(time);\r\n }\r\n\r\n public static void main(final String[] args)\r\n {\r\n final TestMockito test = new TestMockito();\r\n final TestMockito spy = Mockito.spy(test);\r\n final TestMockito mock = Mockito.mock(TestMockito.class);\r\n if (!spy.equals(test) || spy.hashCode() != test.hashCode())\r\n {\r\n throw new Error(\"Spy is broken!\");\r\n }\r\n if (!mock.equals(mock) || mock.hashCode() != mock.hashCode())\r\n {\r\n throw new Error(\"Mock is broken!\");\r\n }\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\nIf you run this code as is with **3.12.1** you'll get the following exception:\r\n```java\r\nException in thread \"main\" java.lang.Error: Mock is broken!\r\n\tat org.agrona.TestMockito.main(TestMockito.java:34)\r\n```\r\n\r\nHowever if you swap `mock` and `spy` calls, i.e. call `mock` before calling `spy` then it fails with:\r\n```java\r\nException in thread \"main\" java.lang.Error: Spy is broken!\r\n\tat org.agrona.TestMockito.main(TestMockito.java:30)\r\n```\r\n\r\nSo depending on what is called first the result changes.", "Aha. So the issue is that the second call breaks things. That's very unexpected. I presume that's happening because we are leaving some invalid state somewhere. However, from the code changes, it is not obvious as to how that could be the case. @raphw do you mind doing a post-commit review of https://github.com/mockito/mockito/commit/123beb8311ed6303ba71d682cff8434fe36b7f0f and see if we accidentally did something wrong there?", "@TimvdLippe The problem is with the [org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.TypeCachingBytecodeGenerator#mockClass](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/b04c7039031c170dae5f90acb3ec74c16289886f/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/TypeCachingBytecodeGenerator.java#L42-L46) which **does not** include `defaultAnswer` when creating `MockitoMockKey`. Therefore both `spy` and `mock` end up using the same cached type and depending what is called first either of them becomes broken.\r\n\r\nI'll add a PR to fix it.", "Thanks for digging @vyazelenko - seems to explain the semantics I observe. After digging around, I believe the cases we had all had both spies and mocks created across different tests for the same class.", "PR that fixes this issue https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2400.", "3.12.2 is currently being pushed to Maven Central and should be available in a couple of hours.", "@TimvdLippe Thanks for a quick release!", "For anyone else who stumbles across this due to problems in their environments, it appears the changes in #2369 at the root of this breakage have been subsequently reverted in `3.12.3` based on PR #2402.", "@chadlwilson Correction. the changes in https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2400 are **not** the root the breakage but the PR https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2369 is. The https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2402 reverted both, because https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2400 is not needed if the https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2369 is removed.", "Sorry my bad, I meant to link to #2369 as the root of the breakage rather than #2400 (will edit)" ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/TypeCachingBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/TypeCachingBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/TypeCachingMockBytecodeGeneratorTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/spies/MockCreationShouldNotAffectSpyTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/spies/SpyCreationShouldNotAffectMockTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "> I have a PR that is almost ready for this, and would gladly submit it.\r\n\r\nYes that seems good to me, looking forward to it!" ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/verification/AtMost.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/verification/Only.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/verification/After.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/verification/Timeout.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/verification/AtMost.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/verification/Only.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/verification/After.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/verification/Timeout.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/verification/DummyVerificationMode.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/verification/AtMostXVerificationTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/verification/OnlyVerificationTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/verification/VerificationWithAfterTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/verification/VerificationWithTimeoutTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/InvocationContainerImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsDeepStubs.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/InvocationContainerImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsDeepStubs.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsDeepStubsConcurrentTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Do you mind sending us a PR with the regression test and a corresponding fix? That would be awesome 🎉 ", "I'm thinking about some fix the last few days and I don't know if I'll be able to provide any generic-enough fix.\r\n\r\nMaybe that's just my lack of knowledge of why is this stack trace cleaning implemented and what frames exactly we want to remove.\r\n\r\nFor example, this unit test:\r\nhttps://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/main/src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMakerTest.java#L270\r\nWhy exactly those 3 elements should remain in stack trace after cleaning?" ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockMethodAdvice.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockMethodAdvice.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMakerTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Hi @TimvdLippe !\r\nI am a new open source contributor and would love to solve this issue, could you help me understand the issue better by providing some extra references ? \r\nIs this is issue open to contribute ?", "isn't it expected behavior?\r\nFrom the user perspective , it look like that method can throw super method exception but from code perspective it is limited to exception of object created.\r\nAs we are spying on the object and method in that object is just throwing the sub Exception ,the code knows that it will throw only sub Exception and not exception implemented by super method .\r\n\r\nthe same issue(?) will happen when mocking a class with interface /parent class with additional method exception . \r\n\r\nFrom the implementation perspective \r\nAs we are mocking /spying on the object of sub class ,the mockito only knows about the method and class being mocked ,not the reference class/interface ,so not sure if anything can be done even if this is considered as a bug \r\n\r\n\r\n```\r\nfinal I x = new C();\r\nx.getClass() ; // it will return C ,not I \r\n```\r\n\r\n" ]

[ "I am not 100% sure, but I think we should also recursively walk up the parent class hierarchy in case the direct parent doesn't define the method. E.g. I think the current regression tests still fails:\r\n\r\n```java\r\npublic interface Foo {\r\n void bar() throws IOException; \r\n}\r\npublic abstract class Baz implements Foo {}\r\npublic class SubClass extends Baz {\r\n @Override\r\n public void bar() {\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```" ]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/InvocationInfo.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/InvocationInfo.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/invocation/InvocationBuilder.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/InvocationInfoExceptionTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/InvocationInfoTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "As a Mockito user I would love to have this new feature @mirkoalicastro ", "> As a Mockito user I would love to have this new feature @mirkoalicastro\r\n\r\nI made it more clear that there is already a possible implementation with the mentioned PR, which includes tests as well, of course. I hope someone will look into this.\r\n", "@TimvdLippe Are you able to provide some feedback on this / to involve relevant people? Many thanks.", "Sorry I hadn't gotten to it. I responded to the PR, it's looking good! We mainly need to figure out how we are handling the `Class` that is matching the `mockedStatic`, but I think in that case we should be passing that into the `inOrder()` method call. Let's iterate on the PR and see where it goes!" ]

[ "Nit: for readability, I would prefer this to not be inlined. E.g. let's put this try-catch in each of the methods to make it clear where the `MockedStatic` is coming from. (This is mostly for test code, as for production code this would have been a fine way to solve it)", "Nit: it's easier to use `org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThatThrownBy` here, as it makes sure we don't accidentally miss verifying the exception was thrown.", "Nit: do not use `@Test(expected)` and instead use `org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThatThrownBy`. We recently migrated away from that in #2510 (I should probably check if we can enable ErrorProne to error on this).", "Nice tests! Can we also have a test where we invoke `inOrder` with a different class? E.g. I would expect the following use case to be illegal:\r\n\r\n```java\r\n// Declaring `Bar` here rather than `Foo`\r\nInOrder inOrder = inOrder(Bar.class);\r\n\r\nmocked.when(Foo::firstMethod).thenReturn(\"first\");\r\nmocked.when(Foo::secondMethod).thenReturn(\"second\");\r\n\r\nassertEquals(\"first\", Foo.firstMethod());\r\nassertEquals(\"second\", Foo.secondMethod());\r\n\r\n// Execution verification on `Foo`, while `inOrder` was created with `Bar`\r\ninOrder.verify(mocked, Foo::firstMethod, times(1));\r\ninOrder.verify(mocked, Foo::secondMethod, atLeastOnce());\r\n```", "Definitely, it looks a great test to add. Done! ", "Thanks for the suggestion, I have used `assertThatThrownBy` in all the tests.", "Sure, I see your point. I have inlined that in the tests." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/InOrder.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/InOrderImpl.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/InOrder.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/InOrderImpl.java" ]

[ "subprojects/inline/src/test/java/org/mockitoinline/InOrderVerificationTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "> But I have not tested this change. I can not foresee what implications this would have\r\n\r\nIf you add your use case as a regression test to https://github.com/mockito/mockito/tree/main/subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/test/java/org/mockitousage and all tests pass with your fix, it is safe to merge 😄 Good catch! It's definitely worth fixing.\r\n\r\nLooking forward to your PR!", "The issues seem to come from this PR long ago https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1810\r\n\r\nThe author does in **contradiction** to the docs have the wish to inject fields that are not initialized by the constructor via field injection. I think that this \"feature\" is problematic. Not only does this feature seem to be completely wrong implemented to me, it might causes issues if it was correctly implemented. To me this feature is highly undesired.\r\n\r\nHere some examples\r\n\r\n```\r\nclass Foo extends Thread {\r\n\r\npublic Foo(ToBeMocked toBeMocked){\r\n ...\r\n}\r\n\r\n}\r\n```\r\nMockito would try to inject Mocks into instance variables of the Thread class(which will make it crash).\r\n```\r\nclass Foo{\r\n\r\nprivate Object fooBar;\r\n\r\npublic Foo(ToBeMocked toBeMocked){\r\n ...\r\n}\r\n\r\n}\r\n```\r\nMockito would try to inject random Mocks into Object field.\r\n\r\n", "What happened here if I should guess is the following.\r\n\r\n1. There was once some totally misplaced loop that did initialization multiple times.\r\n2. Somebody saw that and fixed it https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1588 @LihMeh\r\n3. Another guy(@tokuhirom) comes that relied on the bug and declared the bug a feature. Namely that even if there is a valid constructor other left over fields should be field injected(by accident). https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/1810 . He also never updated the docs to declare his behaviour. Probably more ppl would have complained about this if it was not only working under rare condition (the test class extends another class). Even more would need to be done for that feature to work anyways I think. \r\n4. Now I am here and I am planning on breaking the bug or feature that the guy from 3. built XD\r\n\r\nIf you ask me:\r\nThe feature @tokuhirom wanted is not a good idea if you ask me. I would kind of just revert his PR and things would work as described in docs. ", "@TimvdLippe what do you think?", "I wanted to chime in on this as it seems this issue and the combination of #2942 may have made @InjectMocks unusable in a larger than intended number of cases.\r\n\r\nThe root of the issue is that when the field injection occurs on a super class and the super class has a loosely typed field such as object. The mocking will completely fail because all mocks will match this field in the super class. So this forces people to mock all fields in the entire hierarchy of the class even if constructor injection succeeds and is preferred which is counter to the documentation as mentioned above." ]

[ "As a user, I think the behavior as described in this test makes sense. Therefore, I would like to keep it. That said, it would be ideal if we can keep this behavior as-is, while also fixing your issue. Do you think that is feasible or are they mutually exclusive?", "1. This test tests a behaviour that was never there. It tests a bug. The proper behaviour for this would need to be implemented. Only a weird bug makes this test pass.\r\n2. While this behaviour might make sense in some cases, it might be highly problematic in other cases. So I strongly advise against this feature. I could very well imagine this breaking quite some use cases of other's. The only reason nobody complained yet about this \"feature\"/tested behaviour that is does not exist yet(only in edge cases and even there does the wrong thing). Proper way of doing this would probably be to annotate setters used for DI explicitly. But I think that is a little to much to code into Mockito. \r\n3. The docs explicitly state the opposite of what this test is validating.\r\n\r\nFor more details/examples please read the comments in the issue.", "Maybe there is a clever way to combine all use cases here but it would need to be implemented. There is nothing there yet as one might assume by this test", "Commonly Beans contain fields that are not supposed to be injected, maybe an object field even. How would one know if a field is supposed to be injected? Well only way to let the user make annotations right?\r\n\r\nA lot of strange cases can arise here, I would not go down that road. That's why DI Frameworks have annotations to clarify all this. And commonly constructor injection is recommended.", "Injection in Mockito has always been a difficult topic. What one considers a bug, others consider a feature. In this case, the current behavior is what some of our users are relying on, as you saw with the reverts that happened. Therefore, if we were to make changes again, we are breaking those users.\r\n\r\nThis means that the Mockito maintainers now have to choose between two scenarios, without being able to satisfy all users. In this case, I lean towards keeping the current behavior to be conservative, rather than breaking these users and introduce regressions in their test suites.\r\n\r\nIf you want fully deterministic dependency injection, I advise you to use a DI framework as you mentioned. Mockito injection is a best-effort attempt.", "Yes but current state is just a mess", "Whatever you do leaving it like it is now is super broken", "If I were you I would not support cases of mixed injection, where both constructor and setter injection is being used", "I am still not sure whether this behavior makes sense or not. @tokuhirom since you contributed the original regression test, can you please review this PR?", "These asserts need to be changed to `AssertJ`, as it fails the build.", "@1-alex98 Did you see this comment? We need to change the code, not just a rebase.", "yes I did that locally. I am not sure why that did not make it here. I will check if I am home. I probably forgot to push or something. @TimvdLippe " ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/InjectingAnnotationEngine.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/InjectingAnnotationEngine.java" ]

[ "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/InjectMocksTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I would have though that we supported this feature with our `MockSettings`. While looking that up, I discovered that we do ship [`lenient()`](https://javadoc.io/static/org.mockito/mockito-core/4.5.1/org/mockito/MockSettings.html#lenient()), but we don't ship an equivalent API to set the strictness to `STRICT_STUBS`. I consider that a deficiency of the API, for which we should add an option. Therefore, +1 to this feature request.\r\n\r\nIn hindsight, we shouldn't have shipped `mockSettings.lenient()`, but instead add `mockSettings.strictness(Strictness)`. We have the same issue with `@Mock`: https://javadoc.io/doc/org.mockito/mockito-core/latest/org/mockito/Mock.html#lenient()\r\n\r\nTherefore, I propose we update both `MockSettings` and `@Mock` to accept a new setting called `strictness` which sets the `Strictness`. We can then deprecate both `lenient()` options, as they would be a shortcut for `strictness(Strictness.LENIENT)`.\r\n\r\n@sivaprasadreddy Would you like to contribute this feature to Mockito?", "@TimvdLippe Sure, I will contribute to this feature.", "@TimvdLippe I have raised a PR https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2650 and the GH Actions pipeline is waiting for approval https://github.com/mockito/mockito/actions/runs/2368951973.", "@TimvdLippe The PR build failed (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/actions/runs/2368951973) because of an error in Javadoc comment, which I have fixed now." ]

[ "Nit: `@since 4.6.0` since we will include this in the next minor release", "Nit: the default is the default of the runner. If you use the lenient runner, it will be lenient. I suggest to formulate it the following way:\r\n\r\n```\r\nThe default strictness level is determined by the rule/runner used. If you are using no rule/runner, the default strictness level is LENIENT.\r\n```", "Do we still use this method somewhere else? If yes, we should refactor these to call `getStrictness` and deprecate this method (since we ship it in the `MockSettings` interface, we can't remove it just yet).", "Nit: 4.6.0", "This line isn't covered yet by the tests. Therefore, let's add a test that attempts to set the `strictness` to `null` and ensures that an Exception is thrown.", "We should deprecate this method and point users to the `strictness` method.", "We should deprecate this method as well.", "Nit: mocks by default are lenient. I would omit that part altogether and reword it to:\r\n\r\n```\r\nYou can now customize the strictness level for a single mock, either using `@Mock` annotation strictness attribute or using `MockSettings.strictness()`. This can be useful if you want all of your mocks to be strict, but one of the mocks to be lenient.\r\n```", "Nit: let's extract separate test methods for these cases. E.g. we have 2 tests here, one which ensures the `lenientMock` is allowed and one where the `regularMock` throws.", "Nit: I think we can use a lambda here, can we not?\r\n\r\n```java\r\n() -> ProductionCode.simpleMethod(regularMock, \"4\")\r\n```", "Same here, let's have 3 separate 3 test cases here.", "Updated.", "Updated.", "Yes, this isLenient() is being used in one place in main code. I have refactored that to use getStrictness().\r\n\r\nBut this isLenient() is also being used in few tests, I think we can remove those reference while removing this deprecated method.", "Updated.", "Added test to verify this.", "Added deprecation marker and suggestion to use strictness().", "Added deprecation marker and suggestion to use `strictness()`.", "Updated.", "Separated this into multiple tests.", "Updated.", "Separated this into multiple tests.", "Quick Q - was it intentional for this to change mocks defined by `mock(Blah.class)` i.e with no rule/Junit `MockitoSettings` to strict by default?\r\n\r\nI believe the previous behaviour was lenient by default?", "We have not changed the behavior here. This test is using a Strict rule explicitly (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2650/files/d0907808e9fce24f6dcddc94d1ea2c3ebfa15676#diff-3040268f6b18ef562dd495ac7fc13465723311889d5f326bfb615cc3aed37415R21) to verify that we handle that case correctly.\r\n\r\nIn case you are hitting any regressions, please file a new issue. You are most likely running into a different problem.", "OK, thanks. We definitely have regressions (previously lenient mocks now behaving as strict) but I may have misidentified the possible cause. Will need to dig further if I get time.", "Another person has beat me to raising it at #2656 but this seems to be the same issue we are having." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mock.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/MockSettings.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/MockAnnotationProcessor.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/MockSettingsImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/settings/CreationSettings.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/InvocationContainerImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/StrictnessSelector.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/mock/MockCreationSettings.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mock.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/MockSettings.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/MockAnnotationProcessor.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/MockSettingsImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/settings/CreationSettings.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/InvocationContainerImpl.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/StrictnessSelector.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/mock/MockCreationSettings.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/MockSettingsImplTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/strictness/StrictnessMockAnnotationTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/strictness/StrictnessWithSettingsTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I've had a bit of a dig and it looks like a bug to me. `returnsArgAt` has similar issues. I'm happy to have a look into this.", "Thanks for the fix @big-andy-coates & @TimvdLippe, appreciated!", "(Verified in our project that the fix indeed fixes the original problem. Thanks! :pray:)", "Semi-related issue discovered today: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2664#issuecomment-1319816402" ]

[ "Note the existing cast of `InvocationOnMock` to `Invocation` to access the `getRawArguments` method. \r\n\r\nWhat do you think to exposing `getRawArguments` on the `InvocationOnMock` interface, and thereby removing the need for lots of casts to get to the `Invocation`?", "When this is invoked, both `getArguments()` and `getRawArguments()` return the same, which is the number of _raw_ arguments.\r\n\r\nI've renamed to `theoretical` because at this point in the code the actual parameters are not known, so we're only asking is its theoretically possible that the argument position is valid.", "If I remember correctly, we do these casts in quite a few place. If that's indeed the case, then yes let's introduce that method. If this is the only place, let's keep the cast here.", "Agreed. When making it public would you also want me to make the method return a copy of any array parameters, so that we're not exposing mutable internal state?", "Yes makes sense.", "Actually, I notice that `getArguments` does not do an array copy, so I'll stick with the same pattern when exposing `getRawArguments`.", "Nit: add `@since 4.7.0` here", "Nit: put this in a separate test case. Since we are stubbing the same method twice, this could lead to strange error messages/unintended behavior when the first stubbing isn't properly cleaned up by Mockito. In that case, I think this test can pass, even though the underlying logic is wrong." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/AnswerFunctionalInterfaces.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/ReturnsArgumentAt.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ForwardsInvocations.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/invocation/Invocation.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/invocation/InvocationOnMock.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/AnswerFunctionalInterfaces.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/ReturnsArgumentAt.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ForwardsInvocations.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/invocation/Invocation.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/invocation/InvocationOnMock.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/IMethods.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/MethodsImpl.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/stubbing/StubbingWithAdditionalAnswersTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/handler/MockHandlerImpl.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/handler/MockHandlerImpl.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/spies/SpyAsDefaultMockUsageTest.java", "subprojects/inline/src/test/java/org/mockitoinline/bugs/OngoingStubShiftTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/TriesToReturnSelf.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/TriesToReturnSelf.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/stubbing/StubbingReturnsSelfTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I would be happy to review a PR that removes the sentence altogether", "I am ready to prepare PR, but I don't have permissions to push " ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/quality/Strictness.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/quality/Strictness.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "@TimvdLippe I think I do have time to look at it, feel free to assign it to me, thank you.", "@TimvdLippe It seems like issue was caused by one test case, `ProgrammaticMockMakerTest`, which was conflicting with default mock maker strategies (by programmatically manipulating mock makers). I have extracted this test into separate test module, `programmatic-test`, and the logs seem to be clear, https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2829", "Hey! We hit this error as well, after upgrading to Mockito 5.3.1 from 3.x (using Java 17)\r\n\r\nThis happened unreproducibly as well because the failing tests are different from the ones using a non-standard mockmaker. \r\n\r\nIf this can't be fixed (because it's not reproducible), please improve [the documentation](https://javadoc.io/doc/org.mockito/mockito-core/latest/org/mockito/Mockito.html#individual_mock_maker) and/or the assertion with a better error message like \"Please do not use different MockMakers for the same target class(?)\" or something. I would send a PR myself but I'm not sure myself what's going on there. \r\n\r\nIt's also very disconcerting that doing a thing in one test class affects other test classes in when using mockito. Can't this be avoided (I'm writing this knowing I have no clue about Mockito internals)?\r\n\r\n", "Thanks @mr1chter \r\n\r\n> Hey! We hit this error as well, after upgrading to Mockito 5.3.1 from 3.x (using Java 17)\r\n\r\nCould you share a bit more details - in you tests you also change the default mock maker from test class to test class? Could you share minimal examples how do you use different mock makers in your tests? \r\n\r\n> It's also very disconcerting that doing a thing in one test class affects other test classes in when using mockito. Can't this be avoided (I'm writing this knowing I have no clue about Mockito internals)?\r\n\r\nThis particular fix was specific to Mockito but we could certainly improve the documentation / error reporting, just need to understand the context a bit more.", "We don't change the MockMaker from the default in almost all cases. There was a single one where I had to change it to the subclass MockMaker because a specific interface could not be mocked[1]. When I did this, some tests left and right of it failed due to the AssertionError, but inconsistently. When running all failing and changed tests in isolation (using gradle test --test Mytest) nothing failed anymore. But running some of them at once leads to AssertionErrors, which was very strange(looks like a race condition or something).\r\n\r\nI just dropped in with the debugger and it said that in this specific assertion it gets a `InlineByteBuddyMockMaker` on the left and a `ByteBuddyMockMaker` on the right, `handler.getMockSettings().getMockMaker()` is `null`. The stackstrace is roughly the follows (i slightly indented the places that are not mockito code and replaced the class and method names of those):\r\n```\r\ngetMockHandlerOrNull:160, MockUtil (org.mockito.internal.util), MockUtil.java\r\ngetMockHandler:115, MockUtil (org.mockito.internal.util), MockUtil.java\r\nisVoid:94, InvocationInfo (org.mockito.internal.stubbing.answers), InvocationInfo.java\r\nvalidateFor:34, Returns (org.mockito.internal.stubbing.answers), Returns.java\r\naddAnswer:64, InvocationContainerImpl (org.mockito.internal.stubbing), InvocationContainerImpl.java\r\naddAnswer:55, InvocationContainerImpl (org.mockito.internal.stubbing), InvocationContainerImpl.java\r\nthenAnswer:32, OngoingStubbingImpl (org.mockito.internal.stubbing), OngoingStubbingImpl.java\r\nthenReturn:34, BaseStubbing (org.mockito.internal.stubbing), BaseStubbing.java\r\n lambda$createTestStubs$0:65, CompanyInternalTest (com.forflow.internalstuff), CompanyInternalTest.java\r\n answer:-1, CompanyInternalTest$$Lambda$511/0x0000000801331208 (com.forflow.control.tacticalplanning.exchange.forecast), Unknown Source\r\nanswer:42, StubbedInvocationMatcher (org.mockito.internal.stubbing), StubbedInvocationMatcher.java\r\nhandle:103, MockHandlerImpl (org.mockito.internal.handler), MockHandlerImpl.java\r\nhandle:29, NullResultGuardian (org.mockito.internal.handler), NullResultGuardian.java\r\nhandle:34, InvocationNotifierHandler (org.mockito.internal.handler), InvocationNotifierHandler.java\r\ndoIntercept:82, MockMethodInterceptor (org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy), MockMethodInterceptor.java\r\nhandle:134, MockMethodAdvice (org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy), MockMethodAdvice.java\r\n methodUsedBySUT:103, ClassUsedBySUT (com.forflow.internalstuff), ClassUsedBySUT.java\r\n\r\n```\r\nAs you might see, this is happening in a `when().doReturn()` which is called as part of a stubbed Method response itself. But afaict this can also happen in simpler stubbings on Mocks which used the regular default inline MockMaker.\r\n\r\nRegarding documentation, I might open another issue because there are still quite some places that say \"subclass mockMaker is the default\" or \"in the future, inline will be the default\" even though this changed.\r\n\r\n[1] The interface that could not be mocked(lets call it A) is also weird because it is not special in any way. The mocking fails with a \"classic\" InternalError: class redefinition failed, invalid class. I followed until this error with the debugger and noticed that it tried to redefine 4 interfaces (three of which are superinterfaces of A) and managed to identify an even more simple interface which can't be mocked.\r\n\r\nBut somehow, A can be successfully mocked with the inline mockmaker in other test classes.\r\nI'll investigate this further and why it works there.", "I got the inline MockMaker to work, sidestepping the problem (because now, no subclass mockmaker is used anywhere).\r\nThe workaround was to apply our internal junit extension which sets up a completely mocked environment. This is somewhat overkill for this test (and was not necessary before) but seems to do the trick. In fact, as long as the test mocking A is run after a separate test which had this setup extension applied to it, it works (also some kind of spooky side-effect that shouldn't be there).\r\n\r\nSo my takeaway is now to advise people to use one mockmaker or another, but not both, as long as those are used within the same Java process anywhere.", "Sorry for the wall of text monologue, next time I'll open a proper ticket.", "> Sorry for the wall of text monologue, next time I'll open a proper ticket.\r\n\r\nNot a problem, thank you for sharing that\r\n\r\n> When running all failing and changed tests in isolation (using gradle test --test Mytest) nothing failed anymore. But running some of them at once leads to AssertionErrors, which was very strange(looks like a race condition or something).\r\n\r\nThat sounds about right, the order tests are scheduled on forked JVMs introduces randomness, and certainly, just running a test in isolation works all the time.\r\n\r\n> Regarding documentation, I might open another issue because there are still quite some places that say \"subclass mockMaker is the default\" or \"in the future, inline will be the default\" even though this changed.\r\n\r\nPlease do, thank you\r\n\r\n> But somehow, A can be successfully mocked with the inline mockmaker in other test classes.\r\nI'll investigate this further and why it works there.\r\n\r\n:+1\r\n\r\n> In fact, as long as the test mocking A is run after a separate test which had this setup extension applied to it, it works (also some kind of spooky side-effect that shouldn't be there).\r\n\r\nYes, similar approach we took for Mockito (to eliminate the possibility of race and isolate tests for differrent mock makers).\r\n\r\n> So my takeaway is now to advise people to use one mockmaker or another, but not both, as long as those are used within the same Java process anywhere.\r\n\r\nCorrect, or have some sort of test support for cleaning up the mock maker per test suite (the example that comes into mind is `@DirtiesContext` that Spring framework uses). I think we could explore this route. " ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "settings.gradle.kts" ]

[ "settings.gradle.kts" ]

[ "subprojects/programmatic-test/programmatic-test.gradle" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I can fix it.", "try this as workaround:\r\n`Mockito.when(good.call((String[])Mockito.any())).thenReturn(1L);`", "the problem is matches method from internal class VarArgAware in InstanceOf. It need to be override.", "Hi @jjDevPL \r\n\r\nThanks for tracking the version that changed the behavior ! This was done as part of #635.\r\n\r\nFor other here's the code in the archive : \r\n\r\n```java\r\ninterface Good {\r\n Long call(String... values);\r\n}\r\n\r\ninterface Bad {\r\n Long call(String value);\r\n Long call(String... values);\r\n}\r\n\r\nprivate Good good = Mockito.mock(Good.class);\r\nprivate Bad bad = Mockito.mock(Bad.class);\r\n\r\nprivate String value = \"abc\";\r\n\r\n// Expectation with `String[]` and call vararg method with a single-element outer-array.\r\n// This passes in Mockito 2.2.4 and earlier\r\n// This fails in Mockito 2.2.5 and later\r\n@Test\r\npublic void testMockitoVarArgs1() {\r\n Mockito.when(good.call(Mockito.any(String[].class))).thenReturn(1L);\r\n\r\n Long count = good.call(new String[]{value});\r\n assertEquals(1, (long) count);\r\n}\r\n\r\n// The failure above can be fixed by changing the expectation to `String` (with the exception of the case below)\r\n// This passes all Mockito versions\r\n@Test\r\npublic void testMockitoVarArgs2() {\r\n Mockito.when(good.call(Mockito.any(String.class))).thenReturn(1L);\r\n\r\n Long count = good.call(new String[]{value});\r\n assertEquals(1, (long) count);\r\n}\r\n\r\n// However, with `bad` having the single-arg method, the fix doesn't work, and there is no way I can find to make\r\n// this pass.\r\n// This fails in all Mockito versions\r\n@Test\r\npublic void testMockitoVarArgs3() {\r\n Mockito.when(bad.call(Mockito.any(String.class))).thenReturn(1L);\r\n\r\n Long count = bad.call(new String[]{value});\r\n assertEquals(1, (long) count);\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\nBoth `testMockitoVarArgs1` and `testMockitoVarArgs3` are failing.\r\n\r\n1. Reagrding `testMockitoVarArgs1`, this is somehow expected, as it is a part of the enhancement of #635, however we probably missed to document this case. The stub should now be configured as : \r\n\r\n ```java\r\n Mockito.when(good.call(Mockito.any(String.class))).thenReturn(1L);\r\n ```\r\n\r\n Note the `any(String.class)` not `any(String[].class)`.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. The issue with `testMockitoVarArgs3` is that the stub is resolved to `Long call(String value)` because `any(String.class)` returns a single argument. But the production code is compiled with the vararg signature `Long call(String... values)`. Forcing the cast to `String[]` don't work as well.\r\n\r\n The only option is to use \r\n\r\n ```java\r\n Mockito.when(bad.call((String[]) Mockito.anyVararg())).thenReturn(1L);\r\n ```\r\n\r\n Unfortunately this API is deprecated since 2.1.0, also the current return type do not indicate an array and thus forces the cast. Tweaking the vararg matcher signature can solve the issue\r\n\r\n ```java\r\n <T> T[] anyVararg() // enough for Java 8 as compiler infers the type\r\n <T> T[] vararg(Class<T> type) // for earlier javac version\r\n ```\r\n\r\n In this case deprecation of this matcher should be lifted, as it this is the only solution that allows to work with ambiguous method declarations.\r\n\r\n-------------\r\n\r\n@jjDevPL This doesn't happen if the API of the _type to mock_ is designed this way (which is better) : \r\n\r\n ```\r\n Long call(String value, String..., moreValues)\r\n ```\r\n\r\nI don't know if you own this API, but this could solves you issue faster than us.", "well, the issue got bug label. There are work around but nevertheless it should be fixed. My changes are located in InstanceOf.java\r\n```\r\nprotected Class getClazz() {\r\n return clazz;\r\n }\r\n```\r\nand under VarArgAware\r\n```\r\n public boolean matches(Object actual) {\r\n return (actual != null) &&\r\n (Primitives.isAssignableFromWrapper(actual.getClass(), getClazz())\r\n || (getClazz().getComponentType() != null && getClazz().getComponentType().isAssignableFrom(actual.getClass()))\r\n || getClazz().isAssignableFrom(actual.getClass()));\r\n }\r\n```\r\n\r\nsmall changes but it fixes Bad example. #635 was meged long time ago and I think Bad example is still bad.", "I am trying to mock querydsl orderBy method:\r\n public api methods on com.querydsl.core.support.QueryBase\r\n\r\n public Q orderBy(OrderSpecifier<?>... o) \r\n public Q orderBy(OrderSpecifier<?> o)\r\n\r\nthe project is on java 1.8 yet, and the workaround using deprecated Mockito api worked, but java version change will break it.", "With #2835:\r\n\r\n```java\r\nwhen(good.call(any(String[].class))).thenReturn(1L);\r\n```\r\n\r\n...now works, matching any number of values passed to the varargs parameter. \r\n\r\nWhere as:\r\n\r\n```java\r\nwhen(good.call(any(String.class))).thenReturn(1L);\r\n```\r\n\r\n... will match exactly one value passed to the varargs parameter." ]

[ "This test has been removed as `any()` now matches a single value passed to a varargs parameter. So this test fails with new impl. Fixing it requires changing:\r\n\r\n```java\r\ngiven(mock.methodWithVarargAndNonVarargVariants((String[]) any()))\r\n .willReturn(\"var arg method\");\r\n```\r\n\r\nto\r\n\r\n```java\r\ngiven(mock.methodWithVarargAndNonVarargVariants(any(String[].class)))\r\n .willReturn(\"var arg method\");\r\n```\r\n\r\n... which is no longer using casts... at this point this test becomes a duplicate of other tests such as:\r\n* shouldMockVarargsInvocation_multiple_vararg_matcher()\r\n* shouldDifferentiateNonVarargVariant()\r\n* shouldMockVarargsInvocation_single_vararg_matcher()\r\n", "Removed as it just duplicates existing tests in `VarargsTest`.", "Hm, breaking `any()` sounds a bit scary. Is it possible to write code that works both before and after? E.g. is it possible to use `any(String[].class)` before this change as well? Ideally these are not mutually exclusive, so our users can prepare for the breaking change up front.", "@big-andy-coates I had a question here about the `any` breakage ;)", "Small question: can we keep the test as-is? Or could you please explain why we can no longer pass 2 bytes into the varargs method?", "Just like `any(byte.class)`, an `ArgumentCaptor.forClass(byte.class)` will now only match a single value passed to a varargs parameter.\r\n\r\nUsers should either pass a second argument captor, if they wish to match exactly two values passed to the varargs, or use `ArgumentCaptor.forClass(byte[].class)`, if they wish to match any number of values passed to the varargs.\r\n\r\nTests already exist for this for `String` vs `String[]`. However, I've added tests covering these two alternatives, for primitive `byte`, to make things clear for you. See `should_capture_byte_vararg_by_creating_captor_with_primitive_2_args` and `should_capture_byte_vararg_by_creating_captor_with_primitive_array`, respectively.\r\n\r\nNote, this is already documented in the `ArgumentCaptor.forClass() behaviour change` section in the description of this PR. I'm guessing / assuming that we can copy the details of the breaking changes from the description into the release notes for v5.0.0?", "Updated, as these were now released in 4.11.0, not 5.0.0", "FYI, seems you're missing the 4.11.0 tag in the repo.", "Ah yes good point. With regards to the tag, `v4.11.0` was released: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/releases/tag/v4.11.0", "Yeah this is all fine. I mostly wanted to know why we were changing the test here, which all makes sense." ]

[ "enhancement" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatcher.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatchers.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/hamcrest/MockitoHamcrest.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/hamcrest/HamcrestArgumentMatcher.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/invocation/MatcherApplicationStrategy.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/matchers/Any.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/matchers/CapturingMatcher.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/matchers/InstanceOf.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/matchers/VarargMatcher.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatcher.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatchers.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/hamcrest/MockitoHamcrest.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/hamcrest/HamcrestArgumentMatcher.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/invocation/MatcherApplicationStrategy.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/matchers/Any.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/matchers/CapturingMatcher.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/matchers/InstanceOf.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/invocation/InvocationMatcherTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/invocation/MatcherApplicationStrategyTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/matchers/InstanceOfTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/util/reflection/ParameterizedConstructorInstantiatorTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/basicapi/UsingVarargsTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/bugs/varargs/VarargsAndAnyPicksUpExtraInvocationsTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/matchers/CapturingArgumentsTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/matchers/HamcrestMatchersTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/matchers/VarargsTest.java", "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/stubbing/StubbingWithAdditionalAnswersTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I am seeing some failures on CI with the new API 33 level job:\r\n\r\n```\r\n> Task :androidTest:connectedDebugAndroidTest\r\nException thrown during onBeforeAll invocation of plugin com.google.testing.platform.plugin.android.AndroidDevicePlugin.\r\nFailed to install APK(s): /Users/runner/work/mockito/mockito/subprojects/androidTest/build/outputs/apk/androidTest/debug/androidTest-debug-androidTest.apk\r\nUnknown failure: cmd: Can't find service: package\r\ncom.android.ddmlib.InstallException: Unknown failure: cmd: Can't find service: package\r\n\tat com.android.ddmlib.internal.DeviceImpl.installRemotePackage(DeviceImpl.java:1315)\r\n\tat com.android.ddmlib.internal.DeviceImpl.installPackage(DeviceImpl.java:1141)\r\n\tat com.android.tools.utp.plugins.deviceprovider.ddmlib.DdmlibAndroidDevice.installPackage(DdmlibAndroidDevice.kt)\r\n\tat com.android.tools.utp.plugins.deviceprovider.ddmlib.DdmlibAndroidDeviceController$executeAsync$deferred$1.invokeSuspend(DdmlibAndroidDeviceController.kt:173)\r\n\tat kotlin.coroutines.jvm.internal.BaseContinuationImpl.resumeWith(ContinuationImpl.kt:33)\r\n\tat kotlinx.coroutines.DispatchedTask.run(DispatchedTask.kt:106)\r\n\tat kotlinx.coroutines.scheduling.CoroutineScheduler.runSafely(CoroutineScheduler.kt:571)\r\n\tat kotlinx.coroutines.scheduling.CoroutineScheduler$Worker.executeTask(CoroutineScheduler.kt:750)\r\n\tat kotlinx.coroutines.scheduling.CoroutineScheduler$Worker.runWorker(CoroutineScheduler.kt:678)\r\n\tat kotlinx.coroutines.scheduling.CoroutineScheduler$Worker.run(CoroutineScheduler.kt:665)\r\n```\r\n\r\nFrom https://github.com/mockito/mockito/actions/runs/4106509220/jobs/7084834115\r\n\r\n@TWiStErRob do you know what is going on here?", "I have an idea, will raise a PR a bit later. You can rerun, and it should very likely work the second time.", "Created #2903, hopefully it will help. I've got many builds as you can see on the commit history, none of them failed for any weird reason, so I'm hopeful.", "Unfortunately we got another failure, this time on 26: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/actions/runs/4150981851/jobs/7180984789", "🙄 I'm starting to think it's related to the time of day...", "> 🙄 I'm starting to think it's related to the time of day...\r\n\r\nShould we try to reduce just to one Android version for now? It won't solve the issue but we could have less often CI failures while we are looking for solution(s) to make it stable?", "I would say let's leave it for a week or two, and see actually how bad it is. For now we see it failed once... out of 2 executions. That could be 1% or 50%, depending on how many you measure with.\r\n\r\nIf it's too bad, I guess we could move to be part of the release process to reduce the burden, but keep the safety the tests provide.\r\n\r\nOr we could add retry the same way you have retry for normal tests, which was surprising to see.", "Unfortunately another failure on `main`: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/actions/runs/4168588270/jobs/7215565389#step:4:706\r\n\r\n```\r\nFailed to install APK(s): /Users/runner/work/mockito/mockito/subprojects/androidTest/build/outputs/apk/androidTest/debug/androidTest-debug-androidTest.apk\r\nUnknown failure: cmd: Can't find service: package\r\ncom.android.ddmlib.InstallException: Unknown failure: cmd: Can't find service: package\r\n```", "@TWiStErRob @TimvdLippe so what should we do? I would still try to reduce Android matrix to one version, to minimize the number of possible build failures ...", "I would try to add retry first, but up to you. We could reduce it to 1 API version, which would still fail sometimes, or move the whole thing to release time, and run it once at the end of the cycle; or somewhere in the middle, running it scheduled in the background on `main`, but then who/when will look at the results?\r\n\r\n@chrisbanes as the main tamer of Android UI libs how do you think we can reduce flakiness on this trivial Android test project? The problem is that the emulator doesn't start up quite often, the actual tests are fine so far.\r\n\r\nCI: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L89\r\n\r\nProject: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/tree/main/subprojects/androidTest\r\n\r\nExample failures: #2903's OP (\"Investigation\" section, first 3)", "To be honest, I've had very little issues with GitHub Actions (other than starting the emulator is slow).\n\nI'd recommend sticking to the `default` images, and `google_apis` if necessary.\n\nYou might also want to explore Gradle Managed Devices. https://developer.android.com/studio/test/gradle-managed-devices\n\nIt simplifies the setup greatly, but you need to use recent AGP versions for recent fixes.", "The Android 33 job fails the most (2 instances tonight, with the latest being https://github.com/mockito/mockito/actions/runs/4231340587/jobs/7361785524). Therefore, I am inclined to remove Android 33 for now, as Android 26 appears stable for now.", "I found [a way to consistently trigger a quick boot on the emulator from a clean state (WIP)](https://github.com/TWiStErRob/github-workflows/pull/7), this might solve issues 1-3 listed in https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2903 and potentially could help with 4 as well, since the emulator always starts from a consistent state. The tradeoff: ~2GB of cache for the emulator Disk and RAM.\r\n\r\nExample cache:\r\n\r\n\r\nExample quick boot:\r\n\r\n\r\n<details><summary>Compared to a \"slow boot\"</summary>\r\n\r\nwhich might or might not time out.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n</details>\r\n\r\nNote: the slow boot still needs to be performed probably once a week to fill the cache, but the chance of failure **should** go way down.\r\n\r\nI'll raise a PR to change the CI once I'm done with my workflow change and used it a bit \"in production\".", "This is great, thanks a lot for the update @TWiStErRob !" ]

[ "You probably don't even need these two steps, because Android Gradle Plugin will download everything automatically (what is needed) and GitHub Actions hosted runners are set up with Android SDK already.\r\n\r\n`3.` is only necessary if you use self-hosted runners.\r\n`4.` is not necessary if you use Gradle.", "Could you please add a step (in the same job) for running `gradlew test` too so that unit tests with mocks are also tested. These **should** be just normal JVM tests, but we never know what can break :)", "maths :D", "I have a feeling matrix won't be necessary like this, because mockito-android has its own mockmaker, right?", "ah never mind, that would be covered by normal CI, nice 👏\r\n\r\n(iff all the conditions in settings.gradle are met in normal CI)", "👍 thanks! still figuring out how to make it work :)", "👍 ", ":D yeah, adding and removing steps, will fix that 😄 ", "It might be the case indeed, I will check it shortly ", "FYI https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2894\r\n(I don't think it's necessary for this pipeline PR, but was inspired :) )", "This test seemed to be not valid: the exception was thrown but no validations / verifications or what not", "Do you want to keep a 1-element matrix?\r\nIt could be fully inlined to the env var values?", "Unnecessary comment is unnecessary ;)\r\nAll actions are GitHub org/repo@tag (or hash) format. So this mapping is the default resolution.", "Agree, it was probably testing failure, because a CI job is as good as how you can diagnose failures.", "Upload resulting report as artifact?", "Actually might want to introduce more API levels in the future, because they have different JVMs. See my comment on the issue, API 21 fails, while API 31 passes.", "Yeah, I think we could remove the mock-maker part", "That's a good question for @TimvdLippe , I don't see test reports uploaded (but only coverage reports).", "I think we settled on level 26 as the minimum: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/main/build.gradle#L102", "For reference the [official docs](https://developer.android.com/about/versions/oreo/android-8.0#art) only list some new APIs, so even Android 8 doesn't support Java 11. However, as I understand with [desugaring](https://developer.android.com/studio/write/java11-default-support-table) Java 11+ APIs can be used as low as API 1. This is of course not practical, I think an API 21 minimum would be [enough](https://apilevels.com/). That said [official full Java 11 support is only in 33](https://developer.android.com/about/versions/13/features#core-libraries).\r\n\r\nAnyway, based on the info, starting with `android-api: [26,27,28,29,30,31,33]` would work.\r\n([32 has no Java changes](https://developer.android.com/sdk/api_diff/32/changes), it was a \"feature drop\", not given a major version, if it works, it could be included though)", "😲 so how do you know what failed?\r\nhttps://github.com/mockito/mockito/actions/runs/1865554496/jobs/2625339758", "Just to clarify, the matrix should only change the emulator version, the compile/target/minSdk should be hardcoded to highest/lowest values as [Google recommends it (TL;DR: we have ~1 year to use the latest target, otherwise cannot publish)](https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/11926878).", "You look into Github action output, like https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2893#issuecomment-1410906236", "Hmm... that leaves so many questions open:\r\n```\r\njava.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org.mockito.internal.debugging.LocationImpl\r\nat org.mockito.internal.debugging.LocationFactory.create(LocationFactory.java:17)\r\n```\r\nis a very minimal output, where is it called from? which code path got here? what's the root \"caused by\"? What got output to stdout/stderr? How long did it take? etc. All of these are recorded in the report. As an example open any `IntgTest` from [this workflow's \"Test Results HTML\" artifacts](https://github.com/TWiStErRob/net.twisterrob.gradle/actions/runs/4052565235). Anyway up to you if you (and your contributors) like reading logs :), it would drive me crazy.", ":D @TWiStErRob I am totally in for test report publishing (don't get me wrong), I have just included the most interesting part but here is the complete log [1], this is how the test failures are troubleshot at the moment. \r\n\r\n[1] https://github.com/reta/mockito/actions/runs/4057324609/jobs/6982933109", "@TWiStErRob so I have to remove 30-31 API levels (for now), the emulator GA seems to incorrectly deduct the arch:\r\n\r\n```\r\n/bin/sh -c \\sdkmanager --install 'system-images;android-31;default;x86' --channel=0 > /dev/null\r\n Warning: Failed to find package 'system-images;android-31;default;x86'\r\n```\r\n\r\nThe result is that emulator is not installed and the test run fails. I think we could hack the arch parameters or just get to that later on when it is fixed. I think it looks good now. Thanks!", "It just doesn't exist: `sdkmanager --list | grep android- | grep default`:\r\n```\r\n system-images;android-26;default;arm64-v8a | 1 | ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-26;default;x86 | 1 | Intel x86 Atom System Image\r\n system-images;android-26;default;x86_64 | 1 | Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n system-images;android-27;default;arm64-v8a | 1 | ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-27;default;x86 | 1 | Intel x86 Atom System Image\r\n system-images;android-27;default;x86_64 | 1 | Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n system-images;android-28;default;arm64-v8a | 1 | ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-28;default;x86 | 4 | Intel x86 Atom System Image\r\n system-images;android-28;default;x86_64 | 4 | Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n system-images;android-29;default;arm64-v8a | 8 | ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-29;default;x86 | 8 | Intel x86 Atom System Image\r\n system-images;android-29;default;x86_64 | 8 | Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n system-images;android-30;default;arm64-v8a | 1 | ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-30;default;x86_64 | 10 | Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n system-images;android-31;default;arm64-v8a | 4 | ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-31;default;x86_64 | 4 | Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n\r\n```\r\nI would be very surprised if the \"latest\" MacOS, that GitHub just released recently would be x86.\r\n\r\nThe action doesn't deduce the architecture, it's hardcoded to x86. Can you try adding the numbers and forcing the `arch`?\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/ReactiveCircus/android-emulator-runner/blob/e1248ae048e31ec2e171adc06be585d06c1f936e/action.yml#L14-L16\r\n\r\n```diff\r\n uses: reactivecircus/android-emulator-runner@v2\r\n with:\r\n api-level: ${{ matrix.android-api }}\r\n+ arch: x86_64 # or arm64-v8a (don't know if these Macs are M1/M2 or not)\r\n```", "`x86_64` does not work for sure, I tried that before, let me try `arm`", "What does \"does not work for sure\" means, because in their examples they also use that:\r\nhttps://github.com/ReactiveCircus/android-emulator-runner#usage--examples", "`PANIC: Avd's CPU Architecture 'arm64' is not supported by the QEMU2 emulator on x86_64 host.` sounds good.", "It seems like going up to `31` is fine, updated the matrix, after 31 - failures :(", "I think 33 would work, told you 32 is \"special\": https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/2893#discussion_r1093002196\r\n\r\nNotice that in the above table there's no 32 and 33, but there are emulators:\r\n```\r\n system-images;android-32;android-desktop;arm64-v8a | 5 | Desktop ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-32;android-desktop;x86_64 | 5 | Desktop Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n system-images;android-32;google_apis;arm64-v8a | 3 | Google APIs ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-32;google_apis;x86_64 | 3 | Google APIs Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n system-images;android-32;google_apis_playstore;x86_64 | 3 | Google Play Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n\r\n system-images;android-33;google_apis;arm64-v8a | 8 | Google APIs ARM 64 v8a System Image\r\n system-images;android-33;google_apis;x86_64 | 8 | Google APIs Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n system-images;android-33;google_apis_playstore;x86_64 | 7 | Google Play Intel x86 Atom_64 System Image\r\n```\r\n\r\nLet's merge it as is, this is a huge improvement over \"nothing\". We can figure out 32/33 later.", "Oh sorry, I missed that the issue was only specific to 32", "Let's see why https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/267458959", "We don't have test reporting setup. For that, we rely on console output solely and locally reproducing the error. With CI that is sometimes tricky, but that's the setup we got atm. If you have any suggestions, feel free to create an issue and we can discuss further there.", "I don't think we want to test so many Android releases, since we don't have a lot of CPU capacity on GitHub actions. Instead, I think only having 26 (which is the oldest version that we still support) is sufficient. If we notice gaps in Android support, we can always extend the matrix, but for now I think just 1 Android version is good enough.", "Good point, very likely if it works on the oldest, it'll work elsewhere too.", "That said, I would follow this up with a PR for running 33, because that has full on Java 11 support, which can mess things up. But this PR, even with 1 version is good enough.", "Kept only `26`" ]

[]

[ ".github/workflows/ci.yml" ]

[ ".github/workflows/ci.yml" ]

[ "subprojects/androidTest/src/androidTest/java/org/mockitousage/androidtest/BasicInstrumentedTests.kt" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockMethodAdvice.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/MockMethodAdvice.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/bugs/ThreadLocalTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/injection/filter/TypeBasedCandidateFilter.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/injection/filter/TypeBasedCandidateFilter.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/exceptions/Reporter.java" ]

[ "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/GenericTypeMockMultipleMatchesTest.java", "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/GenericTypeMockTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I also like the idea about removing this `return true` statement when I wrote something which is more \"assertion\" than \"matching\".\r\n\r\nBut it seems there is some limitation about this, see : [**`argThat` plus asserts**](https://stackoverflow.com/a/57281503/5088764).\r\nNot sure to understand details, maybe a Mockito committer could explain this ?\r\n\r\nIdeally, I think it would be great if **Mockito** provide an elegant way to use **AssertJ** to match arguments and/or more generally provide a way to assert arguments instead of matching it.\r\n\r\nWaiting, you could implement your own : \r\n**The general way** (not dependent of AssertJ - source : https://github.com/assertj/assertj/issues/972#issuecomment-399988670)\r\n```java\r\npublic static <T> T assertArg(Consumer<T> assertion) {\r\n return argThat(argument -> {\r\n assertion.accept(argument);\r\n return true;\r\n });\r\n}\r\n```\r\n**The AssertJ oriented** (depend of AssertJ and unfortunately Hamcrest too... - source : https://gist.github.com/superbob/091489c61ce9bd79d14a4d3d731c9c49?permalink_comment_id=3863242#gistcomment-3863242)\r\n```java\r\nimport org.assertj.core.matcher.AssertionMatcher;\r\nimport org.mockito.hamcrest.MockitoHamcrest;\r\n\r\nimport java.util.function.Consumer;\r\n\r\npublic class TestUtil {\r\n\r\n public static <T> T assertArg(Consumer<T> assertions) {\r\n return MockitoHamcrest.argThat(new AssertionMatcher<T>() {\r\n @Override\r\n public void assertion(T actual) throws AssertionError {\r\n assertions.accept(actual);\r\n }\r\n });\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\nI didn't dig to understand what is the benefits of AssertJ oriented solution compare to general way ... maybe better miss match report ? :shrug: \r\nif the AssertJ oriented solution is better, I guess it should be great to have one without Hamcrest dependency." ]

[ "I just realized that throwing an exception might cause stateful problems in our tracking mechanism. E.g. if we match on arguments and we throw an exception somewhere, I am not sure how Mockito recovers. Given that this PR passes the checks, I think this is fine, but let's codify this explicitly.\r\n\r\nCan we add the following test cases?\r\n\r\n```java\r\n @Test\r\n public void can_invoke_method_on_mock_after_assert_arg() throws Exception {\r\n mock.oneArg(\"hello\");\r\n\r\n try {\r\n verify(mock).oneArg(assertArg((String it) -> assertEquals(\"not-hello\", it)));\r\n fail(\"Should throw an exception\");\r\n } catch (ComparisonFailure e) {\r\n // do nothing\r\n }\r\n\r\n mock.oneArg(\"hello\");\r\n }\r\n\r\n @Test\r\n public void can_verify_on_mock_after_assert_arg() throws Exception {\r\n mock.oneArg(\"hello\");\r\n\r\n try {\r\n verify(mock).oneArg(assertArg((String it) -> assertEquals(\"not-hello\", it)));\r\n fail(\"Should throw an exception\");\r\n } catch (ComparisonFailure e) {\r\n // do nothing\r\n }\r\n\r\n verify(mock).oneArg(\"hello\");\r\n }\r\n```", "@TimvdLippe tests added" ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatchers.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatchers.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/matchers/MatchersTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Probably a regression introduced in #2923. @jfrantzius can you please take a look?", "Looking at it...", "That's an interesting somehow recursive construct that I'm surprised the compiler accepts, but then there surely shouldn't be a `ClassCastException` anyway ...\r\n```java\r\npublic class ConcreteJob extends AbstractJob<ConcreteJob>\r\n```\r\n(a class that uses itself as a type parameter for its superclass? 🤯 )", "@TimvdLippe WDYT?" ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/injection/filter/TypeBasedCandidateFilter.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/injection/filter/TypeBasedCandidateFilter.java" ]

[ "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/GenericTypeMockTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I have the same issue on upgrade. I believe the issue is using `spy(mock(Foo.class))` - I see this in your upgrade and in the test that failed on my upgrade. I removed the outer `spy()` and my test works as expected again. Spying on a mock doesn't make sense, I don't think - imo Mockito should error in this scenario.", "Indeed removing the spy() made the test pass. \r\n\r\nStill the current message feels wrong, an clear error indicating that spying a mock is forbidden would be better. ", "Spying of mocks is not supported. If you would like to improve the messaging here, I would be happy to review a PR for it. You will need to update `spy(T object)` (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/5486617f7ac759d24e99ee9d8d03e969acdd460f/src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java#L2169) to check for `isMock`: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/5486617f7ac759d24e99ee9d8d03e969acdd460f/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/MockUtil.java#L132", "Can someone help me understand why this only happens with interfaces and not with implementations? E.g.\r\n\r\nThis breaks as @bmaggi described:\r\n```java\r\nList<Integer> spy = Mockito.spy(Mockito.mock(List.class));\r\nspy.add(1);\r\nverify(spy).add(1);\r\n```\r\n\r\nThis seems to work though:\r\n```java\r\nList<Integer> spy = Mockito.spy(Mockito.mock(LinkedList.class));\r\nspy.add(1);\r\nverify(spy).add(1);\r\n```\r\n\r\nWhat makes me think that if we add a validation to the spy(T Object) method, we might break some previously working code like the one in the second example. ", "@xgrimauu Indeed it's a good point, if an exception is raised it will break your second example (that is currently working) \r\n\r\nFor the moment, I see these options: \r\n1. Raise an invalid Argument Exception for all mock(will break test with spy(mock(class)))\r\n2. Raise an exception only for mocked Interface (just need to find how ;)) \r\n3. Add a logging message warn \r\n4. Fix the behavior for mocked interface \r\n\r\n@TimvdLippe What would be the best option ?\r\n", "I implemented a draft [here](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/compare/main...bmaggi:mockito:feature/forbid_spy_on_mocked_interface?expand=1)\r\n\r\nOnly raise exception on interface. \r\n\r\nAny suggestion ? ", "For information : Following the comment in the PR, I changed the code to forbid all mock." ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/constructor/CreatingMocksWithConstructorTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "This breaking change is listed in the release notes of Mockito 5: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/releases/tag/v5.0.0", "@hensan64 Good catch on the wrong JavaDoc for these methods. Let me add these caveats to the JavaDoc." ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatchers.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/ArgumentMatchers.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "@ByoungJoonIm Feel free to send us a PR that fixes this.", "Hi I made a pr that fixes this, thank you" ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/DoAnswerStyleStubbing.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/InvocationContainerImpl.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/DoAnswerStyleStubbing.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/InvocationContainerImpl.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Thank you!\r\n" ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/ByteBuddyMockMaker.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/ByteBuddyMockMaker.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Yes that is certainly true. Do you mind sending us a PR to improve the wording?" ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Mockito.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I've held off on providing a reproducible example as I hope the description is clear enough; can give it a shot if more detail is required, though.", "Added a unit test case to #3078 that gives a decent picture of what this describes, but without some of the outer context (e.g., Gradle and JUnit exclusion categories) that helps demonstrate the impact of the current behavior." ]

[ "Why does this need to be `volatile`? We try to stay away of that as much as we can, as multi-threading is already a difficult story with Mockito. As I see it, there is no need for this to be shared across instances, so I think this is not necessary?", "Ah thanks, good catch! I wasn't familiar with the threading model at play here and wanted to be conservative. I've removed the `volatile` modifier since it appears to be unnecessary." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/runners/StrictRunner.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/runners/StrictRunner.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockitousage/junitrunner/StrictRunnerTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "I have opened the PR #3095, which would ease this issue, by changing the locking scheme in TypeCachingBytecodeGenerator from a single global lock to cacheLocks with size 16.\r\nThe used TypeCachingLock from cacheLocks depends on the hashcode of MockitoMockKey, which aggregates the types and\r\nsettings to mock.\r\n\r\nSo this will spread the Locks over 16 instances, assuming that the hashcodes of the class to mock are more or less evenly distributed.\r\n" ]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/TypeCachingBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/TypeCachingBytecodeGenerator.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/TypeCachingMockBytecodeGeneratorTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "This should have been covered in https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/0aba0d5b031b4282c9b6686add2b443bda761817/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsEmptyValues.java#L132 but I am not sure why that is breaking. #2731 is supposed to tackle that, but it needs to be rebased. Feel free to submit a PR that fixes this issue!", "I'm seeing a similar [test failures](https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/palantir/tritium/2642/workflows/773f100f-fe40-4d13-9e03-a2337249bc67/jobs/19318/tests) with deep stubs and methods returning `Optional<Long>` and `OptionalLong` after the upgrade to Mockito 5.x in https://github.com/palantir/tritium/pull/1635 . The exception we see is below:\r\n\r\n```\r\njava.lang.ClassCastException: class com.github.benmanes.caffeine.cache.Policy$Eviction$MockitoMock$nsH7a8Ju cannot be cast to class java.lang.Long (com.github.benmanes.caffeine.cache.Policy$Eviction$MockitoMock$nsH7a8Ju is in unnamed module of loader 'app'; java.lang.Long is in module java.base of loader 'bootstrap')\r\n\tat com.palantir.tritium.metrics.caffeine.CaffeineStats.lambda$weightedSize$1(CaffeineStats.java:60)\r\n\tat com.palantir.tritium.metrics.caffeine.CaffeineCacheMetricsTest.lambda$weightedSize$2(CaffeineCacheMetricsTest.java:87)\r\n\tat org.assertj.core.api.AbstractObjectAssert.returns(AbstractObjectAssert.java:1106)\r\n\tat com.palantir.tritium.metrics.caffeine.CaffeineCacheMetricsTest.weightedSize(CaffeineCacheMetricsTest.java:87)\r\n```", "@schlosna, as far was I'm aware, this was not a regression, just an existing issue, effecting at least the latest 4.x and 5.x versions. \n\nWhat version were you updating from?", "> @schlosna, as far was I'm aware, this was not a regression, just an existing issue, effecting at least the latest 4.x and 5.x versions. \n> \n> What version were you updating from?\n\nI saw this in https://github.com/palantir/tritium/pull/1635 when upgrading from Mockito 4.11.0 to 5.0.0 and running on JDK 17. \n\nI tried dropping the tests above into a mockito clone locally, but they did not reproduce. I can try a few more things to try to reproduce.\n", "@big-andy-coates I tried to fix this but eventually I came across an issue that if you have RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS, why would you expect an Optional to be not a mock? If it wouldn't be you would make some users quite surprised.\r\n\r\nHaving List.isEmpty = false is a happy coincidence, because it is a mock and not a `Collection.emptyList` nor `List.of()`.\r\n\r\nIn case of Optional, you get one that is not `Optional.empty()`, but gives you `false` when you ask for `Optional.isPresent`, the only issue is that it also returns `false` when you ask `Optional.isEmpty` - but this is normal mock behavior, defaults are set to `false` for booleans.", "Should we consider leaving it as a mock, but stubbing the `isPresent` method to return `false`? This would require the mock to be `lenient`, but I think that's preferable to the current non-sensical defaults.", "The PR #3097 would now return `true` for all `Optional.isEmpty()` classes when using `RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS` and will return a real Optional also in the `RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS`, as discussen with @TimvdLippe in the PR.\r\n\r\nThe behavior of `Collection.isEmpty()` remains the same." ]

[ "In this answer, on line 68 we already call `delegate().answer()` where the delegate is `ReturnsEmptyValues`. This class in turn already returns an empty optional: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/076e8ac837c17e81347854feaad69687cd7d2b83/src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsEmptyValues.java#L142-L149\r\n\r\nIs there a different reason why we are not hitting that codepath?", "1. Because `Optional` returns to be mockable in line 66 `!typeMockabilityOf(rawType, mockSettings.getMockMaker()).mockable()`.\r\n2. The `delegate().answer()` would return a real `Optional`, which was mentioned in the ticket not to be the right thing to return. As the `RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS` also do not return `delegate().answer()` for e.g. `Lists`.", "In that case I would say the delegation is not working as expected and we should fix that instead. I would like us not to reimplement the logic of returning empty values in another place, which is why we have the delegate. If that is not working properly, I consider that the bug. Can you look into fixing that while we make sure we don't break other use cases?", "@TimvdLippe Yes I can do that.\r\nBut just to be sure, that will also return a real Optional in the `RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS` case.\r\nSo the observable behavior for the client will be different for e.g. Lists and Optionals, when using `RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS`.", "@TimvdLippe done", "Are we sure this is what we want? Playing devils advocate for a moment...\r\n\r\nThis would make the default behaviour consistent, i.e. returning an empty optional, but would change the way users would need to deep mock methods returning optionals (and collections?). Instead of mocking the calls to the optional's methods, users would need to mock the method returning the optional.\r\n\r\nFor example:\r\n\r\n```java\r\nwhen(a.getOptional().isPresent()).thenReturn(true);\r\nwhen(a.getOptional().get()).thenReturn(\"thing\");\r\n```\r\n\r\nWould need to become:\r\n\r\n```java\r\nwhen(a.getOptional()).thenReturn(Optional.of(\"thing\"));\r\n```\r\n\r\nOr, if they really did still want an optional mock for some reason:\r\n\r\n```java\r\nOptional<String> mockOptional = mock(Optional.class);\r\nwhen(mockOptional.isPresent()).thenReturn(true);\r\nwhen(mockOptional.get()).thenReturn(\"thing\");\r\nwhen(a.getOptional()).thenReturn(mockOptional);\r\n```\r\n\r\nPersonally, I think returning a real empty optional is better as the optional is an immutable object, so returning an immutable instance means the immutability is maintained in testing by default, highlighting unreachable branches etc.\r\n\r\nIt is a change that would need documenting both in the standard docs and in the release notes to help users upgrade (it's a breaking change).\r\n\r\nIf we choose to go with an actual `Optional` instance... are there other default types that should follow the same route? I'm not sure collections should, as they aren't necessarily immutable.\r\n\r\n ", "We don't support mocking Java internal types such as `Optional`. The fact that it worked by accident I consider a bug, not a feature. Therefore, while we can document it, I consider this a bug fix to fix code that should have never worked and we did not support. I don't even know if it works as we would expect it does, so who knows what the undefined behaviour is.\r\n\r\nFor all of these, we should delegate to `ReturnsEmptyValues` so that we have one place where we define this. Since Collections are returned and are in the same category, they would follow as well.", "Rather than coding the list here, what if we call the delegate for this type, check if it is `null` and if not, return it. Otherwise, we create the deep stub as normal. This then also removes the need for calling `typeMockabilityOf`, as it is weird we call that first anyways.", "@TimvdLippe The proposed change to use `ReturnsEmptyValues` breaks multiple existing (>=12) tests.\r\nShall I go forward and change these tests to comply to the new behavior?\r\nThis seams like an invasive change.\r\n\r\nExample:\r\n`org.mockitousage.basicapi.MocksSerializationTest#BUG_ISSUE_399_try_some_mocks_with_current_answers`\r\n`org.mockito.internal.stubbing.defaultanswers.ReturnsGenericDeepStubsTest#will_return_default_value_on_non_mockable_nested_generic`\r\n\r\nand more...", "Hm yes that is too many breakages unfortunately. Still, I would prefer us to not implement this same list twice. Can we come up with a way that uses both?", "I could delegate the check into `ReturnsEmptyValue` where I extract the Optional checks into an own method, then we have the different logic, but near each other to see the differences.", "@TimvdLippe Done." ]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsDeepStubs.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsEmptyValues.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsDeepStubs.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsEmptyValues.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/defaultanswers/ReturnsOptionalMocksTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Yes I think that's fair to publicly expose, as users already interact with it via the resources. E.g. the names are already part of the public api there." ]

[ "This is a good test case, but needs to be in a separate test method.", "Should we mark this one deprecated in favor of this new method?", "This interface can be implemented, meaning that we can break downstream projects. We should add a default implementation and probably also mark this interface with `@NotExtensible`", "I am not sure, because the semantics are different. Maybe someone is relying on the fact, that you get a new instance every time you call it.", "I think the new behaviour is the one I would expect, not the previous one. So I would be okay with marking the unintuitive behaviour as deprecated for that reason. If somebody objects, we can always reconsider ", "Done." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/DefaultMockitoPlugins.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/MockUtil.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/plugins/MockitoPlugins.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/DefaultMockitoPlugins.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/MockUtil.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/plugins/MockitoPlugins.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/plugins/DefaultMockitoPluginsTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "Is there any update on this issue? \r\n\r\nIt would be very handy to write following with Junit 5:\r\n\r\n```java\r\n@Test\r\nvoid test( @Mock ClassToMock mock, @Captor ArgumentCaptor<String> argument )\r\n{\r\n verify( mock ).doStuff( argument.capture() );\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, this does not work because `@Captor` is still not applicable to a parameter. ", "Feel free to open a PR to implement this feature.", "Also please note this prior discussion on this feature which ideally requires some fixes in JUnit5: https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/issues/1604", "Hi @TimvdLippe. \r\nI see that the discussion related to the JUni5 task was marked as closed due to inactivity and there are no planned changes for having an in-built solution.\r\nIs implementing a custom resolver similar to the one proposed by [nsmolenskii](https://github.com/nsmolenskii) will be ok?\r\nIf so I'll be glad to create a PR 🙂", "Yes that is okay. Feel free to send us a PR!" ]

[]

[ "please contribute" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Captor.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/CaptorAnnotationProcessor.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/reflection/GenericMaster.java", "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/main/java/org/mockito/junit/jupiter/MockitoExtension.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/Captor.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/configuration/CaptorAnnotationProcessor.java", "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/util/reflection/GenericMaster.java", "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/main/java/org/mockito/junit/jupiter/MockitoExtension.java", "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/main/java/org/mockito/junit/jupiter/resolver/CaptorParameterResolver.java", "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/main/java/org/mockito/junit/jupiter/resolver/CompositeParameterResolver.java", "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/main/java/org/mockito/junit/jupiter/resolver/MockParameterResolver.java" ]

[ "subprojects/junit-jupiter/src/test/java/org/mockitousage/JunitJupiterTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "The working code fails if `answer` is changed to `RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS`", "@SenorPez Can you please provide a full running sample including the referenced classes and enums.\r\nI can't reproduce your issue. \r\n\r\nMy Test class is working as expected:\r\n\r\n```java \r\npublic class DeepStubReturnsEnumTest {\r\n\r\n @Test\r\n public void deep_stub_can_mock_enum_Issue_2984() {\r\n final var mock = mock(TestClass.class, RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS);\r\n when(mock.getTestEnum()).thenReturn(TestEnum.B);\r\n assertThat(mock.getTestEnum()).isEqualTo(TestEnum.B);\r\n }\r\n\r\n @Test\r\n public void deep_stub_can_mock_enum_method_Issue_2984() {\r\n final var mock = mock(TestClass.class, RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS);\r\n\r\n assertThat(mock.getTestEnum().getDoubleValue()).isEqualTo(0.0);\r\n\r\n when(mock.getTestEnum().getDoubleValue()).thenReturn(1.0);\r\n assertThat(mock.getTestEnum().getDoubleValue()).isEqualTo(1.0);\r\n }\r\n\r\n @Test\r\n public void mock_mocking_enum_Issue_2984() {\r\n final var mock = mock(TestClass.class);\r\n when(mock.getTestEnum()).thenReturn(TestEnum.B);\r\n assertThat(mock.getTestEnum()).isEqualTo(TestEnum.B);\r\n assertThat(mock.getTestEnum().getDoubleValue()).isEqualTo(2.0);\r\n }\r\n\r\n private static class TestClass {\r\n TestEnum getTestEnum() {\r\n return TestEnum.A;\r\n }\r\n }\r\n\r\n private enum TestEnum {\r\n A,\r\n B;\r\n\r\n double getDoubleValue() {\r\n return 2.0;\r\n }\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```", "I'm facing the same problem and happened to replicate the error.\r\nLooks like there's something to do with abstract methods in enums:\r\n```java\r\n@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)\r\npublic class FooTest {\r\n\r\n\t@Mock(answer = Answers.RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS)\r\n\tprivate Clazz clazz;\r\n\r\n\t@Test\r\n\tpublic void test() {\r\n\t\tEnumeration meme = clazz.getEnumeration();\r\n\t}\r\n\r\n\tclass Clazz {\r\n\t\tprivate final Enumeration enumeration;\r\n\r\n\t\tpublic Clazz(Enumeration enumeration) {\r\n\t\t\tthis.enumeration = enumeration;\r\n\t\t}\r\n\r\n\t\tpublic Enumeration getEnumeration() {\r\n\t\t\treturn enumeration;\r\n\t\t}\r\n\t}\r\n\r\n\tenum Enumeration {\r\n\t\tFIRST {\r\n\t\t\t@Override\r\n\t\t\tvoid doSomething() {\r\n\t\t\t\tSystem.out.println(this.name());\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t},\r\n\t\tSECOND {\r\n\t\t\t@Override\r\n\t\t\tvoid doSomething() {\r\n\t\t\t\tSystem.out.println(this.name());\r\n\t\t\t}\r\n\t\t};\r\n\r\n\t\tabstract void doSomething();\r\n\t}\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\nEdited a few times to replicate it :x", "@danielqejo On which version do you execute that? Mockito, ByteBuddy, Java, etc.\r\nWhen I try your test case on `mockito/main` the test is executed without an exception.\r\n\r\nSo I can't reproduce your problem.\r\n\r\nI am executing:\r\n\r\n```java\r\npackage org.mockito.internal.stubbing.answers;\r\n\r\nimport org.junit.Test;\r\nimport org.junit.runner.RunWith;\r\nimport org.mockito.Answers;\r\nimport org.mockito.Mock;\r\nimport org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnitRunner;\r\n\r\n@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)\r\npublic class FooTest {\r\n\r\n @Mock(answer = Answers.RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS)\r\n private Clazz clazz;\r\n\r\n @Test\r\n public void test() {\r\n Enumeration meme = clazz.getEnumeration();\r\n }\r\n\r\n class Clazz {\r\n private final Enumeration enumeration;\r\n\r\n public Clazz(Enumeration enumeration) {\r\n this.enumeration = enumeration;\r\n }\r\n\r\n public Enumeration getEnumeration() {\r\n return enumeration;\r\n }\r\n }\r\n\r\n enum Enumeration {\r\n FIRST {\r\n @Override\r\n void doSomething() {\r\n System.out.println(this.name());\r\n }\r\n },\r\n SECOND {\r\n @Override\r\n void doSomething() {\r\n System.out.println(this.name());\r\n }\r\n };\r\n\r\n abstract void doSomething();\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\r\n\r\n", "I'm using: \r\n- corretto JDK 17\r\n- Mockito 5.6.0\r\n- bytebuddy 1.14.8", "Here's complete stacktrace:\r\n```java\r\norg.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException: \r\nMockito cannot mock this class: class <hidden_package>.FooTest$Enumeration.\r\n\r\nIf you're not sure why you're getting this error, please open an issue on GitHub.\r\n\r\n\r\nJava : 17\r\nJVM vendor name : Amazon.com Inc.\r\nJVM vendor version : 17.0.8.1+8-LTS\r\nJVM name : OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM\r\nJVM version : 17.0.8.1+8-LTS\r\nJVM info : mixed mode, sharing\r\nOS name : Linux\r\nOS version : 5.15.0-86-generic\r\n\r\n\r\nYou are seeing this disclaimer because Mockito is configured to create inlined mocks.\r\nYou can learn about inline mocks and their limitations under item #39 of the Mockito class javadoc.\r\n\r\nUnderlying exception : org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException: Unsupported settings with this type '<hidden_package>.FooTest$Enumeration'\r\n\r\n\tat <hidden_package>.FooTest$Clazz.getEnumeration(FooTest.java:28)\r\n\tat <hidden_package>.FooTest.test(FooTest.java:17)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:77)\r\n\tat java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)\r\n\tat java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:568)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:50)\r\n\tat org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:47)\r\n\tat org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner$1$1.evaluate(DefaultInternalRunner.java:55)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:325)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:78)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:57)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)\r\n\tat org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner$1.run(DefaultInternalRunner.java:100)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner.run(DefaultInternalRunner.java:107)\r\n\tat org.mockito.internal.runners.StrictRunner.run(StrictRunner.java:42)\r\n\tat org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnitRunner.run(MockitoJUnitRunner.java:163)\r\n\tat org.junit.runner.JUnitCore.run(JUnitCore.java:137)\r\n\tat com.intellij.junit4.JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.startRunnerWithArgs(JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.java:69)\r\n\tat com.intellij.rt.junit.IdeaTestRunner$Repeater$1.execute(IdeaTestRunner.java:38)\r\n\tat com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.TestsRepeater.repeat(TestsRepeater.java:11)\r\n\tat com.intellij.rt.junit.IdeaTestRunner$Repeater.startRunnerWithArgs(IdeaTestRunner.java:35)\r\n\tat com.intellij.rt.junit.JUnitStarter.prepareStreamsAndStart(JUnitStarter.java:232)\r\n\tat com.intellij.rt.junit.JUnitStarter.main(JUnitStarter.java:55)\r\nCaused by: org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException: Unsupported settings with this type '<hidden_package>.FooTest$Enumeration'\r\n\tat net.bytebuddy.TypeCache.findOrInsert(TypeCache.java:168)\r\n\tat net.bytebuddy.TypeCache$WithInlineExpunction.findOrInsert(TypeCache.java:399)\r\n\tat net.bytebuddy.TypeCache.findOrInsert(TypeCache.java:190)\r\n\tat net.bytebuddy.TypeCache$WithInlineExpunction.findOrInsert(TypeCache.java:410)\r\n\t... 31 more\r\n```", "I've also tested with JUnit 5, but no luck whatsoever.", "I've been doing some tests and found out that the problem occurs at Java 17+ only.\r\nJava 11 works just fine.\r\n", "Turns out Java 17 is making enum sealed when there is an abstract method.\r\nIn `org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineBytecodeGenerator:356` code returns true when has at least one abstract method, but false when there is no abstract method.\r\n", "@danielqejo Thanks for the great analysis.\r\nI now have a [feature branch](https://github.com/AndreasTu/mockito/tree/fix_2984) for mockito, which can reproduce that issue.\r\n\r\nBut I have not yet a clue how to fix it.\r\n\r\nThe main point in the reproducer is to compile the Enum and run tests with Java 17.\r\nIf have added a new SourceSet `src/test17` which compiles and executes tests with Java 17.\r\n", "@TimvdLippe I don't think we can fix that problem here, maybe we should add a better error message that mocking of Enums since Java 15 (see [sealed-classes](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se15/preview/specs/sealed-classes-jvms.html)) does not work.\r\n\r\nThe problem is, that enums compiled with Java >= 15 (I guess due to preview feature, but at least Java 17) are sealed and have the `PermittedSubclasses` class attribute, which can't be retransformed away with a java agent.\r\nSo as long as we \"need\" a subclass for an enum mock, we can't create a subclass for that, due to the `PermittedSubclasses` class attribute. Maybe we can somehow hijack a real enum literal class for mocking an enum in the future, but I guess this is a very big change.\r\n\r\nOur tests are currently not failing, because we compile our test enums with Java 11.\r\nI have a [feature branch](https://github.com/AndreasTu/mockito/tree/fix_2984) , which adds a test source set `test17`, which compiles tests against Java 17, and there it is failing.", "If this indeed does not work (@raphw can you confirm?) then indeed let's try to detect those cases when the mockmaker is invoked whether it can feasibly mock them. I don't think we should hack our way around it. Sealed is there for a purpose, so let's respect it.", "@TimvdLippe In addition to allow the deep stub of a class returning an enum working again in the Java 17 case, we could change the deep stup code to return the first literal of the enum, if we can't mock the enum.\r\nWhat do you think?", "Yes, sealed classes cannot be subclassed, also with an agent, and the attribute cannot be modified. I also think that we should avoid mocking enums for this reason. Possibly, we can add a mechanism along the static method mocking facility that treats enums similarly.", "Just to be clear for the future. Mockito can still mock non-abstract enums in Java 17. It only can't mock abstract enums with abstract methods, which are overridden by literals.\r\nSee test cases in my PR.", "True. We'd need to navigate and mock any of the extended classes in such a case, that would be a close enough emulation." ]

[ "Instead of a new sourceset on the main project, let's define a separate subproject for this. Instead of setting to 17 (which is non-LTS), let's use 21 for this. E.g. create `subprojects/java21`. We can use it for #3167 as well", "Rather than swallowing the exception here, I would prefer to always throw the exception and let the user to decide what to return. E.g. you can use `DEEP_STUBS` as default answer and then override this one stub to specify the enum you expect to return. I don't think defaulting to the first value is expected behavior from users.", "As posted in #3167 let's create a separate to introduce a Java 21 subproject so that we can coordinate it (and not do double-work in these two PRs)", "Can we do the spotless fixes in a separate PR? Good find btw!\r\n\r\nIn that PR, let's instead add it to `java-library` and `java-test` so that all the other Java subprojects also have it.", "```suggestion\r\n .hasMessageContaining(\"Sealed abstract enums can't be mocked.\")\r\n```\r\n\r\nThis is sufficient to test it throws the correct. It allows us to more easily tweak the error message without having to constantly update the tests as well.", "Same with the other exception assertions", "Ah here you did it already. Yeah basically this, but with the other two test methods", "I will create the other PR." ]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMaker.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMaker.java" ]

[ "src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/DeepStubReturnsEnumJava11Test.java", "subprojects/java21/src/test/java/org/mockito/internal/stubbing/answers/DeepStubReturnsEnumJava21Test.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMaker.java" ]

[ "src/main/java/org/mockito/internal/creation/bytebuddy/InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMaker.java" ]

[ "subprojects/java21/src/test/java/org/mockito/java21/RecordTest.java" ]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "settings.gradle.kts" ]

[ "settings.gradle.kts", "subprojects/java21/java21.gradle" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[ "bug" ]

[ "ui/src/components/executions/ExecutionRoot.vue", "ui/src/components/executions/Overview.vue", "ui/src/components/flows/ExecutionConfiguration.vue" ]

[ "ui/src/components/executions/ExecutionRoot.vue", "ui/src/components/executions/Overview.vue", "ui/src/components/flows/ExecutionConfiguration.vue" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[]

[ "ui/src/components/executions/ExecutionRoot.vue" ]

[ "ui/src/components/executions/ExecutionRoot.vue" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "The ui logic must follow backen constraints. So we have to define the appropriate behavior.\r\n\r\nFor this issue we can :\r\n* Allo id change ( which is obviously not what is possible and desired now)\r\n* Clone flow with new name ans ns on clone operation\r\n* Clone and delete flow\r\n* Manage virtual flows or allow id change on revision update which seems complicated and looks like a trap\r\n\r\nI think the best way to do this is clone only. Ask new id when operation is in progress.\r\nThis prevent existing flow and it's exexution to be deleted. conservative approach is often good ans we may *disable* some unwanted flows.\r\nWe should avoid complex user data management to keep sustem ux as kiss as possible.\r\n\r\nAlso I really think description in flow should be quite mandatory : it forces self documentation and legacy flow easier to manage.", "Maybe I'm not clear but the idea is to forbid the edition of namespace and Id.\r\nOn the #60, we are going on further" ]

[ "add revision also here please :) ", "done !" ]

[]

[ "ui/src/components/flows/FlowEdit.vue" ]

[ "ui/src/components/flows/FlowEdit.vue" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue", "timestamp(timedelta=1.0, similarity=0.8891556077077057)" ]

[ "we should have automatic tests for this in CI. I will fix this and produce tests.", ":+1: " ]

[]

[ "bug" ]

[ "ui/src/components/flows/FlowEdit.vue" ]

[ "ui/src/components/flows/FlowEdit.vue" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[]

[]

[ "bug" ]

[ "core/src/main/java/org/kestra/core/services/FlowService.java" ]

[ "core/src/main/java/org/kestra/core/services/FlowService.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "@tchiotludo it's good for this version.\r\nfor now the chart bar click redirects to execution page with state selection using a the dedicated status filter select. But it still filters execution using the free search bar.\r\nGoing a step beyond will be done in issue https://github.com/kestra-io/kestra/issues/124\r\n" ]

[]

[]

[ "core/src/main/java/org/kestra/core/repositories/ExecutionRepositoryInterface.java", "repository-elasticsearch/src/main/java/org/kestra/repository/elasticsearch/ElasticSearchExecutionRepository.java", "repository-memory/src/main/java/org/kestra/repository/memory/MemoryExecutionRepository.java", "ui/src/components/executions/Executions.vue", "ui/src/components/flows/Chart.vue", "ui/src/components/flows/Flows.vue", "ui/src/components/layout/StatusFilterButtons.vue", "webserver/src/main/java/org/kestra/webserver/controllers/ExecutionController.java" ]

[ "core/src/main/java/org/kestra/core/repositories/ExecutionRepositoryInterface.java", "repository-elasticsearch/src/main/java/org/kestra/repository/elasticsearch/ElasticSearchExecutionRepository.java", "repository-memory/src/main/java/org/kestra/repository/memory/MemoryExecutionRepository.java", "ui/src/components/executions/Executions.vue", "ui/src/components/flows/Chart.vue", "ui/src/components/flows/Flows.vue", "ui/src/components/layout/StatusFilterButtons.vue", "webserver/src/main/java/org/kestra/webserver/controllers/ExecutionController.java" ]

[]

[ "keyword_pr_to_issue" ]

[ "don't work as expected : `each-sequential-nested` are displayed like : \r\n\r\n\r\nbut the 2 one are sequential :thinking: " ]

[]

[ "bug" ]

[ "ui/src/components/graph/TopologyTree.vue" ]

[ "ui/src/components/graph/TopologyTree.vue" ]

[]