[jira] Commented: (JMOCK-184) Bug in Expectations when sending a mock object as parameter.

> Bug in Expectations when sending a mock object as parameter.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JMOCK-184
>                 URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JMOCK-184
>             Project: jMock
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Library
>    Affects Versions: 2.4.0
>            Reporter: Brian
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: JMockErrorExample.java, Stack Trace.txt
>
>
> We've been playing around with jMock as it seems to be just what we're needing, but we ran across a small issue.  I'm uploading an example that will probably explain it best, but I'll attempt to briefly explain it here as well.
> Basically, I'm doing the following, where getMockTestParameter(context) itself returns a mocked object.  
> {code:java}
> context.checking(new Expectations()
> {
>     {
>         // The error will occur on the next line.
>         one(testObject).testMethod(with(same(getMockTestParameter(context))));
>     }
> });
> {code}
> However, this throws an unexpected invocation on the line "one(testObject)....", in reference to the mocked parameter (I've uploaded the stack trace).
> My initial thought was that mocked objects just couldn't be passed as parameters, which would be a big problem for us, but I kept playing around and found that the following solved the above problem.
> {code:java}
> // Somehow, storing off the return from getMockTestParameter(context) solves the problem.
> final TestParameter testParameter = getMockTestParameter(context);
> context.checking(new Expectations()
> {
>     {
>         one(testObject).testMethod(with(same(testParameter)));
>     }
> });
> {code}
> Apparently, storing off this return value in a local variable solved the problem.  While this is workable, it's not very ideal.  I'm not quite sure how this has any effect (possibly the fact that it's final??) , but I thought I'd get it out there just in case others run into the same problem and that you were aware of the issue.
> Thanks,
> Brian