CppUTest - expectNCalls fails with ignoreOtherParameters

CppUTest_MockTest.cpp

#include <iostream>
#include <CppUTest/CommandLineTestRunner.h>
#include <CppUTestExt/MockSupport.h>

using namespace std;

class Foo
{
public:
	virtual void MyFunction(int something)
	{
		cout << "TestFunction in real Foo." << endl;
	}
};

class Bar
{
public:
	Bar(Foo* pFoo)
	{
		m_pFoo = pFoo;
	}

	void CallFooNTimes(unsigned int n)
	{
		for(auto i = n; i > 0; i--)
		{
			m_pFoo->MyFunction(i);
		}
	}

private:
	Foo*	m_pFoo;
};

class FooMock : public Foo
{
public:
	void MyFunction(int something)
	{
		mock("Foo")
			.actualCall("MyFunction")
			.withParameter("something", something);
	}
};

TEST_GROUP(FooTest)
{
	void teardown()
	{
		mock().clear();
	}
};

TEST(FooTest, TestDeficientNCallsToTestFunction_Fails)
{
	FooMock fooMock;
	Bar bar(&fooMock);

	/**
	 *	The issue seems to only be when you are expecting N calls to a function, but don't care
	 *	about the parameters that are passed to it.  If I don't add the .ignoreOtherParameters,
	 *	the test will fail when is deficient.
	 **/
	mock("Foo")
		.expectNCalls(5, "MyFunction")
		.ignoreOtherParameters();

	bar.CallFooNTimes(4); // not enough

	mock("Foo").checkExpectations();

	// the only way to make this fail
	CHECK_EQUAL(false, mock("Foo").expectedCallsLeft());
}

TEST(FooTest, TestSaturatedNCallsToTestFunction_Works)
{
	FooMock fooMock;
	Bar bar(&fooMock);

	mock("Foo")
		.expectNCalls(5, "MyFunction")
		.ignoreOtherParameters();

	bar.CallFooNTimes(6); // too many

	mock("Foo").checkExpectations();
}

TEST(FooTest, TestJustEnoughNCallsToTestFunction_Works)
{
	FooMock fooMock;
	Bar bar(&fooMock);

	mock("Foo")
		.expectNCalls(5, "MyFunction")
		.ignoreOtherParameters();

	bar.CallFooNTimes(5);

	mock("Foo").checkExpectations();
}


int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
	return CommandLineTestRunner::RunAllTests(argc, argv);
}

Excellent! Fixed on the trunk now. It was an amusing bug.

Was is really just the 1-line (chart*)malloc in AllocationInCFile.c? What was going on?

Uhm, no. It was a 1-line fix :) (or actually a 0-line fix). But it was one revision back.