IllegalArgumentException: wrong number of arguments #960

ber4444 · 2019-10-25T17:42:01Z

In generated code

@JsonClass(generateAdapter = true)
data class Dashboard(
        val tabTitle1: String? = null,
)

becomes

    @Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
    val localConstructor: Constructor<Dashboard> = this.constructorRef
        ?: Util.lookupDefaultsConstructor(Dashboard::class.java).also { this.constructorRef = it }
    return localConstructor.newInstance(
        tabTitle1,
        mask,
        null
    )
  }

in the latest snapshot, resulting in "java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: wrong number of arguments" for localConstructor.newInstance

why "mask" and "null" are added?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

ZacSweers · 2019-10-25T17:47:01Z

Can you share the full stacktrace? This is moshi’s new mechanism for dynamically invoking the synthetic defaults constructor that kotlin generates.

ber4444 · 2019-10-29T00:24:22Z


java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: com.squareup.moshi.internal.Util.lookupDefaultsConstructor(Ljava/lang/Class;)Ljava/lang/reflect/Constructor;

	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.wctdashboard.viewmodel.model.DashboardJsonAdapter.fromJson(DashboardJsonAdapter.kt:365)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.wctdashboard.viewmodel.model.DashboardJsonAdapter.fromJson(DashboardJsonAdapter.kt:17)
	at com.squareup.moshi.JsonAdapter$2.fromJson(JsonAdapter.java:137)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.wctdashboard.viewmodel.model.StaticContentDataJsonAdapter.fromJson(StaticContentDataJsonAdapter.kt:147)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.wctdashboard.viewmodel.model.StaticContentDataJsonAdapter.fromJson(StaticContentDataJsonAdapter.kt:17)
	at com.squareup.moshi.JsonAdapter$2.fromJson(JsonAdapter.java:137)
	at com.squareup.moshi.JsonAdapter.fromJson(JsonAdapter.java:41)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.custom.AddVendorListDialogTest.staticData_TestMethod(AddVendorListDialogTest.kt:18)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:50)
	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)
	at org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner$1$1.evaluate(DefaultInternalRunner.java:44)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:325)
	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:78)
	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:57)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
	at org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner$1.run(DefaultInternalRunner.java:74)
	at org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner.run(DefaultInternalRunner.java:80)
	at org.mockito.internal.runners.StrictRunner.run(StrictRunner.java:39)
	at org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnitRunner.run(MockitoJUnitRunner.java:163)
	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)
	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:27)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
	at org.junit.runner.JUnitCore.run(JUnitCore.java:137)
	at com.intellij.junit4.JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.startRunnerWithArgs(JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.java:68)
	at com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.IdeaTestRunner$Repeater.startRunnerWithArgs(IdeaTestRunner.java:47)
	at com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.JUnitStarter.prepareStreamsAndStart(JUnitStarter.java:242)
	at com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.JUnitStarter.main(JUnitStarter.java:70)

ber4444 · 2019-10-29T00:27:45Z

It seems like the error changed in the snapshot from java.lang.IllegalArgumentException to java.lang.NoSuchMethodError

ZacSweers · 2019-10-29T00:31:44Z

does it work without mockito or in an otherwise reproducible test we could debug? Unfortunately the stacktrace and sample snippet alone doesn’t yield enough info to diagnose at a distance

ZacSweers · 2019-10-29T00:32:27Z

Actually - is you generated code compiled against an older snapshot? That would do it

trevjonez · 2019-10-30T00:13:57Z

seeing the same in my project after updating to 1.9.0 today. it ends up being:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Wrong number of arguments; expected 50, got 49 data class has 47 params. perhaps because we need an additional mask param each time you cross a 32 interval boundary?

ZacSweers · 2019-10-30T00:15:30Z

perhaps because we need an additional mask param each time you cross a 32 interval boundary

If you look at your class's decompiled bytecode, does that constructor have two masks? My understanding was that Kotlin basically could not accept more than 32 default parameters

ZacSweers · 2019-10-30T00:16:50Z

I'm 99% sure two masks isn't a thing and it's a hard limit. The logic we use is almost identical to what kotlin-reflect does, unless it also doesn't work for this case

trevjonez · 2019-10-30T00:20:16Z

does that constructor have two masks?

indeed it does.

ZacSweers · 2019-10-30T00:23:24Z

wowow. Mind opening a separate issue to track that? That seems distinctly different from this one, and a limitation we'll need to figure out

ZacSweers · 2019-10-30T00:58:07Z

For now I'm going to close this one because I'm fairly certain it was a mismatch of runtime code and generated code. The method it's failing to find isn't the constructor, but rather the Util helper for doing it

ber4444 · 2019-10-30T18:33:42Z

I upgraded to 1.9.0 and now I see the original error I reported. Here is the stack trace:

java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: wrong number of arguments

	at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)
	at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:62)
	at sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)
	at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:423)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.wctdashboard.viewmodel.model.DashboardJsonAdapter.fromJson(DashboardJsonAdapter.kt:366)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.wctdashboard.viewmodel.model.DashboardJsonAdapter.fromJson(DashboardJsonAdapter.kt:17)
	at com.squareup.moshi.internal.NullSafeJsonAdapter.fromJson(NullSafeJsonAdapter.java:40)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.wctdashboard.viewmodel.model.StaticContentDataJsonAdapter.fromJson(StaticContentDataJsonAdapter.kt:147)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.wctdashboard.viewmodel.model.StaticContentDataJsonAdapter.fromJson(StaticContentDataJsonAdapter.kt:17)
	at com.squareup.moshi.internal.NullSafeJsonAdapter.fromJson(NullSafeJsonAdapter.java:40)
	at com.squareup.moshi.JsonAdapter.fromJson(JsonAdapter.java:43)
	at com.blah.blah.wctfeature.custom.AddVendorListDialogTest.staticData_TestMethod(AddVendorListDialogTest.kt:18)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:50)
	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)
	at org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner$1$1.evaluate(DefaultInternalRunner.java:44)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:325)
	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:78)
	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:57)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
	at org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner$1.run(DefaultInternalRunner.java:74)
	at org.mockito.internal.runners.DefaultInternalRunner.run(DefaultInternalRunner.java:80)
	at org.mockito.internal.runners.StrictRunner.run(StrictRunner.java:39)
	at org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnitRunner.run(MockitoJUnitRunner.java:163)
	at org.junit.runner.JUnitCore.run(JUnitCore.java:137)
	at com.intellij.junit4.JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.startRunnerWithArgs(JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.java:68)
	at com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.IdeaTestRunner$Repeater.startRunnerWithArgs(IdeaTestRunner.java:47)
	at com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.JUnitStarter.prepareStreamsAndStart(JUnitStarter.java:242)
	at com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.JUnitStarter.main(JUnitStarter.java:70)

ZacSweers · 2019-10-30T18:46:02Z

can you share a reproducible code snippet? Are you sure your models are being generated with the same version of moshi considering the original trace?

ber4444 · 2019-10-30T19:41:24Z

Is there an email I can share the failing unit test to privately?

ZacSweers · 2019-10-30T20:04:36Z

Sure. pandanomic at gmail

…

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 3:41 PM Gábor Berényi ***@***.***> wrote: Is there an email I can share the failing unit test to privately? — You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#960?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAKMJPUJ2UIRPVKMEMMD2J3QRHPONA5CNFSM4JFGJAHKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECVQTSY#issuecomment-548080075>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKMJPXHHS45JRTOQP3WF6DQRHPONANCNFSM4JFGJAHA> .

ber4444 · 2019-10-30T21:46:49Z

done, let me know if you figure it out

ZacSweers · 2019-10-30T21:58:34Z

Are you sure you sent it? I don't have anything on my end

…

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:46 PM Gábor Berényi ***@***.***> wrote: done, let me know if you figure it out — You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#960?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAKMJPXIVU563HUGHC2ZJ4LQRH6EXA5CNFSM4JFGJAHKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECV37YA#issuecomment-548126688>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKMJPS3VGTIMIOS7TARD7LQRH6EXANCNFSM4JFGJAHA> .

ber4444 · 2019-10-30T22:23:32Z

I send it again just now, maybe the zip attachment got blocked. Now it's a Google Drive link.

ZacSweers · 2019-10-30T23:11:57Z

Just got it, will look into it

…

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:23 PM Gábor Berényi ***@***.***> wrote: I send it again just now, maybe the zip attachment got blocked. Now it's a Google Drive link. — You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#960?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAKMJPXRUVJBVCERN2EP3DDQRICOPA5CNFSM4JFGJAHKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECV6ZHQ#issuecomment-548138142>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKMJPVWSIFXZUUKDHFPKRLQRICOPANCNFSM4JFGJAHA> .

ZacSweers · 2019-10-31T00:34:41Z

Thanks for the test case @ber4444. I believe the new issue is the same as #977 and different than the original one posted here. #977 is fixed on master, your test case (at least with an empty json blob) works for me locally. Please try a master snapshot and see if that works for you locally to confirm?

ber4444 · 2019-10-31T03:18:42Z

Thanks, the latest snapshot does work, so I guess you are right.

trevjonez mentioned this issue Oct 30, 2019

data classes with over 32 properties need multiple masks #977

Closed

ZacSweers closed this as completed Oct 30, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

IllegalArgumentException: wrong number of arguments #960

IllegalArgumentException: wrong number of arguments #960

ber4444 commented Oct 25, 2019 •

edited by ZacSweers

ZacSweers commented Oct 25, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 29, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 29, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 29, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 29, 2019

trevjonez commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 •

edited

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019

trevjonez commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 via email

ber4444 commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 via email

ber4444 commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 via email

ZacSweers commented Oct 31, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 31, 2019

IllegalArgumentException: wrong number of arguments #960

IllegalArgumentException: wrong number of arguments #960

Comments

ber4444 commented Oct 25, 2019 • edited by ZacSweers

ZacSweers commented Oct 25, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 29, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 29, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 29, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 29, 2019

trevjonez commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 • edited

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019

trevjonez commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 via email

ber4444 commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 via email

ber4444 commented Oct 30, 2019

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 via email

ZacSweers commented Oct 31, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 31, 2019

ber4444 commented Oct 25, 2019 •

edited by ZacSweers

ZacSweers commented Oct 30, 2019 •

edited