How to use MockedStatic class of org.mockito package

Here you want to test EventMonitor.doStuff(param) and while executing this method you want to make it sure whether the correct methods on IEventListener were invoked or not.

So, in order to test doStuff(param), you don't need to have a real implementation of IEventListener: what you need is just a mock implementation of IEventListener and you have to verify the exact number of method invocations on IEventListener while testing doStuff. This can be achieved with Mockito or any other mocking framework.

Here is an example with Mockito:

import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.times;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;

import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.mockito.InjectMocks;
import org.mockito.Mock;
import org.mockito.MockitoAnnotations;

public class EventMonitorTest {

    //This will create a mock of IEventListener
    @Mock
    IEventListener eventListener;

    //This will inject the "eventListener" mock into your "EventMonitor" instance.
    @InjectMocks
    EventMonitor eventMonitor = new EventMonitor();

    @Before
    public void initMocks() {
        //This will initialize the annotated mocks
        MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
    }

    @Test
    public void test() {
        eventMonitor.doStuff(param);
        //Here you can verify whether the methods "doStuff1" and "doStuff2" 
        //were executed while calling "eventMonitor.doStuff". 
        //With "times()" method, you can even verify how many times 
        //a particular method was invoked.
        verify(eventListener, times(1)).doStuff1();
        verify(eventListener, times(0)).doStuff2();
    }

}

Since the for loop is just the syntax sugar of iterator() loop, you could just stub the method and return the mocked Iterator instance

Since you are loading configuration class MyApplication.class datasource bean will be created, Try moving datasource in another bean which is not used in a test, make sure all classes loaded for tests are not dependant on datasource.
Or
In your tests create a config class marked with @TestConfiguration and include it in SpringBootTest(classes=TestConfig.class) mocking data source there like

@Bean
public DataSource dataSource() {
    return Mockito.mock(DataSource.class);
}

But this may fail since method call to this mocked datasouce for connection will return null, In that case, you'll have to create an in-memory datasource and then mock jdbcTemplate and rest of dependencies.

It is possible for third-party plugins to register custom MockMaker implementations that create classes differently to the default behavior via Mockito's SPI. As a part of the specified behavior, since Mockito 2.0, a MockMaker can decide if a class is mockable, such as final classes in the case of PowerMock. In order to integrate such a custom behavior, PowerMock registers a custom MockMaker that is then used by Mockito.

In Mockito 2.0, the API for a custom MockMaker had to be extended but PowerMock does not yet adapt the API extensions. Therefore, this new method is not yet implemented by the PowerMock MockMaker what results in an AbstractMethodError.

If you can't change the code, you can use Powermock along with junit and Mockito to mock the construction of new objects.

@Test
public void testDoWork() throws Exception{

    MyTest mytest = new MyTest();

    OtherObj obj = new OtherObj();
    obj.test="mocked Test"; //here you can add any other needed values to obj

    PowerMockito.whenNew(OtherObj.class).withNoArguments().thenReturn(obj);

    String result = mytest.doWork();
    Assert.assertTrue(result.equalsIgnoreCase("mocked Test"));
}

Technically speaking both "mocks" and "spies" are a special kind of "test doubles".

Mockito is unfortunately making the distinction weird.

A mock in mockito is a normal mock in other mocking frameworks (allows you to stub invocations; that is, return specific values out of method calls).

A spy in mockito is a partial mock in other mocking frameworks (part of the object will be mocked and part will use real method invocations).

You have 3 possibilities to solve this:

Abstract factory: Instead of using a static method, use a concrete factory class:

public abstract class AppleFactory {
    public Apple createInstance(final String str);
}

public class AppleFactoryImpl implements AppleFactory {
    public Apple createInstance(final String str) { // Implementation }
}

In your test class, mock the factory:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyClassTest {

    @Mock
    private AppleFactory appleFactoryMock;

    @Mock
    private Apple appleMock;

    @InjectMocks 
    MyClass myClass;

    @Before
    public void setup() {
        when(appleFactoryMock.createInstance(Matchers.anyString()).thenReturn(appleMock);
    }

    @Test
    public void myMethod(){
     ...
     ...
     ...
    }
}

PowerMock: Use PowerMock to create a mock of a static method. Look at my answer to a relevant question to see how it's done.

Testable class: Make the Apple creation wrapped in a protected method and create a test class that overrides it:

public class MyClass {
   private Apple apple;

   public void myMethod() {
       apple = createApple();
       ....
       ....
       ....
   }

   protected Apple createApple() {
       return AppleFactory.createInstance(someStringVariable);
   }
}


@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyClassTest {

    @Mock
    private Apple appleMock;

    @InjectMocks 
    MyClass myClass;

    @Test
    public void myMethod(){
     ...
     ...
     ...
    }

    private class TestableMyClass extends MyClass {
       @Override
       public void createApple() {
          return appleMock;
       }
    }
}

Of course, in your test class you should test TestableMyClass and not MyClass.

I'll tell you my opinion on each of the methods:

1. The abstract factory method is the best one - This is a clear design that hides the implementation details

2. The testable class - Is the second option which requires minimum changes

3. The PowerMock option is my least favorite - Instead of going for a better design, you ignore and hide your problem. But that's still a valid option.

On a first glance, the answer is simply: well, there are several mocking frameworks out there, and there are different ways to use them.

The first example tells JUnit to use the "unit test runner" that the Mockito mocking framework provides. The second example uses the unit test runner from the PowerMock framework.

In order for things to make sense, you would also have different import statements, as both frameworks have different implementations for the @Mock annotation for example.

( the main point of using these framework-specific test runners is that they take care of initializing all the fields with special framework-specific annotations ).

So: the difference here is simply that: the first example is written to use the Mockito framework, the second one uses PowerMock.

Now, which one of those to use?

Answer: Mockito.

Why? Somehow an ugly truth is: the PowerMock-one basically is a cry for help. It says "the class under test is badly designed, please fix it". Meaning: as a developer, you can write "easy to test" code, or "hard to test" code. Many people do the second: they write code that is hard to test. And then, PowerMock(ito) provides means to still test that code.

PowerMock(ito) gives you the ability to mock (thus control) calls to static methods, and to new(). To enable that, PowerMock(ito) manipulates the byte code of your code under test. That is perfectly fine for small code bases, but when you face millions of lines of production code, and thousands of unit tests, things are totally different.

I have seen many PowerMock tests fail for no apparent reason, to find out hours later ... that some "static" thing somewhere else was changed, and that somehow affect a different PowerMock static/new driven test case.

At some point, our team made a conscious decision: when you write new code, and you can only test that with PowerMock ... that isn't acceptable. Since then, we only created Mockito test cases, and not once since then we saw similar bizarre problems that bugged us with PowerMock.

The only acceptable reason to use PowerMock is when you want to test existing (maybe 3rd party) code that you do not want to modify. But of course, what is the point of testing such code? When you can't modify that code, why should tests fail all of a sudden?

how about you create an anonymous exception of type JsonProcessingException

when(mapper.writeValueAsString(any(Object.class))).thenThrow(new JsonProcessingException("Error"){});

The {} braces does the trick. This is much better since it is not confusing to the reader of the test code.