How to use VerificationStartedNotifier class of org.mockito.internal.listeners package

You are mocking the object that you're testing. That makes no sense. You should create a real WithDefinitions object and call its real method to test it. If you mock it, by definition, all its methods are replaced by mock implementations that do nothing.

Replace

WithDefinitions withDefinitions = Mockito.mock(WithDefinitions.class);

by something like

WithDefinitions withDefinitions = new WithDefinitions();

You seem to be after contradictory goals. On the one hand, you're trying to avoid writing data to disk, which isn't a bad goal in tests. On the other, you're trying to test your I/O-handling class, which means you'll be working with system utilities that assume that your File will work with native calls. As such, here's my guidance:

• Don't try to mock a File. Just don't. Too many native things depend on it.
• If you can, split your I/O-handling code into the half that opens a File and turns it into a Reader, and the half that parses HTML out of the Reader.
• At that point, you don't need a mock at all--just construct a StringReader to simulate the data source.
• While that handles your unit tests pretty well, you may also want to write an integration test that uses a temporary file and ensure that it reads right. (Thanks Brice for adding that tip!)

Don't be afraid to refactor your class to make testing easier, as here:

class YourClass {
  public int method(File file) {
    // do everything here, which is why it requires a mock
  }   
}   

class YourRefactoredClass {
  public int method(File file) {
    return methodForTest(file.getName(), file.isFile(),
        file.isAbsolute(), new FileReader(file));
  }   

  /** For testing only. */
  int methodForTest(
      String name, boolean isFile, boolean isAbsolute, Reader fileContents) {
    // actually do the calculation here
  }   
}   

class YourTest {
  @Test public int methodShouldParseBadHtml() {
    YourRefactoredClass yrc = new YourRefactoredClass();
    assertEquals(42, yrc.methodForTest(
        "bad.html", true, false, new StringReader(badHTMLText));
  }   
}   

At this point the logic in method is so straightforward it's not worth testing, and the logic in methodForTest is so easy to access that you can test it heavily.

You should use thenReturn or doReturn when you know the return value at the time you mock a method call. This defined value is returned when you invoke the mocked method.

thenReturn(T value) Sets a return value to be returned when the method is called.

@Test
public void test_return() throws Exception {
    Dummy dummy = mock(Dummy.class);
    int returnValue = 5;

    // choose your preferred way
    when(dummy.stringLength("dummy")).thenReturn(returnValue);
    doReturn(returnValue).when(dummy).stringLength("dummy");
}

Answer is used when you need to do additional actions when a mocked method is invoked, e.g. when you need to compute the return value based on the parameters of this method call.

Use doAnswer() when you want to stub a void method with generic Answer.

Answer specifies an action that is executed and a return value that is returned when you interact with the mock.

@Test
public void test_answer() throws Exception {
    Dummy dummy = mock(Dummy.class);
    Answer<Integer> answer = new Answer<Integer>() {
        public Integer answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
            String string = invocation.getArgumentAt(0, String.class);
            return string.length() * 2;
        }
    };

    // choose your preferred way
    when(dummy.stringLength("dummy")).thenAnswer(answer);
    doAnswer(answer).when(dummy).stringLength("dummy");
}

The documentation covers this explicitly. You want to call verifyNoMoreInteractions, either after calling verify (as per the docs) or

verify(execution).getLastQty();
verify(execution).getLastPrice();
verifyNoMoreInteractions(execution);

or using ignoreStubs:

verifyNoMoreInteractions(ignoreStubs(execution));

You could also Stub Consecutive Calls (#10 in 2.8.9 api). In this case, you would use multiple thenReturn calls or one thenReturn call with multiple parameters (varargs).

import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.mock;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.when;

import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;

public class TestClass {

    private Foo mockFoo;

    @Before
    public void setup() {
        setupFoo();
    }

    @Test
    public void testFoo() {
        TestObject testObj = new TestObject(mockFoo);

        assertEquals(0, testObj.bar());
        assertEquals(1, testObj.bar());
        assertEquals(-1, testObj.bar());
        assertEquals(-1, testObj.bar());
    }

    private void setupFoo() {
        mockFoo = mock(Foo.class);

        when(mockFoo.someMethod())
            .thenReturn(0)
            .thenReturn(1)
            .thenReturn(-1); //any subsequent call will return -1

        // Or a bit shorter with varargs:
        when(mockFoo.someMethod())
            .thenReturn(0, 1, -1); //any subsequent call will return -1
    }
}

You setup your mock to return something when it receives a given device objet:

        Device device = new Device() ;
        Mockito.when(deviceDao.save(device)).thenReturn(deviceEntity);

This tells your deviceDao mock to return deviceEntity when it receives device as a parameter to the save method.

Mockito uses equals for argument matching. This means that if you call deviceDao.save(x), deviceEntity will be returned if x.equals(device) is true.

Your method:

public String  show(){
        Device device = new Device() ;
        device.setContactName("abc");
        Device deviceEntity = deviceDao.save(device);
        System.out.println(deviceEntity);  // i get this null always Why ???
        return "demo";
}

This calls save() on a new Device instance. I highly doubt that this device is equal to the one you setup your mock with.

One way to solve this is to use a broader matcher in your test:

Mockito.when(deviceDao.save(any(Device.class)).thenReturn(deviceEntity);

Or simply to ensure that the Device that you setup your mock with is the same as the one used in your code. I can't provide you with an example since your question does not include the code for Device.equals().

You are reusing your context, in order to have tests independent from one another you probably need to refresh your context after each test to reset everything.

I will suppose you are using Junit 4.5+. It would be similar with other test frameworks.

@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
@ContextConfiguration(locations={"mycontext.xml"})
@DirtiesContext(classMode = ClassMode.AFTER_EACH_TEST_METHOD)
public class MyTestClass {
...
    // my tests    
...
}

You can put the @DirtiesContext at the method level if the methods that need "fixing" are few, but if you are using Spring your best option is to do it after every test.

Anyway, I don't think you should be using mocks/spies in integration tests:

• In unit tests, use mocks (if you want) and inject manually. Here you want to verify the behaviour of your tested bean as a unit, so you isolate it from the rest by using mocks. This also has the advantage that JUnit isolates your tests by using a different instance of the test class for each test, so unless you use static or other test-unfriendly practices everything will just work.

• In integration tests, use real beans and let Spring inject. Here the goal is to verify that beans interact well with one another / with the environment (database, network, ...) You do not want to isolate beans here, so you should not use mocks.

See Spring documentation about testing for more detailed explanations.

You need to have prepared the class calling the constructor, not the class on which the constructor is called, the following should fix you up:

@PrepareForTest(DummyTarget.class)

For more information check this page.

I have two critiques to that approach... and please bear in mind that my knowledge of your context is almost nil, which means that what I suggest here might not work for you.

I've only once experienced a problem like the one you mentioned, and it was a symptom that there was too much coupling between the objects because the responsbilities were way to broad. Since then I use a Domain-Driven Design approach and I haven't had this problem again.

I prefer to use Test-Data Builders to create test data. This approach allows me to have a template of what I want to build, and just replace the bits I'm interested in the test. If you decide to go this way, I strongly suggest you to use a tiny library called Make-It-Easy that simplifies the creation of these builders.

And two suggestions

If you have some time, I suggest you to

1. Watch a presetation called The Deep Synergy Between Testability and Good Design by Michael Feathers - Part of the talk is about something very similar to what you're experiencing.
2. Read the book Growing Object-Orieted Systems, Guided by Tests (aka GOOS), it has all sorts of insights about how to write simple, amazing, testable code.