How to use BeanPropertySetterTest class of org.mockito.internal.util.reflection package

You are using mockito anyString() while calling the test method, it should be used only for verifying a mock object to ensure a certain method is called with any string parameter inside the test, but not to invoke the test itself. For your test use empty string "" instead to anyString().

To to this, you can use PowerMockito.spy(...) and PowerMockito.doReturn(...).

Moreover, you have to specify the PowerMock runner at your test class, and prepare the class for testing, as follows:

@PrepareForTest(Util.class)
@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class UtilTest {

   @Test
   public void testMethod() throws Exception {
      PowerMockito.spy(Util.class);
      PowerMockito.doReturn("abc").when(Util.class, "anotherMethod");

      String retrieved = Util.method();

      Assert.assertNotNull(retrieved);
      Assert.assertEquals(retrieved, "abc");
   }
}

Hope it helps you.

As you pointed out, it is not possible to mock static methods with Mockito and since you do not wanna use Powermock or other tools, you can try something as follows in your tests.

1. Create test authentication object

   Authentication auth = new ... // create instance based on your needs and with required attributes or just mock it if you do not care

2. Mock security context

   SecurityContext context = mock(SecurityContext.class);

3. Ensure your mock returns the respective authentication

   when(context.getAuthentication()).thenReturn(auth);

4. Set security context into holder

   SecurityContextHolder.setContext(securityContext);

Now every call to SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication() should return authentication object created in step 1.

I don't know of other benefits offhand, but I want to address 2 of your sub-questions (and this is way too long for a comment):

allow mocking without dependency injection - this one isn't clear to me. Can you elaborate?

I think this came from the Motivation wiki page where they describe a way of refactoring code to not invoke static methods to make it testable. For a concrete example of what I think they're getting at, let's say you have this code and you want to test the method mocking the behaviour of the static method, without using powermock:

public class MyClass {
     public void doGetString() {
         ...
         OtherClass.getString(); //It's complex and scary and needs mocking!
         ...
     }
}

One solution, would be to pull the static invocation into its own object, then inject an object that can be mocked come test time. For example, without using other frameworks, this could look like:

public class MyClass {
     public static class StringGetter {
         public getString() {
             return OtherClass.getString();                 
         }
     }

     private final StringGetter getter;

     //Existing Constructor
     public MyClass() {
         this(new StringGetter());
     }

     //DI Constructor
     MyClass(StringGetter getter) {
         this.getter = getter;
     }

     public void doGetString() {
         ...
         getter.getString();
         ...
     }
}

I've seperated the behaviour of my method from the behaviour of the static invocation, and can use the DI constructor to inject mocks easily at test time. Of course with powermock I could just mock the static method in place, and run with it.

And do I need to sacrifice something when using PowerMock?

Physically no, but I'd say philosophically yes :). The below are my opinions, and I try to give good reasons behind them, but of course they are opinions so take them with a grain of salt:

The potentially scary thing that is happening with PowerMock is that in order to accomplish the feats of mocking private and static methods, they are using a custom class loader (which shouldn't be present at runtime in production) and changing the bytecode of your classes. Arguably, this should not matter with the vast majority of classes most of the time, but if you think about it, if the bytecode has changed, and certain side effects are no longer present, you're effectively testing different Classes albiet based upon your existing Classes. Yes this is a very academic argument.

You can somewhat mitigate this first argument by having good comprehensive integration and higher level tests that don't use PowerMock. In this way you can be more confident in the behaviours of your objects even if your unit tests are using PowerMock.

The other argument I have against PowerMock, is that it could almost too easily become a crutch. I agree that PowerMock can help with testing code that uses legacy code and other code that you do not have control over. However I would argue that when you have control over the classes that you need to mock, you should avoid its use. If you write a class with a private method or static method that you need to explicitly mock in order to test other methods, my gut instinct would say that this method may be doing too much and should be refactored and broken up. Having PowerMock already available in a project, you may be tempted to just mock it and move on, which would mitigate the pain that should encourage you to refactor the same. Yes there are sometimes due to various technical and non-technical constraints this is not possible, but it's good to solve pain points instead of avoid them :)

When you want to use the @Mock annotation you should use the MockitoJUnitRunner

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MockitoTest {

    @Mock
    private IRoutingObjHttpClient routingClientMock;

    @Test
    public void testSendRoutingRequest() throws Exception {
        // ...
    }

}

See also this tutorial.

Here is a solution that will work for you particular case:

First of all you need to create a PersonMixin since you cannot add the required annotations to the mock.

import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonAutoDetect;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonProperty;


@JsonAutoDetect(getterVisibility = JsonAutoDetect.Visibility.NONE, isGetterVisibility = JsonAutoDetect.Visibility.NONE)
public interface PersonMixin {

    @JsonProperty
    String getName();

    @JsonProperty
    Integer getAge();
}

Now, use the object mapper like the in following code and you will get the same result as when you serialize the real object:

Person mockPerson = mock(Person.class);
when(mockPerson.getName()).thenReturn(name);
when(mockPerson.getAge()).thenReturn(age);
objectMapper.addMixInAnnotations(Person.class, PersonMixin.class);
try {
    System.out.println(objectMapper.writeValueAsString(mockPerson));
} catch (JsonProcessingException e) {
    e.printStackTrace();
    System.err.println("Failed to serialize mock object.");
}

From the docs:

Sometimes we need to stub with different return value/exception for the same method call. Typical use case could be mocking iterators. Original version of Mockito did not have this feature to promote simple mocking. For example, instead of iterators one could use Iterable or simply collections. Those offer natural ways of stubbing (e.g. using real collections). In rare scenarios stubbing consecutive calls could be useful, though:

when(mock.someMethod("some arg"))
   .thenThrow(new RuntimeException())
  .thenReturn("foo");

//First call: throws runtime exception:
mock.someMethod("some arg");

//Second call: prints "foo"
System.out.println(mock.someMethod("some arg"));

So in your case, you'd want:

when(myMock.doTheCall())
   .thenReturn("You failed")
   .thenReturn("Success");

For the future I would recommend Eran Harel's answer (refactoring moving new to factory that can be mocked). But if you don't want to change the original source code, use very handy and unique feature: spies. From the documentation:

You can create spies of real objects. When you use the spy then the real methods are called (unless a method was stubbed).

Real spies should be used carefully and occasionally, for example when dealing with legacy code.

In your case you should write:

TestedClass tc = spy(new TestedClass());
LoginContext lcMock = mock(LoginContext.class);
when(tc.login(anyString(), anyString())).thenReturn(lcMock);

It seems that this might be caused because it can't find bytebuddy installed, referring to:

Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: net.bytebuddy.dynamic.loading.MultipleParentClassLoader$Builder.appendMostSpecific(Ljava/util/Collection;)Lnet/bytebuddy/dynamic/loading/MultipleParentClassLoader$Builder;

From what I can find online adding bytebuddy to your dependencies might fix this.

    <dependency>
      <groupId>net.bytebuddy</groupId>
      <artifactId>byte-buddy</artifactId>
      <version>XXX</version>
    </dependency>