How to use VerificationOverTimeImplTest class of org.mockito.internal.verification package

EDIT 2020-09-21: Since 3.4.0, Mockito supports mocking static methods, API is still incubating and is likely to change, in particular around stubbing and verification. It requires the mockito-inline artifact. And you don't need to prepare the test or use any specific runner. All you need to do is :

@Test
public void name() {
    try (MockedStatic<LoggerFactory> integerMock = mockStatic(LoggerFactory.class)) {
        final Logger logger = mock(Logger.class);
        integerMock.when(() -> LoggerFactory.getLogger(any(Class.class))).thenReturn(logger);
        new Controller().log();
        verify(logger).warn(any());
    }
}

The two inportant aspect in this code, is that you need to scope when the static mock applies, i.e. within this try block. And you need to call the stubbing and verification api from the MockedStatic object.

@Mick, try to prepare the owner of the static field too, eg :

@PrepareForTest({GoodbyeController.class, LoggerFactory.class})

EDIT1 : I just crafted a small example. First the controller :

import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

public class Controller {
    Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Controller.class);

    public void log() { logger.warn("yup"); }
}

Then the test :

import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.powermock.core.classloader.annotations.PrepareForTest;
import org.powermock.modules.junit4.PowerMockRunner;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

import static org.mockito.Matchers.any;
import static org.mockito.Matchers.anyString;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.mock;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.mockStatic;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.when;

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({Controller.class, LoggerFactory.class})
public class ControllerTest {

    @Test
    public void name() throws Exception {
        mockStatic(LoggerFactory.class);
        Logger logger = mock(Logger.class);
        when(LoggerFactory.getLogger(any(Class.class))).thenReturn(logger);
        
        new Controller().log();
        
        verify(logger).warn(anyString());
    }
}

Note the imports ! Noteworthy libs in the classpath : Mockito, PowerMock, JUnit, logback-core, logback-clasic, slf4j

EDIT2 : As it seems to be a popular question, I'd like to point out that if these log messages are that important and require to be tested, i.e. they are feature / business part of the system then introducing a real dependency that make clear theses logs are features would be a so much better in the whole system design, instead of relying on static code of a standard and technical classes of a logger.

For this matter I would recommend to craft something like= a Reporter class with methods such as reportIncorrectUseOfYAndZForActionX or reportProgressStartedForActionX. This would have the benefit of making the feature visible for anyone reading the code. But it will also help to achieve tests, change the implementations details of this particular feature.

Hence you wouldn't need static mocking tools like PowerMock. In my opinion static code can be fine, but as soon as the test demands to verify or to mock static behavior it is necessary to refactor and introduce clear dependencies.

To make this work, you need to use Powermockito to intercept the constructor calls (new InputStreamReader(...), new BufferedReader(...)) so that your mocks get returned. An example is below. In your case, just intercepting the new BufferedReader call may be enough.

Assume the following is the code you want to test:

package test;

import java.io.*;

public class SUT {

    public String doSomething() throws IOException {
        InputStreamReader reader =
                new InputStreamReader(getFileAsStream(null, null));
        BufferedReader bReader =
                new BufferedReader(reader);

        return bReader.readLine();
    }

    private InputStream getFileAsStream(Object resourceResolver, Object iconPath)
            throws FileNotFoundException {
        return new ByteArrayInputStream("".getBytes());
    }
}

The following test code is an example of how to intercept the constructor calls:

package test;

import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito;
import org.powermock.core.classloader.annotations.PrepareForTest;
import org.powermock.modules.junit4.PowerMockRunner;

import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;

import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.doReturn;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.mock;

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({ SUT.class })
public class SUTTest {

    @Test
    public void doSomethingReturnsValueFromBufferedReader() throws Exception {
        // Arrange
        SUT sut = new SUT();
        InputStreamReader inputStreamReaderMock = mock(InputStreamReader.class);
        BufferedReader bufferedReaderMock = mock(BufferedReader.class);

        // Set your mocks up to be returned when the new ...Reader calls 
        // are executed in sut.doSomething()
        PowerMockito.whenNew(InputStreamReader.class).
                     withAnyArguments().thenReturn(inputStreamReaderMock);
        PowerMockito.whenNew(BufferedReader.class).
                     withArguments(inputStreamReaderMock).
                     thenReturn(bufferedReaderMock);

        // Set the value you want bReader.readLine() to return 
        // when sut.doSomething() executes
        final String bufferedReaderReturnValue = "myValue";
        doReturn(bufferedReaderReturnValue).when(bufferedReaderMock).readLine();

        // Act
        String result = sut.doSomething();

        // Assert
        assertEquals(bufferedReaderReturnValue, result);
    }
}

This hopefully helps you in your immediate problem. However, it seems to me that what you're creating will be a very slow, confusing and brittle test. Right now, you're mocking so much that it makes very hard to determine what you're actually trying to test.

The high amount of mocking probably indicates that the design of the code you're testing would need some work to improve testability. If you can't touch the code, then you can't - but try to make your test more readable and intuitive ("When this method is invoked, this thing should happen, because...").

This is also where Mockito.spy can be used. it allows you to do partial mocks on real objects.

C cMock = Mockito.spy(new C());
Mockito.doNothing().when(cMock).m1();

A good technique for getting rid of static calls on 3rd party API is hiding the static call behind an interface.

Let's say you make this interface :

interface IPDOFacade {

    IPDO getContextPDO();
}

and have a default implementation that simply calls the static method on the 3rd party API :

class IPDOFacadeImpl implements IPDOFacade {

    @Override
    public IPDO getContextPDO() {
        return Util.getContextPDO();
    }
}

Then it is simply a matter of injecting a dependency on the interface into MyClass and using the interface, rather than the 3rd party API directly :

public class MyClass {

    private final IPDOFacade ipdoFacade;

    public MyClass(IPDOFacade ipdoFacade) {
        this.ipdoFacade = ipdoFacade;
    }

    private IPDO getIPDO() {
        return ipdoFacade.getContextPDO();
    }

    public String handleIn(Object input) throws Throwable
    {
        String result = "";
        IPDO pdo = getIPDO();

        someImportantBusinessLogic(pdo);

        return result;
    }
    
    ...

}

In your unit test, you can then easily mock your own interface, stub it any way you like and inject it into the unit under test.

This

• avoids the need to make private methods package private.
• makes your tests more readable by avoiding partial mocking.
• applies inversion of control.
• decouples your application from a specific 3rd party library.

In your later comments, I figured out the gap: You need to use Mockito as a Rule and Parameterized as a Runner, not the other way around.

The reason is that the Runner is responsible for reporting the number of tests, and Parameterized manipulates the number of tests based on the number of test methods and the number of parameterized inputs, so it's really important for Parameterized to be a part of the Runner process. By contrast, the use of a Mockito runner or rule is simply to encapsulate the @Before and @After methods that initialize Mockito annotations and validate Mockito usage, which can be done very easily as a @Rule that works adjacent to other @Rule instances--to the point that the MockitoJUnitRunner is very nearly deprecated.

To crib directly from the JUnit4 Parameterized Test doc page and MockitoRule doc page:

@RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class YourComponentTest {

    @Rule public MockitoRule rule = MockitoJUnit.rule();
    @Mock YourDep mockYourDep;

    @Parameters
    public static Collection<Object[]> data() {
        return Arrays.asList(new Object[][] {     
                 { 0, 0 }, { 1, 1 }, { 2, 1 }, { 3, 2 }, { 4, 3 }, { 5, 5 }, { 6, 8 }  
           });
    }

    private int fInput;

    private int fExpected;

    public YourComponentTest(int input, int expected) {
        fInput = input;
        fExpected = expected;
    }

    @Test
    public void test() {
        // As you may surmise, this is not a very realistic example of Mockito's use.
        when(mockYourDep.calculate(fInput)).thenReturn(fExpected);
        YourComponent yourComponent = new YourComponent(mockYourDep);
        assertEquals(fExpected, yourComponent.compute(fInput));
    }
}

Mockito was developed to allow BDD-style unit testing, that is:

• Given (the context in which your unit-test runs)
• When (the events producing the behaviour you're interested in)
• Then (the outcome you're looking for).

as opposed to

• Given
• Expect (here's where the verification gets done)
• When
• Then (go back and look at what you wrote in the Expect because there's no actual info here).

IMHO it produces more readable tests, and allows you to separate things like the context in which you're running (setting up the Mocks) and verification of the behaviour you're interested in. Previous mocking frameworks required you to set up expectations for every interaction, regardless of whether it was relevant to the aspect of behaviour you were looking at in that test or not.

I've never used Mockito, but want to learn, so here goes. If someone less clueless than me answers, try their answer first!

Mockito.when(reader.document(anyInt())).thenAnswer(new Answer() {
 public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
     Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
     Object mock = invocation.getMock();
     return document(fakeIndex((int)(Integer)args[0]));
     }
 });

Try @RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class) instead of @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)

Since none of your classes are final, you can use "pure mockito" without resorting to PowerMockito:

final CacheWrapper wrapper = Mockito.spy(new CacheWrapper());

Mockito.doThrow(something)
    .when(wrapper).putInSharedMemory(Matchers.any(), Matchers.any());

Note that "method arguments" to a stub are in fact argument matchers; you can put specific values (if not "surrounded" by a specific method it will make a call to .equals()). So, you can guide the stub's behavior differently for different arguments.

Also, no need for any kind of .replay() with Mockito, which is very nice!

Finally, be aware that you can doCallRealMethod() as well. After that, it depends on your scenarios...

(note: last mockito version available on maven is 1.10.17 FWIW)