I had the same problem. I wanted to test simple POJOs locally.
Specifically, my code wanted to use android.util.Base64.
What I ended up doing was to use the SDK to install the Android 4 sources, and copied the android.util.Base64 class to my project.
Surprisingly enough, this worked.

It seems that deprecated is void verify(VerificationMode mode, Verification verification) while void verify(Verification verification, VerificationMode mode) is still fine so you can just use the verify method like

dummyStatic.verify(
    () -> SomePublicClass.myPublicStaticFunc(anyInt()),
    times(1)
);

I've used the following dependency: testImplementation "org.mockito:mockito-inline:3.12.1".

It seems that with mockito-core you will not be able to mock this because you'll receive

The used MockMaker SubclassByteBuddyMockMaker does not support the creation of static mocks

In new Mockito versions you can use stubbing consecutive calls to throw exception on first can and returning a value on a second call.

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

https://javadoc.io/doc/org.mockito/mockito-core/latest/org/mockito/Mockito.html#10

Found out that by changing the Async mode to AspectJ fixed the issue:

@EnableCaching
@SpringBootConfiguration
@EnableAutoConfiguration
@ComponentScan(lazyInit = true) 
@EnableAsync(mode = AdviceMode.ASPECTJ) // Changes here!!!
public class Main {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new SpringApplicationBuilder().sources(Main.class)
                                    .run(args);
    }
}

I'll accept this as a temporary hackish solution until I understand what's the real root cause of this issue.

You could provide a default Answer in the construction of your mock that always throws an exception. Then every call that is stubbed will act like usual. Everything outside those paths will throw an exception. Something like this:

final String arg = "some arg";
Collection<Object> object = mock(Collection.class, new Answer<Object>() {
    @Override
    public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("You cannot invoke " + invocation.getMethod() +
                                    " with " + Arrays.toString(invocation.getArguments()));
    }
});
doReturn(true).when(object).add(arg);

object.add(arg); // Goes ok
object.add("azertyuiop"); // Throws the exception

TL-DR

• write plain unit tests for components that you can straightly test without loading a Spring container (run them in local and in CI build).

• write partial integration tests/slicing unit test for components that you cannot straightly test without loading a Spring container such as components related to JPA, controllers, REST clients, JDBC ... (run them in local and in CI build)

• write some full integration tests (end-to-end tests) for some high-level components where it brings values (run them in CI build).

---

3 main ways to test a component

• plain unit test (doesn't load a Spring container)
• full integration test (load a Spring container with all configuration and beans)
• partial integration test/ test slicing (load a Spring container with very restricted configurations and beans)

Can all components be tested in these 3 ways ?

In a general way with Spring any component can be tested in integration tests and only some kinds of components are suitable to be tested unitary(without container).
But note that with or without spring, unitary and integration tests are not opposed but complementary.

How to determine if a component can be plain tested (without spring) or only tested with Spring?

You recognize a code to test that doesn't have any dependencies from a Spring container as the component/method doesn't use Spring feature to perform its logical.
Take that FooService class :

@Service
public class FooService{

   private FooRepository fooRepository;
   
   public FooService(FooRepository fooRepository){
       this.fooRepository = fooRepository;
   }

   public long compute(...){
      List<Foo> foos = fooRepository.findAll(...);
       // core logic
      long result = 
           foos.stream()
               .map(Foo::getValue)
               .filter(v->...)
               .count();
       return result;
   }
}

FooService performs some computations and logic that don't need Spring to be executed.
Indeed with or without container the compute() method contains the core logic we want to assert.
Reversely you will have difficulties to test FooRepository without Spring as Spring Boot configures for you the datasource, the JPA context, and instrument your FooRepository interface to provide to it a default implementation and multiple other things.
Same thing for testing a controller (rest or MVC).
How could a controller be bound to an endpoint without Spring? How could the controller parse the HTTP request and generate an HTTP response without Spring? It simply cannot be done.

1)Writing a plain unit test

Using Spring Boot in your application doesn't mean that you need to load the Spring container for any test class you run.
As you write a test that doesn't need any dependencies from the Spring container, you don't have to use/load Spring in the test class.
Instead of using Spring you will instantiate yourself the class to test and if needed use a mock library to isolate the instance under test from its dependencies.
That is the way to follow because it is fast and favors the isolation of the tested component.
Here how to unit-test the FooService class presented above.
You just need to mock FooRepository to be able to test the logic of FooService.
With JUnit 5 and Mockito the test class could look like :

import org.mockito.junit.jupiter.MockitoExtension;
import org.mockito.Mock;
import org.mockito.Mockito;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ExtendWith;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.BeforeEach;


@ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class)
class FooServiceTest{

    FooService fooService;  

    @Mock
    FooRepository fooRepository;

    @BeforeEach 
    void init{
        fooService = new FooService(fooRepository);
    }

    @Test
    void compute(){
        List<Foo> fooData = ...;
        Mockito.when(fooRepository.findAll(...))
               .thenReturn(fooData);
        long actualResult = fooService.compute(...);
        long expectedResult = ...;
        Assertions.assertEquals(expectedResult, actualResult);
    }

}

2)Writing a full integration test

Writing an end-to-end test requires to load a container with the whole configuration and beans of the application.
To achieve that @SpringBootTest is the way :

The annotation works by creating the ApplicationContext used in your tests through SpringApplication

You can use it in this way to test it without any mock :

import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.boot.test.context.SpringBootTest;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;

@SpringBootTest
public class FooTest {

   @Autowired
   Foo foo;

   @Test
   public void doThat(){
      FooBar fooBar = foo.doThat(...);
      // assertion...
   }    
   
}

But you can also mock some beans of the container if it makes sense :

import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.boot.test.mock.mockito.MockBean;
import org.springframework.boot.test.context.SpringBootTest;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import org.mockito.Mockito;

@SpringBootTest
public class FooTest {

   @Autowired
   Foo foo;

   @MockBean
   private Bar barDep;

   @Test
   public void doThat(){
      Mockito.when(barDep.doThis()).thenReturn(...);
      FooBar fooBar = foo.doThat(...);
      // assertion...
   }    
   
}

Note the difference for mocking as you want to mock a plain instance of a Bar class (org.mockito.Mock annotation)and that you want to mock a Bar bean of the Spring context (org.springframework.boot.test.mock.mockito.MockBean annotation).

Full integration tests have to be executed by the CI builds

Loading a full spring context takes time. So you should be cautious with @SpringBootTest as this may make unit tests execution to be very long and generally you don't want to strongly slow down the local build on the developer's machine and the test feedback that matters to make the test writing pleasant and efficient for developers.
That's why "slow" tests are generally not executed on the developer's machines.
So you should make them integration tests (IT suffix instead of Test suffix in the naming of the test class) and make sure that these are executed only in the continuous integration builds.
But as Spring Boot acts on many things in your application (rest controllers, MVC controllers, JSON serialization/deserialization, persistence, and so for...) you could write many unit tests that are only executed on the CI builds and that is not fine either.
Having end-to-end tests executed only on the CI builds is ok but having also persistence, controllers or JSON tests executed only on the CI builds is not ok at all.
Indeed, the developer build will be fast but as drawback the tests execution in local will detect only a small part of the possible regressions...
To prevent this caveat, Spring Boot provides an intermediary way : partial integration test or the slice testing (as they call it) : the next point.

3)Writing a partial integration test focusing on a specific layer or concern thanks to slice testing

As explained in the point "Recognizing a test that can be plain tested (without spring))", some components can be tested only with a running container.
But why using @SpringBootTest that loads all beans and configurations of your application while you would need to load only a few specific configuration classes and beans to test these components?
For example why loading a full Spring JPA context (beans, configurations, in memory database, and so forth) to test the controller part?
And reversely why loading all configurations and beans associated to Spring controllers to test the JPA repository part?
Spring Boot addresses this point with the slice testing feature.
These are not as much as fast than plain unit tests (that is without container) but these are really much faster than loading a whole spring context. So executing them on the local machine is generally very acceptable.
Each slice testing flavor loads a very restricted set of auto-configuration classes that you can modify if needed according to your requirements.

Some common slice testing features :

• Auto-configured JSON Tests : @JsonTest

To test that object JSON serialization and deserialization is working as expected, you can use the @JsonTest annotation.

• Auto-configured Spring MVC Tests : @WebMvcTest

To test whether Spring MVC controllers are working as expected, use the @WebMvcTest annotation.

• Auto-configured Spring WebFlux Tests : @WebFluxTest

To test that Spring WebFlux controllers are working as expected, you can use the @WebFluxTest annotation.

• Auto-configured Data JPA Tests : @DataJpaTest

You can use the @DataJpaTest annotation to test JPA applications.

And you have still many other slice flavors that Spring Boot provides to you.
See the testing part of the documentation to get more details.
Note that if you need to define a specific set of beans to load that the built-in test slice annotations don't address, you can also create your own test slice annotation(https://spring.io/blog/2016/08/30/custom-test-slice-with-spring-boot-1-4).

4)Writing a partial integration test focusing on specific beans thanks to lazy bean initialization

Some days ago, I have encountered a case where I would test in partial integration a service bean that depends on several beans that themselves also depend on other beans. My problem was that two deep dependency beans have to be mocked for usual reasons (http requests and a query with large data in database).
Loading all the Spring Boot context looked an overhead, so I tried to load only specific beans. To achieve that, I annotation the test class with @SpringBootTest and I specified the classes attribute to define the configuration/beans classes to load.
After many tries I have gotten something that seemed working but I had to define an important list of beans/configurations to include.
That was really not neat nor maintainable.
So as clearer alternative, I chose to use the lazy bean initialization feature provided by Spring Boot 2.2 :

@SpringBootTest(properties="spring.main.lazy-initialization=true")
public class MyServiceTest { ...}

That has the advantage to load only beans used at runtime.
I don't think at all that using that property has to be the norm in test classes but in some specific test cases, that appears the right way.

In JUnit, Parameterized tests use a special runner that ensure that the test is instantiated multiple times, so each test method is called multiple times. Mockito is a tool for writing specific unit tests, so there is no built-in ability to run the same test multiple times with different Mockito expectations.

If you want your test conditions to change, your best bet is to do one of the following:

• Parameterize your test using JUnit, with a parameter for the mock inputs you want;
• Run a loop of different parameters in your test, which unfortunately avoids the "test one thing per method" philosophy
• Extract a method that actually performs the test, and create a new @Test method for each mock you want.

Note that there's no prohibition on using mock objects as @Parameterized test parameters. If you're looking to parameterize based on mocks, you can do that, possibly creating the mock and setting the expectations in a static method on the test.

---

Note about runners: This Parameterized test runner conflicts with Mockito's MockitoJUnitRunner: Each test class can only have one runner. You'll want to switch to @Before and @After methods or a Mockito JUnit4 rule for your setup, if you use them both.

As an example, compressed from a different answer that explains more about Parameterized runners versus JUnit rules and lifting 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 the values */ }

    public YourComponentTest(Parameter parameter) { /* Save the parameter to a field */ }

    @Test public void test() { /* Use the field value in assertions */ }
}

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?

It depends if you are using (declaring) the runner or not.

If you use the runner, you don't need to call MockitoAnnotations.initMocks() yourself - the runner calls it for you.

Usually we go for the runner. When you want to use other runners, though (like Spring's), you can call .initMocks() yourself.

Just to be clear, the MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this) will:

• Instantiate the field annotated with @InjectMocks
• Create a mock version of every field annotated with @Mock
• Inject the @Mocks in the @InjectMocks variable's fields (or call its constructors or use its setters - it depends on what kind of Dependency Injection you use)

Mockito runner, initMocks and rule code samples

The three code samples below should be equivalent.

With runner:

This first snippet uses the runner, making the call to initMocks() unnecessary.

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyClassTest {

    @Mock private MyDependency myDependency;
    @InjectMocks private MyClass myClass;

    @Test
    public void myClass_should_get_stuff_from_dependency() {
        when(myDependency.getStuff()).thenReturn("stuff!");

        assertThat(myClass.getDependencyStuff(), is("stuff!"));
    }
}

Without runner + with manual call to .initMocks():

This other does not use the runner, thus the need for the setUp() method calling our initMocks() friend.

// notice there is no runner
public class MyClassTest {

    @Mock private MyDependency myDependency;
    @InjectMocks private MyClass myClass;

    // but now you have to call initMocks() yourself
    @Before
    public void setUp() throws Exception {
          MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
    }

    @Test
    public void myClass_should_get_stuff_from_dependency() {
        when(myDependency.getStuff()).thenReturn("stuff!");

        assertThat(myClass.getDependencyStuff(), is("stuff!"));
    }
}

Without runner or manual call, using @Rule:

Finally, as pointed out in the comments (thanks @StefanBirkner), since version 1.10.17, there is also the possibility of using a JUnit @Rule called MockitoRule:

public class MyClassTest {

    @Rule
    public MockitoRule rule = MockitoJUnit.rule();

    @Mock private MyDependency myDependency;
    @InjectMocks private MyClass myClass;

    @Test
    public void myClass_should_get_stuff_from_dependency() {
        when(myDependency.getStuff()).thenReturn("stuff!");

        assertThat(myClass.getDependencyStuff(), is("stuff!"));
    }
}