How to use equalTo method of org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers class

You are confusing a Mock with a Spy.

In a mock all methods are stubbed and return "smart return types". This means that calling any method on a mocked class will do nothing unless you specify behaviour.

In a spy the original functionality of the class is still there but you can validate method invocations in a spy and also override method behaviour.

What you want is

MyProcessingAgent mockMyAgent = Mockito.spy(MyProcessingAgent.class);

A quick example:

static class TestClass {

    public String getThing() {
        return "Thing";
    }

    public String getOtherThing() {
        return getThing();
    }
}

public static void main(String[] args) {
    final TestClass testClass = Mockito.spy(new TestClass());
    Mockito.when(testClass.getThing()).thenReturn("Some Other thing");
    System.out.println(testClass.getOtherThing());
}

Output is:

Some Other thing

NB: You should really try to mock the dependencies for the class being tested not the class itself.

I think it's quite important feature for JUnit, if author of JUnit doesn't want the order feature, why?

I'm not sure there is a clean way to do this with JUnit, to my knowledge JUnit assumes that all tests can be performed in an arbitrary order. From the FAQ:

How do I use a test fixture?

(...) The ordering of test-method invocations is not guaranteed, so testOneItemCollection() might be executed before testEmptyCollection(). (...)

Why is it so? Well, I believe that making tests order dependent is a practice that the authors don't want to promote. Tests should be independent, they shouldn't be coupled and violating this will make things harder to maintain, will break the ability to run tests individually (obviously), etc.

That being said, if you really want to go in this direction, consider using TestNG since it supports running tests methods in any arbitrary order natively (and things like specifying that methods depends on groups of methods). Cedric Beust explains how to do this in order of execution of tests in testng.

They both achieve the same result. Using an annotation (@Mock) is usually considered "cleaner", as you don't fill up your code with boilerplate assignments that all look the same.

Note that in order to use the @Mock annotation, your test class should be annotated with @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) or contain a call to MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this) in its @Before method.

in a unit test I would prefer to add a timeout to the Test with a JUnit 4 annotation, to determine whether the test passes (fast enough) or not:

@Test(timeout=100)//let the test fail after 100 MilliSeconds
public void infinity() {
  while(true);
}

To determine the exact Runtime of your business logic I would add the Time statements right before and after your critical Codepath like you did, repeat it several times to get scholastically correct results, and remove the statements again, so slim the code.

long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
//execute logic in between
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("DEBUG: Logic A took " + (end - start) + " MilliSeconds");

Enclosed runner internally works as a Suite, that is, it runs the classes as Test cases. And since Junit 4.12 abstract inner classes are ignored by Enclosed runner.

That said the way to share set up is to create an abstract class containing it (@Before, @After):

@RunWith(Enclosed.class)
public class EnclosedTest {

  abstract public static class SharedSetUp {
    @Before
    public void printSomething() {
      System.out.println("Helllooo Meggan");
    }
  }

  public static class FirstTest extends SharedSetUp {
    @Test
    public void assertThatSomethingIsTrue() {
      assertThat(true, is(true));
    }
  }

  public static class SecondTest extends SharedSetUp {
    @Test
    public void assertThatSomethingIsFalse() {
      assertThat(false, is(false));
    }
  }
}

Notice that you can even declare custom runners for each subclass.

Honestly I am not sure if I really understand your question :P I will try to clarify as much as I can, from what I get from your original question:

First, in most case, you should NOT have any concern on Spring. You rarely need to have spring involved in writing your unit test. In normal case, you only need to instantiate the system under test (SUT, the target to be tested) in your unit test, and inject dependencies of SUT in the test too. The dependencies are usually a mock/stub.

Your original suggested way, and example 2, 3 is precisely doing what I am describing above.

In some rare case (like, integration tests, or some special unit tests), you need to create a Spring app context, and get your SUT from the app context. In such case, I believe you can:

1) Create your SUT in spring app ctx, get reference to it, and inject mocks to it

@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
@ContextConfiguration("test-app-ctx.xml")
public class FooTest {

    @Autowired
    @InjectMocks
    TestTarget sut;

    @Mock
    Foo mockFoo;

    @Before
    /* Initialized mocks */
    public void setup() {
        MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
    }

    @Test
    public void someTest() {
         // ....
    }
}

or

2) follow the way described in your link Spring Integration Tests, Creating Mock Objects. This approach is to create mocks in Spring's app context, and you can get the mock object from the app ctx to do your stubbing/verification:

@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
@ContextConfiguration("test-app-ctx.xml")
public class FooTest {

    @Autowired
    TestTarget sut;

    @Autowired
    Foo mockFoo;

    @Test
    public void someTest() {
         // ....
    }
}

Both ways should work. The main difference is the former case will have the dependencies injected after going through spring's lifecycle etc. (e.g. bean initialization), while the latter case is injected beforehands. For example, if your SUT implements spring's InitializingBean, and the initialization routine involves the dependencies, you will see the difference between these two approach. I believe there is no right or wrong for these 2 approaches, as long as you know what you are doing.

Just a supplement, @Mock, @Inject, MocktoJunitRunner etc are all unnecessary in using Mockito. They are just utilities to save you typing the Mockito.mock(Foo.class) and bunch of setter invocations.

If you are using Apache Commons Lang, then you can use the following:

(1) When the cause should be exactly of the specified type

if (ExceptionUtils.indexOfThrowable(exception, ExpectedException.class) != -1) {
    // exception is or has a cause of type ExpectedException.class
}

(2) When the cause should be either of the specified type or its subclass type

if (ExceptionUtils.indexOfType(exception, ExpectedException.class) != -1) {
    // exception is or has a cause of type ExpectedException.class or its subclass
}

You need to make sure you have your repos set up, and you need to include the dependency for junit. This means that you need something that looks like this for your build.gradle

repositories {
    mavenCentral()
}

apply plugin: 'java'

dependencies {
    testCompile 'junit:junit:4.10'
}

Spring provides a class called MockHttpServletRequest, which can be used to test code that needs a HttpServletRequest.

public void testCheckBatchExecutionSchedule() throws Exception
{
   MockHttpServletRequest request = new MockHttpServletRequest();
   request.addParameter("parameterName", "someValue");
   assertTrue("Batch is Completed :", returnPointsRatingDisputeFrom.checkBatchExecutionSchedule(request));
}