How to use fireTestFailure method of org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier class

String myString = "1234";
int foo = Integer.parseInt(myString);

If you look at the Java documentation you'll notice the "catch" is that this function can throw a NumberFormatException, which you can handle:

int foo;
try {
   foo = Integer.parseInt(myString);
}
catch (NumberFormatException e) {
   foo = 0;
}

(This treatment defaults a malformed number to 0, but you can do something else if you like.)

Alternatively, you can use an Ints method from the Guava library, which in combination with Java 8's Optional, makes for a powerful and concise way to convert a string into an int:

import com.google.common.primitives.Ints;

int foo = Optional.ofNullable(myString)
 .map(Ints::tryParse)
 .orElse(0)

From the documentation for Field.set:

If the underlying field is final, the method throws an IllegalAccessException unless setAccessible(true) has succeeded for this field and this field is non-static.

So at first it seems that you are out of luck, since File.separatorChar is static. Surprisingly, there is a way to get around this: simply make the static field no longer final through reflection.

I adapted this solution from javaspecialist.eu:

static void setFinalStatic(Field field, Object newValue) throws Exception {
    field.setAccessible(true);

    // remove final modifier from field
    Field modifiersField = Field.class.getDeclaredField("modifiers");
    modifiersField.setAccessible(true);
    modifiersField.setInt(field, field.getModifiers() & ~Modifier.FINAL);

    field.set(null, newValue);
}

I've tested it and it works:

setFinalStatic(File.class.getField("separatorChar"), '#');
System.out.println(File.separatorChar); // prints "#"

Do exercise extreme caution with this technique. Devastating consequences aside, the following actually works:

setFinalStatic(Boolean.class.getField("FALSE"), true);
System.out.format("Everything is %s", false); // "Everything is true"

Important update: the above solution does not work in all cases. If the field is made accessible and read through Reflection before it gets reset, an IllegalAccessException is thrown. It fails because the Reflection API creates internal FieldAccessor objects which are cached and reused (see the java.lang.reflect.Field#acquireFieldAccessor(boolean) implementation). Example test code which fails:

Field f = File.class.getField("separatorChar"); f.setAccessible(true); f.get(null);
// call setFinalStatic as before: throws IllegalAccessException

using ByteArrayOutputStream and System.setXXX is simple:

private final ByteArrayOutputStream outContent = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
private final ByteArrayOutputStream errContent = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
private final PrintStream originalOut = System.out;
private final PrintStream originalErr = System.err;

@Before
public void setUpStreams() {
    System.setOut(new PrintStream(outContent));
    System.setErr(new PrintStream(errContent));
}

@After
public void restoreStreams() {
    System.setOut(originalOut);
    System.setErr(originalErr);
}

sample test cases:

@Test
public void out() {
    System.out.print("hello");
    assertEquals("hello", outContent.toString());
}

@Test
public void err() {
    System.err.print("hello again");
    assertEquals("hello again", errContent.toString());
}

I used this code to test the command line option (asserting that -version outputs the version string, etc etc)

Edit: Prior versions of this answer called System.setOut(null) after the tests; This is the cause of NullPointerExceptions commenters refer to.

Change the version of the war plugin in your pom.xml and add maven-compiler-plugin according to your jdk version.

<plugin>
    <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
    <artifactId>maven-war-plugin</artifactId>
    <version>3.3.1</version>
</plugin>
<plugin>
      <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
      <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
      <version>3.8.1</version>
</plugin>

I had the same issue. Unfortunately it would not let me use a PowerMock Rule due to the JVM I had. Instead of the rule I used RunnerDelegate.

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PowerMockRunnerDelegate(Parameterized.class)

You need to add

@PropertySource("classpath:application.properties")

to your class, so it will pick your normal configurations.

If you need different configurations for test you can add

@TestPropertySource(locations="classpath:test.properties")

If not just copy paste your config file to test/resources folder, then boot will pick from there.

See this.

Well mockito mocks works by extending the class and overriding the method, which in your case is not possible on A.a(String). If you want this to happen you have to remove the final modifier.

Now assuming A.a(String) is not final, what you ask is completely doable with mockito:

given(mockA.a(anyString()).willAnswer(returnOfB(bInstance));

Answer<String> returnOfB(final B bInstance) {
    return new Answer<String>() {
         public String answer(Invocation invocation) {
             String arg = (String) invocation.getActualArguments()[0];
             return bInstance.b(arg);
         }
    };
}

Please note this answer has been written on a phone and might have typo, or wrong names, though you should get the idea of what should be done to achieve what you want.

Cheers

Maven knows two types of parameters for skipping tests:

-Dmaven.test.skip=true 

or

-DskipTests=true 

The surefire-plugin documentation only mentions the first one, which you have not tried yet.

Actually, the old style of exception testing is to wrap a try block around the code that throws the exception and then add a fail() statement at the end of the try block. Something like this:

public void testNullParameter() {
    try {
        IPAddress addr = new IPAddress(null);
        fail("InvalidIPAddressException not thrown.");
    } catch(InvalidIPAddressException e) {
        assertNotNull(e.getMessage());
    }
}

This isn't much different from what you wrote but:

1. Your assertTrue(addr.getOctets() == null); is useless.
2. The intend and the syntax are clearer IMO and thus easier to read.

Still, this is a bit ugly. But this is where JUnit 4 comes to the rescue as exception testing is one of the biggest improvements in JUnit 4. With JUnit 4, you can now write your test like this:

@Test (expected=InvalidIPAddressException.class) 
public void testNullParameter() throws InvalidIPAddressException {
    IPAddress addr = new IPAddress(null);
}

Nice, isn't it?

Now, regarding the real question, if I don't expect an exception to be thrown, I'd definitely go for way #1 (because it's less verbose) and let JUnit handle the exception and fail the test as expected.