How to use assertRejectedInStackTrace method of org.mockito.exceptions.stacktrace.StackTraceCleanerTest class

Your could also use real methods, preparing and removing the configuration before and after each test:

@Before
public void setUp() {
    System.setProperty("flag", "true");
}

@After
public void tearDown() {
    System.clearProperty("flag");
}

I'll refer your sentence:

So let's say I introduce a new feature and want to test for bugs. I use mvn test form the command line. Then all the test are run but i think it will take ages for a real application with a lot of tests.

This question you raise here is very important, so I'll try to provide an architectural point of view here without delving into technical implementation.

There are many different kinds of tests. What you're referring to is called an integration test, and not a unit test. The difference between those two that in unit tests you're testing one class and all the rest should be mocked (there are frameworks like EasyMock or Mockito for this).

Unit test has a lot of restrictions:

• You cannot access any external components (web servers, db and so forth)
• Unit tests run only in memory
• They are extremely fast (particle of second).

These tests are very helpful when it comes to testing the functionality of your classes

Now when the development of the feature is done, its time to test that the feature works in "semi-real" environment. Usually when running those, there is a database available as well as spring container. For running this kind of tests you can use spring tests extensions and use different techniques (for example, substitute one the whole application spring context with a "partial" context or override some beans with stubs or something.

Now, this difference is interesting in the context of your question because there should be many unit tests and substantially less integration tests in the application. So if you can cover something you've written with unit tests - write unit tests. It's incredibly fast by nature and you can run a lot of those (thousands) in no-time. Only if you (rarely) cannot cover your functionality in unit tests - write the integration test. This will typically relevant for code that runs against the DB for example and you would like to test whether the queries produced by the component are really valid.

So generally if you have both types of tests you should be covered and there should be not so many integration tests, so running those shouldn't be a real hassle.

@Test
public void persistGenericModelsAsync() throws JsonProcessingException {

    //stubbed - but never used
    when(restTemplate.exchange(Mockito.anyString(), Mockito.eq(HttpMethod.POST), Mockito.any(HttpEntity.class), Mockito.eq(JsonNode.class))).thenReturn(response);

    //stubbed - but never used
    when(response.getHeaders()).thenReturn(headers);
    List<String> cookiesTest = Arrays.asList("TxCartIdtest", "test");
    //stubbed - but never used
    when(headers.get(ValueConstant.SET_COOKIE)).thenReturn(cookiesTest);
    //stubbed - but never used
    when(response.getBody()).thenReturn(jsonNode);
}

Its clear that, none of the stubs you created with when() is getting used any where. For Eg. , the first stub where you return a response object - you have never used a call to restTemplate.exchange() any where in test execution of this method.

When you use the strict stubbing mode, you need to make sure - you use any stub that you create. See more here

.. Reading Javadoc helps:

In rare cases when the parameter is a primitive then you must use relevant intThat(), floatThat(), etc. method. This way you will avoid NullPointerException during autounboxing.

You would need a spy, not a mock A:

    A a = Mockito.spy(new A(1,1));
    a.getPrice(2);
    verify(a, times(1)).getPriceForOne();

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 */ }
}

From the PowerMock Private Method Example:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
// We prepare PartialMockClass for test because it's final or we need to mock private or static methods
@PrepareForTest(PartialMockClass.class)
public class YourTestCase {
@Test
public void privatePartialMockingWithPowerMock() {        
    PartialMockClass classUnderTest = PowerMockito.spy(new PartialMockClass());

    // use PowerMockito to set up your expectation
    PowerMockito.doReturn(value).when(classUnderTest, "methodToMock", "parameter1");

    // execute your test
    classUnderTest.execute();

    // Use PowerMockito.verify() to verify result
    PowerMockito.verifyPrivate(classUnderTest, times(2)).invoke("methodToMock", "parameter1");
}

So to apply this to your code, I think it might become:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest(CodeWithPrivateMethod.class)
public class PowerMock_Test {
    @Test(expected = RuntimeException.class)
    public void when_gambling_is_true_then_always_explode() throws Exception {
        CodeWithPrivateMethod spy = PowerMockito.spy(new CodeWithPrivateMethod());

        PowerMockito.doReturn(true).when(spy, "doTheGamble", anyString(), anyInt());


/* 1 */ PowerMockito.verifyPrivate(spy, times(0)).invoke("doTheGamble", anyString(), anyInt());            
        spy.meaningfulPublicApi();
/* 2 */ PowerMockito.verifyPrivate(spy, times(2)).invoke("doTheGamble", anyString(), anyInt());            
    }
}

I just coded that in the editor here. No tests have actually been run, and no bugs have been harmed in the crafting of this code.

The easiest (only?) approach, IMHO, would be to use the thenAnswer method, which allows you to not only return a value, but actually execute some code. Java 8 makes this particularly elegant, as you could just use an anonymous lambda:

when(myMock.myFunction(anyString()))
    .thenAnswer(i -> new MyObject((String)i.getArguments()[0]);

I recommend using Mockito's Hamcrest integration to write a good, clean matcher for it. That allows you to combine the verification with detailed checking of the passed argument:

import static org.mockito.hamcrest.MockitoHamcrest.argThat;

verify(mock, times(1)).someMethod(argThat(personNamed("Bob")));

Matcher<Person> personNamed(final String name) {
    return new TypeSafeMatcher<Person>() {
        public boolean matchesSafely(Person item) {
            return name.equals(item.getName());
        }
        public void describeTo(Description description) {
            description.appendText("a Person named " + name);
        }
    };
}

Matchers generally lead to more readable tests and more useful test failure messages. They also tend to be very reusable, and you'll find yourself building up a library of them tailored for testing your project. Finally, you can also use them for normal test assertions using JUnit's Assert.assertThat(), so you get double use out of them.