How to use isComingFromJDK method of org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.BytecodeGenerator class

You're nesting mocking inside of mocking. You're calling getSomeList(), which does some mocking, before you've finished the mocking for MyMainModel. Mockito doesn't like it when you do this.

Replace

@Test
public myTest(){
    MyMainModel mainModel =  Mockito.mock(MyMainModel.class);
    Mockito.when(mainModel.getList()).thenReturn(getSomeList()); --> Line 355
}

with

@Test
public myTest(){
    MyMainModel mainModel =  Mockito.mock(MyMainModel.class);
    List<SomeModel> someModelList = getSomeList();
    Mockito.when(mainModel.getList()).thenReturn(someModelList);
}

To understand why this causes a problem, you need to know a little about how Mockito works, and also be aware in what order expressions and statements are evaluated in Java.

Mockito can't read your source code, so in order to figure out what you are asking it to do, it relies a lot on static state. When you call a method on a mock object, Mockito records the details of the call in an internal list of invocations. The when method reads the last of these invocations off the list and records this invocation in the OngoingStubbing object it returns.

The line

Mockito.when(mainModel.getList()).thenReturn(someModelList);

causes the following interactions with Mockito:

• Mock method mainModel.getList() is called,
• Static method when is called,
• Method thenReturn is called on the OngoingStubbing object returned by the when method.

The thenReturn method can then instruct the mock it received via the OngoingStubbing method to handle any suitable call to the getList method to return someModelList.

In fact, as Mockito can't see your code, you can also write your mocking as follows:

mainModel.getList();
Mockito.when((List<SomeModel>)null).thenReturn(someModelList);

This style is somewhat less clear to read, especially since in this case the null has to be casted, but it generates the same sequence of interactions with Mockito and will achieve the same result as the line above.

However, the line

Mockito.when(mainModel.getList()).thenReturn(getSomeList());

causes the following interactions with Mockito:

1. Mock method mainModel.getList() is called,
2. Static method when is called,
3. A new mock of SomeModel is created (inside getSomeList()),
4. Mock method model.getName() is called,

At this point Mockito gets confused. It thought you were mocking mainModel.getList(), but now you're telling it you want to mock the model.getName() method. To Mockito, it looks like you're doing the following:

when(mainModel.getList());
// ...
when(model.getName()).thenReturn(...);

This looks silly to Mockito as it can't be sure what you're doing with mainModel.getList().

Note that we did not get to the thenReturn method call, as the JVM needs to evaluate the parameters to this method before it can call the method. In this case, this means calling the getSomeList() method.

Generally it is a bad design decision to rely on static state, as Mockito does, because it can lead to cases where the Principle of Least Astonishment is violated. However, Mockito's design does make for clear and expressive mocking, even if it leads to astonishment sometimes.

Finally, recent versions of Mockito add an extra line to the error message above. This extra line indicates you may be in the same situation as this question:

3: you are stubbing the behaviour of another mock inside before 'thenReturn' instruction if completed

Make sure the hamcrest jar is higher on the import order than your JUnit jar.

JUnit comes with its own org.hamcrest.Matcher class that is probably being used instead.

You can also download and use the junit-dep-4.10.jar instead which is JUnit without the hamcrest classes.

mockito also has the hamcrest classes in it as well, so you may need to move\reorder it as well

PowerMock 1.6 isn't compatible with Mockito 2.7 (take a look at https://github.com/powermock/powermock/wiki/Mockito#supported-versions)

You should use PowerMock 1.7.0RC2 (or 1.7.0RC3 if 1.7.0RC2 doesn't work), and also use powermock-api-mockito2 instead of powermock-api-mockito.

Instead of mocking you can create a dummy ResourceBundle implementation, and then pass it as an argument to .thenReturn(resourceBundle):

    import java.util.ResourceBundle;

    ResourceBundle dummyResourceBundle = new ResourceBundle() {
        @Override
        protected Object handleGetObject(String key) {
            return "fake_translated_value";
        }

        @Override
        public Enumeration<String> getKeys() {
            return Collections.emptyEnumeration();
        }
    };

    // Example usage
    when(request.getResourceBundle(any(Locale.class))).thenReturn(dummyResourceBundle)

If you need the actual keys and values, then you'll need to provide an implementation for getKeys(), e.g. a hashmap for storage and key lookup.

Since you are using powermock features (@PrepareForTest, PowerMockito.whenNew etc.), you have to run your test with the PowerMockRunner.

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)

Because ClassB#geResult is not private, you may also simplify your code and replace

when( mockedClassB, "getResult", any(String[].class) ).thenReturn(someValue); 

by

when(mockedClassB.getResult(any(String[].class))).thenReturn(someValue);

There are a couple of things you could do to improve your code:

1. Switch to slf4j. This will allow you to code to an interface and be agnostic of the logging implementation under the covers (apache log4j in your case).

2. Switching to slf4j will allow you to not have to concatenate strings when passing to the logging framework - example:

   • this statement: LOGGER.debug("The list already has {} entries" + list.size());
   • can be written like this: LOGGER.debug("The list already has {} entries", list.size());

This has the added benefit of making the place holder in the string literal actually work.

3. You are attempting to assert and capture calls to an object indirectly via the the Logging framework. This will be fragile and error prone as you never know what calls will be made internally in the Logging framework. Mock only your direct dependencies.

4. Don't test logging statements. It's not exactly visible behavior of the class and it makes the test fragile and complicated. Plus, treating the logging statements as you would say using an ArrayList (i.e. part of the language) allows them to be fully exercised AND they output info to the console that may be helpful in debugging a failing test. An example of being fragile is, if you change the logging statement to add more info or maybe you add another logging statement to the method, this test could break for no good reason. At the very least don't assert the number of times called as this will be extremely fragile.

All of that said, if you must test the interactions with the Logging framework - here is a modified version of your code that runs and provides the same functionality. This is basically option #3 from the list of improvements -

package com.spring.mockito;

import static org.mockito.Mockito.spy;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.times;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.when;

import org.apache.log4j.Logger;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.mockito.Mock;
import org.mockito.Mockito;
import org.mockito.runners.MockitoJUnitRunner;

import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class AppTest {

    // create a mock of the logger
    @Mock
    private Logger logger;

    private App uut;

    // Not needed - dont test something that gets called through something else
    // @Captor
    // private ArgumentCaptor<LoggingEvent> captorLoggingEvent;

    @Before
    public void setup() {
        // spy the class under test so we can override the logger method to return our mock logger
        uut = spy(new App());
        when(uut.logger()).thenReturn(logger);

        // Not needed test with the mock directly.
        // Logger root = Logger.getRootLogger();
        // root.addAppender(mockAppender);
        // root.setLevel(Level.DEBUG);
    }

    /**
     * I want to test with over 3 elements.
     */
    @Test
    public void testWithOver3Element() {
        List<String> myList = Arrays.asList("value 1", "value 2", "value 3", "value 4");

        List<String> outputList = uut.addToListIfSizeIsUnder3(myList, "some value");

        Assert.assertEquals(4, outputList.size());
        Assert.assertFalse(myList.contains("some value"));
        verify(logger, times(1)).debug("The list already has {} entries4");

        // not needed
        // try {
        // verify(mockAppender, times(1)).doAppend(captorLoggingEvent.capture());
        // } catch (AssertionError e) {
        // e.printStackTrace();
        // }
        //
        // LoggingEvent loggingEvent = captorLoggingEvent.getAllValues().get(0);
        // Assert.assertEquals("The list already has {} entries", loggingEvent.getMessage());
        // Assert.assertEquals(Level.DEBUG, loggingEvent.getLevel());
    }

    public static class App {
        private static final Logger LOGGER = Logger.getLogger(App.class);

        public List<String> addToListIfSizeIsUnder3(final List<String> list, final String value) {
            if (list == null) {
                logger().error("A null list was passed in");
                return null;
            }
            if (list.size() < 3) {
                list.add(value);
            } else {
                // if you use slf4j this concatenation is not needed
                logger().debug("The list already has {} entries" + list.size());
            }
            return list;
        }

        // make a package private method for testing purposes to allow you to inject a mock
        Logger logger() {
            return LOGGER;
        }
    }
}

You can also look at packages like PowerMockito for mocking statics - but only if absolutely needed.

Hope this helps.

HTTP Error 415 Unsupported media type - means that you send the data which is not supported by the service. In this case it means that you don't set the Content-Type header and actual content in the request. I suppose the JSON is expected content, so your call should look like this:

this.mockMvc.perform(post("/payment").contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
    .content("{\"json\":\"request to be send\"}"))
    .andExpect(status().isOk())
    .and_the_rest_of_validation_part

@Mock creates a mock. @InjectMocks creates an instance of the class and injects the mocks that are created with the @Mock (or @Spy) annotations into this instance.

Note you must use @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) or Mockito.initMocks(this) to initialize these mocks and inject them (JUnit 4).

With JUnit 5, you must use @ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class).

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) // JUnit 4
// @ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class) for JUnit 5
public class SomeManagerTest {

    @InjectMocks
    private SomeManager someManager;

    @Mock
    private SomeDependency someDependency; // this will be injected into someManager
 
     // tests...

}

The javax:javaee-api is intended for compiling, not running, including unit tests. If you need classes suitable for running against, run against a Java EE application server.

Also, the correct name is Java EE, not JEE.