How to use should_handle_missing_or_inconsistent_stack_trace method of org.mockito.internal.creation.bytebuddy.InlineDelegateByteBuddyMockMakerTest class

Mockito has an isNull matcher, where you can pass in the name of the class. So if you need to use it with other matchers, the correct thing to do is

verify(client).method(eq("String"),isNull(Class<?>.class));

This is now deprecated, see the answer below for the new method - https://stackoverflow.com/a/41250852/1348

I've never used Mockito, but want to learn, so here goes. If someone less clueless than me answers, try their answer first!

Mockito.when(reader.document(anyInt())).thenAnswer(new Answer() {
 public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
     Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
     Object mock = invocation.getMock();
     return document(fakeIndex((int)(Integer)args[0]));
     }
 });

With PowerMock you can mock constructors. See example

I'm not with an IDE right now, but would be something like this:

  UserQueries userQueries = PowerMockito.mock(UserQueries.class);
  PowerMockito.whenNew(UserQueries.class).withArguments(Mockito.any(CrudService.class)).thenReturn(userQueries);

You need to run your test with PowerMockRunner (add these annotations to your test class):

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest(UserQueries .class)

If you cannot use PowerMock, you have to inject a factory, as it says @Briggo answer.

Hope it helps

From what I read on "Issue 53" of mockito (https://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=53) , my code was experiencing a problem due to the validation framework involved in Mockito. Precisely the following code was causing the exception per se.

private ConstantNode getConstantNode(NumericalValue value){
    ConstantNode node = Mockito.mock(ConstantNode.class);
    Mockito.when(node.evaluate()).thenReturn(value);
    Mockito.when(node.toString()).thenReturn(value.toString());
    return node;
}

If you remember from my code, the parameter value is ALSO A MOCK, so that when value.toString() is called on the thenReturn(), I believe (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that the validation framework is triggered and makes sure that every "when" has had its thenReturn() called/validated/etc. So that if this happenes, the Mockito.when(node.toString()).thenReturn(value.toString() will not be validated because it hasn´t returned from the valute.toString(), which started the whole "validate everything" chain.

How I fixed it:

private ConstantNode getConstantNode(NumericalValue value){
    ConstantNode node = Mockito.mock(ConstantNode.class);
    Mockito.when(node.evaluate()).thenReturn(value);

    String numberToString = value.toString();

    Mockito.when(node.toString()).thenReturn(numberToString);
    return node;
}

This way, it can be validated. I find this a complete code smell because I will literally have to leave a comment that explains why I am using a seemingly useless intermediate variable in the code.

Thanks for the help.

You simply forgot to add the dependencies to your project which are according to the pom file:

<dependency>
  <groupId>net.bytebuddy</groupId>
  <artifactId>byte-buddy</artifactId>
  <version>1.3.16</version>
  <scope>runtime</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
  <groupId>org.objenesis</groupId>
  <artifactId>objenesis</artifactId>
  <version>2.1</version>
  <scope>runtime</scope>
</dependency>

In other words you need to add byte-buddy 1.3.16 and objenesis 2.1 to your project too.

More details here

I would avoid it. Generally speaking, you should structure things as best you can to avoid needing to test private variables and stick with the interactions that the rest of the application will be exposed to. This is typically public methods/properties and protected methods by using fakes/doubles.

The purpose of the unit tests are to verify how the object under test is interacted with, not necessarily it's implementation details. Basically, with input x, I should get output/effect y. If you get hung up on testing exactly how x produces y, you run the risk of making your classes inflexible to change. Every refactor of your class is likely to break your tests, even if the output and end result is the same.

The first issue is that you have to use spyTemp object to expect something from Mockito. Here it is not the same as test. spyTemp is wrapped by the Mockito object temp.

Another issue is that you stub only methodB(), but you are trying to run methodA(). Yes in your implementation of methodA() you call methodB(), but you call this.methodB(), not spyTemp.methodB(). Here you have to understand that mocking would work only when you call it on the instance of temp. It's wrapped by a Mockito proxy which catches your call, and if you have overriden some method, it will call your new implementation instead of the original one. But since the original method is called, inside it you know nothing about Mockito proxy. So your "overriden" method would be called only when you run spyTemp.methodB()

This should work:

Mockito.doReturn(true).when(spyTemp).methodB(Mockito.any()); 
boolean status = spyTemp.methodA("XYZ");

I think your results are compatible with the result that would happen if dbCollection is not a Mockito-mock (or your method is static or final). That would mean that a matcher is being used where none can be used; hence the "0 matchers expected, 1 recorded".

What do you want it to do?

You can set it to RETURN_SMART_NULLS, which avoids the NPE and includes some useful info.

You could replace this with a custom implementation, for example, that throws an exception from its answer method:

@Test
public void test() {
    Object mock = Mockito.mock(Object.class, new NullPointerExceptionAnswer());
    String s = mock.toString(); // Breaks here, as intended.
    assertEquals("", s);
}

class NullPointerExceptionAnswer<T> implements Answer<T> {
    @Override
    public T answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
        throw new NullPointerException();
    }
}