How to use isUsingConstructor method of org.mockito.internal.creation.settings.CreationSettings class

Well, the right way to do this would be:

import org.mockito.AdditionalAnswers;

String[] logEntry = // Some initialization code
List<String> logEntryList = Arrays.asList(logEntry);
when(tuple.getString(1)).thenAnswer(AdditionalAnswers.returnsElementsOf(logEntryList));

On each invocation, successive elements of logEntry array are returned. Thus, ith invocation of tuple.getString(1) returns ith element of logEntry array.

P.S: The example in documentation of returnsElementsOf (as of this writing) is not updated (it still uses ReturnsElementsOf example): #returnsElementsOf(java.util.Collection)it

Not possible through mockito. From their wiki

Why Mockito doesn't mock private methods?

Firstly, we are not dogmatic about mocking private methods. We just don't care about private methods because from the standpoint of testing private methods don't exist. Here are a couple of reasons Mockito doesn't mock private methods:

It requires hacking of classloaders that is never bullet proof and it changes the api (you must use custom test runner, annotate the class, etc.).

It is very easy to work around - just change the visibility of method from private to package-protected (or protected).

It requires me to spend time implementing & maintaining it. And it does not make sense given point #2 and a fact that it is already implemented in different tool (powermock).

Finally... Mocking private methods is a hint that there is something wrong with OO understanding. In OO you want objects (or roles) to collaborate, not methods. Forget about pascal & procedural code. Think in objects.

Question 1 - You've got a couple of options here.

Option 1 - write separate tests for each behaviour of each public method, based on what is required for that behaviour. This keeps each test clean and separate, but it does mean that the logic in the secondary methods (such as checkIfUsernameExists) will be exercised twice. In a sense, this is unnecessary duplication, but one advantage of this option is that if you change the implementation, but not the required behaviour, you'll still have good tests based on the behaviour.

Option 2 - use a Mockito Spy. This is a little like a mock, except that you create it from a real object, and the default behaviour of it is that all the methods run as usual. You can then stub out and verify the secondary methods, in order to test the methods that call them.

Question 2 - This looks like a good test for the "success" case of registerNewAccount. Please think about what circumstances would cause registerNewAccount to fail and return false; and test this case.

Question 3 - I haven't had a good look at this; but try running with the debugger, and find out at which point your objects differ from what you expect. If you can't work it out, post again and I'll have another look.

Question 4 - To test the negative case, stub your mock of the AccountDao to throw the required exception. Otherwise, see my answers for question 1.

Figured out.

The method being called was a parameterized method, but could not infer the parameter type from the matcher argument (the last argument was of type Class).

Making the explicit call

when(restTemplate.<Long>exchange(isA(URI.class),eq(HttpMethod.POST),isA(HttpEntity.class), eq(Long.class))).thenThrow(new RestClientException(EXCEPTION_MESSAGE));

fixed my problem.

Answer is as below.

After consulting here http://code.google.com/p/powermock/issues/detail?id=278 , in fact Adder.add(12) above is part of setting up mock static method. It means when invoking Adder.add() with argument 12, IOException will be thrown. It is hard to understand, right? :) So it should be written as below.

PowerMockito.mockStatic(Adder.class);
PowerMockito.doThrow(new IOException()).when(Adder.class);
Adder.add(anyInt());

EDIT:
Link is dead, try Internet Archive one instead.

From the Mockito FAQ:

What are the limitations of Mockito

• Cannot mock final methods - their real behavior is executed without any exception. Mockito cannot warn you about mocking final methods so be vigilant.

It should be something like

@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
public class aTest () {

    @Mock
    private B b;

    @Mock
    private C c;

    @Autowired
    @InjectMocks
    private A a;

}

If you want D to be Autowired dont need to do anything in your Test class. Your Autowired A should have correct instance of D. Also i think you need to use SpringJUnit4ClassRunner for Autowiring to work, with contextConfiguration set correctly. Because you are not using MockitoJunitRunner you need to initialize your mocks yourself using

MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(java.lang.Object testClass)

You are reusing your context, in order to have tests independent from one another you probably need to refresh your context after each test to reset everything.

I will suppose you are using Junit 4.5+. It would be similar with other test frameworks.

@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
@ContextConfiguration(locations={"mycontext.xml"})
@DirtiesContext(classMode = ClassMode.AFTER_EACH_TEST_METHOD)
public class MyTestClass {
...
    // my tests    
...
}

You can put the @DirtiesContext at the method level if the methods that need "fixing" are few, but if you are using Spring your best option is to do it after every test.

Anyway, I don't think you should be using mocks/spies in integration tests:

• In unit tests, use mocks (if you want) and inject manually. Here you want to verify the behaviour of your tested bean as a unit, so you isolate it from the rest by using mocks. This also has the advantage that JUnit isolates your tests by using a different instance of the test class for each test, so unless you use static or other test-unfriendly practices everything will just work.

• In integration tests, use real beans and let Spring inject. Here the goal is to verify that beans interact well with one another / with the environment (database, network, ...) You do not want to isolate beans here, so you should not use mocks.

See Spring documentation about testing for more detailed explanations.

The best solution I have found is to reverse the order of the stubs:

Map<String, String> map = mock(Map.class);
when(map.get(anyString())).thenReturn("I don't know that string");
when(map.get("abcd")).thenReturn("defg");
when(map.get("defg")).thenReturn("ghij");

When the default is to throw an exception you can just use doThrow and doReturn

doThrow(new RuntimeException()).when(map).get(anyString());
doReturn("defg").when(map).get("abcd");
doReturn("ghij").when(map).get("defg");

https://static.javadoc.io/org.mockito/mockito-core/2.18.3/org/mockito/Mockito.html#12