How to use printFooter method of org.mockito.internal.debugging.VerboseMockInvocationLogger class

The Mockito documentation repeatedly says it is often redundant. This appears verbatim both in verify(T)'s Javadoc as multiple single-line comments in the code block in Mockito's main class Javadoc section 2:

Although it is possible to verify a stubbed invocation, usually it's just redundant. If your code cares what get(0) returns, then something else breaks (often even before verify() gets executed). If your code doesn't care what get(0) returns, then it should not be stubbed. Not convinced? See here.

Note that the originally linked article, "Asking and Telling", was written by Mockito originator Szczepan Faber and can be considered an authoritative document in Mockito's design. To excerpt from that post:

Do I really have to repeat the same expression? After all, stubbed interactions are verified implicitly. The execution flow of my own code does it completely for free. Aaron Jensen also noticed that:

If you’re verifying you don’t need to stub unless of course that method returns something that is critical to the flow of your test (or code), in which case you don’t really need to verify, because the flow would have verified.

Just to recap: there is no repeated code.

But what if an interesting interaction shares the characteristic of both asking and telling? Do I have to repeat interactions in stub() and verify()? Will I end up with duplicated code? Not really. In practice: If I stub then it is verified for free, so I don’t verify. If I verify then I don’t care about the return value, so I don’t stub. Either way, I don’t repeat myself. In theory though, I can imagine a rare case where I do verify a stubbed interaction, for example to make sure the stubbed interaction happened exactly n times. But this is a different aspect of behavior and apparently an interesting one. Therefore I want to be explicit and I am perfectly happy to sacrifice one extra line of code…

Recent versions of Mockito (released since this Q&A was posted) have added some additional features that allow or default to stricter mocking styles. Despite this, the prevailing expectation is to avoid brittleness by only verifying what you can't confirm through assertions or successful test completion.

Overall, Mockito's design is to allow tests to be as flexible as possible, coding not to the implementation but instead to the spec of the method you're testing. Though you'll occasionally see a method call as part of a function's spec ("Submits an RPC to the server" or "Calls the passed LoginCallback immediately"), it's much more likely that you'll want to validate the postconditions that you can infer from the stubs: Checking that getFoo was called isn't really a part of the spec as long as you stubbed getFoo to return "foo" and the data store contains a single object with its corresponding property set to "foo".

In short, it is considered good Mockito style to explicitly verify only the interactions that can't be implied from well-crafted stubs and postcondition assertions. They may be good calls for otherwise-unmeasurable side effects—logging code, thread executors, ArgumentCaptors, multiple method calls, callback functions—but generally should not be applied to stubbed interactions.

The thenReturn method will always return what is passed to it. The code new Servicemock() is being executed prior to the call to thenReturn. The created ServiceMock is then being passed to thenReturn. Therefore thenReturn has a absolute instance of ServiceMock not a creation mechanism.

If you need to provide an new instance, use thenAnswer

when(mockedMergeContext.createNewEntityOfType(IService.class))
  .thenAnswer(new Answer<IService>() {
     public IService answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
        return new ServiceMock();
     }
   });

You may have some trouble with any or argThat for primitive-type arguments to when and verify. Those Object-centric methods do their work with side-effects correctly, but they tend to return null for a dummy return value, which doesn't work for Java unwrapping primitives via auto-boxing.

Luckily, the org.mockito.ArgumentMatchers class has a full complement of primitive-centric methods (of which I've listed the int methods here):

static int anyInt()
static int eq(int value)
static int intThat(org.hamcrest.ArgumentMatcher<java.lang.Integer> matcher)

See all of them at the documentation for the ArgumentMatchers class.

(This pretty much helped me figure it out)

Pretty simple solution (I almost had it right to begin with): I was missing a few PowerMockito dependency jars (from https://code.google.com/p/powermock/wiki/Downloads?tm=2): Specifically {cglib-nodep-2.2.2.jar, javssist-3.18.1-GA.jar, objenesis-2.1.jar}.

It was a simple solution and kinda dumb mistake to begin with in the 1st place, since that powerMock googleCode download page has all of them: At 1st, when I had the problem, I had only downloaded and added powermock-mockito-1.5.4-full.jar; I already had the JUnit & Mockito jars, so I think that set of 3 let me write PowerMock code without any compile errors in Eclipse. The googlecode download page has the powermockito jar + dependecies in a zip, but also said powerockito jar available alone too. That situation made it kinda hard to realize I was missing some others since it appeared I had all I need from that perspective (thought I already had the dependencies I needed per my existing JUnit and Mockito jars).

In actuality, the zip with dependencies had the additional ones I needed to solve the problem. I should have double-checked that 1st, but didn't realize I made the opposite bad assumption.

So... answer is to make sure to get the zip with all dependencies [and add them all to your buildpath]. Kinda obvious and dumb in my part in the end, but hey, a lot of software bugs and problems end up being that: Simple bad assumptions or overlooked details we don't realize we made, and therefore take a while to realize when troubleshooting...

Junit will only run methods annotated with @Test, so add it

@Test
public void getserviceTest () {
    QAService qasmock = mock(QAService.class);
    when(qasmock.getServiceInfo()).thenReturn("50");
    String expected = "50";
    assertEquals(expected, qasmock.getServiceInfo());
}

Also, you should verify() that your mock expectations actually happened.

verify(qasmock, times(1)).getServiceInfo();

Note that it seems like you want to test QAService, but you really aren't doing that here. You are simply testing a mock. That's not the same thing.

Create the QAService object yourself and use it.

You are misunderstanding what a mock is.

When you are mocking MyClass1, the inner field of type MyInnerClass doesn't exist anymore for the mocked object. As such, it doesn't make sense to try to inject something into a mock.

A mock is controlled by saying what it should do when you interact with it. You stub its public methods to do what you want them to do. You give behaviour. The only default behaviour (maybe specific to Mockito) is to return null if you didn't configure the mock (but do note that it doesn't return null because some internal variable is null, it returns that because Mockito decided that that's what it should return; maybe another mocking framework decided that it should throw an exception instead, who knows?).

As an example, consider that your real class is:

class MyClass1 {
    private MyInnerClass myInnerClass;
    public MyInnerClass getMyInnerClass() {
        return myInnerClass;
    }
}

Now consider mock a mock of that class. If you call mock.getMyInnerClass(), it is not the real method that is going to be called. What it will return is not the value of myInnerClass. It will return null, or if you have stubbed that method with

when(mock.getMyInnerClass()).thenReturn(something);

then it will return something.

So to answer your question: you can't do that because that's not how mocks work.

I had this issue and my problem was that I was calling my method with any() instead of anyInt(). So I had:

doAnswer(...).with(myMockObject).thisFuncTakesAnInt(any())

and I had to change it to:

doAnswer(...).with(myMockObject).thisFuncTakesAnInt(anyInt())

I have no idea why that produced a NullPointerException. Maybe this will help the next poor soul.

Since Mockito 1.9.5+ and Java 8+

You can use a lambda expression, like:

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

Where i is an instance of InvocationOnMock.

For older versions

You can create an Answer in Mockito. Let's assume, we have an interface named MyInterface with a method myFunction.

public interface MyInterface {
    public String myFunction(String abc);
}

Here is the test method with a Mockito answer:

public void testMyFunction() throws Exception {
    MyInterface mock = mock(MyInterface.class);
    when(mock.myFunction(anyString())).thenAnswer(new Answer<String>() {
    @Override
    public String answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
        Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
        return (String) args[0];
    }
    });

    assertEquals("someString",mock.myFunction("someString"));
    assertEquals("anotherString",mock.myFunction("anotherString"));
}

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".