How to use createTooFewInvocationsMessage method of org.mockito.internal.exceptions.Reporter class

You need to first mock the class containing selectSomethingBySomething() and then record this behavior. In mockito you'll say:

SomeDao someDaoMock = mock(SomeDao.class);

willThrow(new SQLException())).given(someDaoMock).selectSomethingBySomething();

Then inject someDaoMock into your class under test and when it calls someDaoMock.selectSomethingBySomething() it'll throw previously chosen exception.

You kindda touch the entire Test strategy needed for your application. Testing is not only about coverage and layers. As example:

we want to ensure using testing that future addition to the code won't break nothing that was previously working, to do this we are using unit testing(mockito) and integration testing (spring-test,spring-test-mvc).

this is how you actually support Regression testing, which is a type. If we look at the (detailed) Test pyramid

it's easy to see that the integration tests take good portion (recommended 5-15%). Integration goes cross-layer, but also cross-componentAPIs. It's natural that your business components will live in same layer, but you still need to assure that they are working as expected with each other too. Having mSOA will push you to support such extensive interfaces integration testing.

I agree with you on this one

Integration test is different story and very debatable

Some experts even suggest that you have to keep only unit tests and the GUI E2E ones. IMHO there are no strict best practices - only good ones. If you are happy with the trade-offs, use what ever suits your case.

I feel sometimes we repeat the same test scenario but now using the real system. Does this practice really make sense or in which scenarios this makes sense ? If we already have 100% test coverage in the class with unit testing why we need IT for this one, seems that we have this only to ensure real component is going to start-up ? Make sense to have all the same scenarios or which is a good criteria to decide?

It looks like you need to draw a line in those scenarios. Keeping the long story short - unit testing and Mock objects go together naturally. Component tests will require some real system behavior, it can be used to check the handling of data passed between various units, or subsystem components - like your component/service DB or messaging that is not an unit level task.

from the controller layer, which it means invoke the REST services and verify the JSON output. This is enough ?, We don't need to verify more things in the others layers ?. I know calling the real REST api will use underneath all the layers (controller, service, dao) but this is enough ?

Not quite true - testing the presentation layer will exercise the underlying layers too ... so why bother with all the rest of the testing? If you are OK with such approach - Selenium team suggests such DB validation approach.

If you're talking about Beans and ViewHelpers here

we have a helper class I don't think make sense to have unit and IT, as most of the method as there for only one purpose I think unit testing will be enough here, does you think the same?.

you'll need both unit and IT, because all the reasons valid for other components. Having Single responsibility doesn't deny need of IT testing.

make the unit testing in some cases is extremely difficult, this is a valid justification?

Same goes for all your encapsulated private (and static) classes, methods, properties etc. But there is a way of testing those as well - like reflection. This of course is for a special case of unit testing legacy code or an API you can't change. If you needed it for your own code, maybe this lack of testability points to a design smell.

According to https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/mockito/9WUvkhZUy90, you should rephrase your

when(bar.getFoo()).thenReturn(fooBar)

to

doReturn(fooBar).when(bar).getFoo()

I think this happens because mockito doesn't know the semantic meaning of isEmpty() and when it encounters a boolean method mocks it with a default value that is false. Same think happens with size() but the default value here is 0.

Basically, you need to define the expected behaviour of your mocked object. If you don't, it will return default values.

The maven surefire plugin also needs to read the files as UTF-8 otherwise it wont do it :). I had tried something like this before but with the wrong Element in <configuration/>...

Proper configuration:

<plugin>
    <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
    <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
    <configuration>
        <argLine>-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8</argLine>
    </configuration>
</plugin>

Two more ways to do it (see my comment on the previous answer by @Tomasz Nurkiewicz):

The first relies on the fact that the compiler simply won't let you pass in something of the wrong type:

when(a.method(any(Class.class))).thenReturn(b);

You lose the exact typing (the Class<? extends A>) but it probably works as you need it to.

The second is a lot more involved but is arguably a better solution if you really want to be sure that the argument to method() is an A or a subclass of A:

when(a.method(Matchers.argThat(new ClassOrSubclassMatcher<A>(A.class)))).thenReturn(b);

Where ClassOrSubclassMatcher is an org.hamcrest.BaseMatcher defined as:

public class ClassOrSubclassMatcher<T> extends BaseMatcher<Class<T>> {

    private final Class<T> targetClass;

    public ClassOrSubclassMatcher(Class<T> targetClass) {
        this.targetClass = targetClass;
    }

    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
    public boolean matches(Object obj) {
        if (obj != null) {
            if (obj instanceof Class) {
                return targetClass.isAssignableFrom((Class<T>) obj);
            }
        }
        return false;
    }

    public void describeTo(Description desc) {
        desc.appendText("Matches a class or subclass");
    }       
}

Phew! I'd go with the first option until you really need to get finer control over what method() actually returns :-)

There is a couple options:

1. Cast it
2. Use @Mock annotation

Examples:

Set<String> mySet = (Set<String>) mock(Set.class);

--or--

@Mock
private Set<String> mySet;

@Before
public void doBefore() throws Exception {
    MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this.getClass()); //this should create mocks for your objects...
}

I think it should be

verify(mockBar, times(2)).doSomething(...)

Sample from mockito javadoc:

ArgumentCaptor<Person> peopleCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Person.class);
verify(mock, times(2)).doSomething(peopleCaptor.capture());

List<Person> capturedPeople = peopleCaptor.getAllValues();
assertEquals("John", capturedPeople.get(0).getName());
assertEquals("Jane", capturedPeople.get(1).getName());

As I can see from your dependencies you are using the Jack$Jill compiler of android studio to use lambda expressions. I would rather suggest using retrolambda. You can checkout this post for more info on how to configure from this link.

Benifits of retrolambda:

You can use it also with build tool version bellow than 24.0.0 which is not the case with jack compiler.

And as suggested above this issue seems fixed in retrolambda.