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

You can just write

verify(service).perform((Collection<String>) Matchers.argThat(contains("a", "b")));

From the compiler's point of view, this is casting an Iterable<String> to a Collection<String> which is fine, because the latter is a subtype of the former. At run time, argThat will return null, so that can be passed to perform without a ClassCastException. The important point about it is that the matcher gets onto Mockito's internal structure of arguments for verification, which is what argThat does.

In JUnit, Parameterized tests use a special runner that ensure that the test is instantiated multiple times, so each test method is called multiple times. Mockito is a tool for writing specific unit tests, so there is no built-in ability to run the same test multiple times with different Mockito expectations.

If you want your test conditions to change, your best bet is to do one of the following:

• Parameterize your test using JUnit, with a parameter for the mock inputs you want;
• Run a loop of different parameters in your test, which unfortunately avoids the "test one thing per method" philosophy
• Extract a method that actually performs the test, and create a new @Test method for each mock you want.

Note that there's no prohibition on using mock objects as @Parameterized test parameters. If you're looking to parameterize based on mocks, you can do that, possibly creating the mock and setting the expectations in a static method on the test.

Note about runners: This Parameterized test runner conflicts with Mockito's MockitoJUnitRunner: Each test class can only have one runner. You'll want to switch to @Before and @After methods or a Mockito JUnit4 rule for your setup, if you use them both.

As an example, compressed from a different answer that explains more about Parameterized runners versus JUnit rules and lifting from the JUnit4 Parameterized Test doc page and MockitoRule doc page:

@RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class YourComponentTest {
    @Rule public MockitoRule rule = MockitoJUnit.rule();
    @Mock YourDep mockYourDep;

    @Parameters public static Collection<Object[]> data() { /* Return the values */ }

    public YourComponentTest(Parameter parameter) { /* Save the parameter to a field */ }

    @Test public void test() { /* Use the field value in assertions */ }
}

To to this, you can use PowerMockito.spy(...) and PowerMockito.doReturn(...).

Moreover, you have to specify the PowerMock runner at your test class, and prepare the class for testing, as follows:

@PrepareForTest(Util.class)
@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class UtilTest {

   @Test
   public void testMethod() throws Exception {
      PowerMockito.spy(Util.class);
      PowerMockito.doReturn("abc").when(Util.class, "anotherMethod");

      String retrieved = Util.method();

      Assert.assertNotNull(retrieved);
      Assert.assertEquals(retrieved, "abc");
   }
}

Hope it helps you.

Fail the test if an exception is caught.

@Test
public void testGetBalanceForPerson() {

   // creating mock person
   Person person1 = mock(Person.class);
   when(person1.getId()).thenReturn("mockedId");

   // calling method under test
   try {
      myClass.getBalanceForPerson(person1);
   } catch(Exception e) {
      fail("Should not have thrown any exception");
   }
}

The rule S2699 (Tests should include assertions) from the SonarQube Java Analyzer does not perform cross-procedural analysis and only explore body of methods being identified as test method (usually annotated with @Test).

Consequently, if the only assertions which will be called when executing the test method are done by a dedicated method (to avoid duplication), then the rule will raise an issue. This is a known limitation of the rule and we will deal with it only when we will be able to efficiently perform cross-procedural analysis.

Regarding the issues raised by SonarQube on such cases, you can safely mark them as Won't Fix.

Regarding the detected assertions, the rule consider as assertions the usual assert/fail/verify/expect methods from the following (unit test) frameworks :

• JUnit
• Fest (1.x & 2.x)
• AssertJ
• Hamcrest
• Mockito
• Spring
• EasyMock

org.mockito.runners.MockitoJUnitRunner is now indeed deprecated, you are supposed to use org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnitRunner instead. As you can see only the package name has changed, the simple name of the class is still MockitoJUnitRunner.

Excerpt from the javadoc of org.mockito.runners.MockitoJUnitRunner:

Moved to MockitoJUnitRunner, this class will be removed with Mockito 3

It turns out it's not as circumvent as I thought. It can be done using a custom Answer implementation, but since Answer is a functional interface, the following suffices:

Mockito.when(myIterable.spliterator()).then(invocation -> Arrays.spliterator(values));

Update Sep 2019: The only mocking framework supported (by default) by Spring Boot is Mockito. If you use Spring, the answer is quite obvious.

I'd say the competition is between JMockit and PowerMock, then Mockito.

I'd leave "plain" jMock and EasyMock because they use only proxy & CGLIB and do not use Java 5 instrumentation like the newer frameworks.

jMock also didn't have a stable release for over 4 years. jMock 2.6.0 required 2 years to go from RC1 to RC2, and then another 2 years before it actually got released.

Regarding Proxy & CGLIB vs instrumentation:

(EasyMock and jMock) are based on java.lang.reflect.Proxy, which requires an interface to be implemented. Additionally, they support the creation of mock objects for classes through CGLIB subclass generation. Because of that, said classes cannot be final and only overridable instance methods can be mocked. Most importantly, however, when using these tools the dependencies of code under test (that is, the objects of other classes on which a given class under test depends) must be controlled by the tests, so that mock instances can be passed to the clients of those dependencies. Therefore, dependencies can't simply be instantiated with the new operator in a client class for which we want to write unit tests.

Ultimately, the technical limitations of conventional mocking tools impose the following design restrictions on production code:

1. Each class which may need to be mocked in a test must either implement a separate interface or not be final.
2. The dependencies of each class to be tested must either be obtained through configurable instance creation methods (factories or a Service Locator), or be exposed for dependency injection. Otherwise, unit tests won't be able to pass mock implementations of dependencies to the unit under test.
3. Since only instance methods can be mocked, classes to be unit tested cannot call any static methods on their dependencies, nor instantiate them using any of the constructors.

The above is copied from http://jmockit.org/about.html . Further, it compares between itself (JMockit), PowerMock, and Mockito in several ways:

There are now other mocking tools for Java which also overcome the limitations of the conventional ones, between them PowerMock, jEasyTest, and MockInject. The one that comes closest to the feature set of JMockit is PowerMock, so I will briefly evaluate it here (besides, the other two are more limited and don't seem to be actively developed anymore).

JMockit vs PowerMock

• First of all, PowerMock does not provide a complete API for mocking, but instead works as an extension to another tool, which currently can be EasyMock or Mockito. This is obviously an advantage for existing users of those tools.
• JMockit, on the other hand, provides entirely new APIs, although its main API (Expectations) is similar to both EasyMock and jMock. While this creates a longer learning curve, it also allows JMockit to provide a simpler, more consistent, and easier to use API.
• Compared to the JMockit Expectations API, the PowerMock API is more "low-level", forcing users to figure out and specify which classes need to be prepared for testing (with the @PrepareForTest({ClassA.class, ...}) annotation) and requiring specific API calls to deal with various kinds of language constructs that may be present in the production code: static methods (mockStatic(ClassA.class)), constructors (suppress(constructor(ClassXyz.class))), constructor invocations (expectNew(AClass.class)), partial mocks (createPartialMock(ClassX.class, "methodToMock")), etc.
• With JMockit Expectations, all kinds of methods and constructors are mocked in a purely declarative way, with partial mocking specified through regular expressions in the @Mocked annotation or by simply "un-mocking" the members with no recorded expectations; that is, the developer simply declares some shared "mock fields" for the test class, or some "local mock fields" and/or "mock parameters" for individual test methods (and in this last case the @Mocked annotation often won't be needed).
• Some capabilities available in JMockit, such as support for mocking equals and hashCode, overridden methods, and others, are currently not supported in PowerMock. Also, there is no equivalent to JMockit's ability to capture instances and mock implementations of specified base types as the test executes, without the test code itself having any knowledge of the actual implementation classes.
• PowerMock uses custom class loaders (usually one per test class) in order to generate modified versions of the mocked classes. Such heavy use of custom class loaders can lead to conflicts with third-party libraries, hence the need to sometimes use the @PowerMockIgnore("package.to.be.ignored") annotation on test classes.
• The mechanism used by JMockit (runtime instrumentation through a "Java agent") is simpler and safer, although it does require passing a "-javaagent" parameter to the JVM when developing on JDK 1.5; on JDK 1.6+ (which can always be used for development, even if deploying on an older version) there is no such requirement, since JMockit can transparently load the Java agent on demand by using the Attach API.

Another recent mocking tool is Mockito. Although it does not attempt to overcome the limitations of older tools (jMock, EasyMock), it does introduce a new style of behavior testing with mocks. JMockit also supports this alternative style, through the Verifications API.

JMockit vs Mockito

• Mockito relies on explicit calls to its API in order to separate code between the record (when(...)) and verify (verify(...)) phases. This means that any invocation to a mock object in test code will also require a call to the mocking API. Additionally, this will often lead to repetitive when(...) and verify(mock)... calls.
• With JMockit, no similar calls exist. Sure, we have the new NonStrictExpectations() and new Verifications() constructor calls, but they occur only once per test (typically), and are completely separate from the invocations to mocked methods and constructors.
• The Mockito API contains several inconsistencies in the syntax used for invocations to mocked methods. In the record phase, we have calls like when(mock.mockedMethod(args))... while in the verify phase this same call will be written as verify(mock).mockedMethod(args). Notice that in the first case the invocation to mockedMethod is made directly on the mock object, while in the second case it is made on the object returned by verify(mock).
• JMockit has no such inconsistencies because invocations to mocked methods are always made directly on the mocked instances themselves. (With one exception only: to match invocations on the same mocked instance, an onInstance(mock) call is used, resulting in code like onInstance(mock).mockedMethod(args); most tests won't need to use this, though.)
• Just like other mocking tools which rely on method chaining/wrapping, Mockito also runs into inconsistent syntax when stubbing void methods. For example, you write when(mockedList.get(1)).thenThrow(new RuntimeException()); for a non-void method, and doThrow(new RuntimeException()).when(mockedList).clear(); for a void one. With JMockit, it's always the same syntax: mockedList.clear(); result = new RuntimeException();.
• Yet another inconsistency occurs in the use of Mockito spies: "mocks" that allow the real methods to be executed on the spied instance. For example, if spy refers to an empty List, then instead of writing when(spy.get(0)).thenReturn("foo") you will need to write doReturn("foo").when(spy).get(0). With JMockit, the dynamic mocking feature provides similar functionality to spies, but without this issue since real methods only get executed during the replay phase.
• In EasyMock and jMock, the first mocking APIs for Java, the focus was entirely on the recording of expected invocations of mocked methods, for mock objects that (by default) do not allow unexpected invocations. Those APIs also provide the recording of allowed invocations for mock objects that do allow unexpected invocations, but this was treated as a second-class feature. Additionally, with these tools there is no way to explicitly verify invocations to mocks after the code under test is exercised. All such verifications are performed implicitly and automatically.
• In Mockito (and also in Unitils Mock), the opposite viewpoint is taken. All invocations to mock objects that may happen during the test, whether recorded or not, are allowed, never expected. Verification is performed explicitly after the code under test is exercised, never automatically.
• Both approaches are too extreme, and consequently less than optimal. JMockit Expectations & Verifications is the only API that allows the developer to seamlessly choose the best combination of strict (expected by default) and non-strict (allowed by default) mock invocations for each test.
• To be more clear, the Mockito API has the following shortcoming. If you need to verify that an invocation to a non-void mocked method happened during the test, but the test requires a return value from that method that is different from the default for the return type, then the Mockito test will have duplicate code: a when(mock.someMethod()).thenReturn(xyz) call in the record phase, and a verify(mock).someMethod() in the verify phase. With JMockit, a strict expectation can always be recorded, which won't have to be explicitly verified. Alternatively, an invocation count constraint (times = 1) can be specified for any recorded non-strict expectation (with Mockito such constraints can only be specified in a verify(mock, constraint) call).
• Mockito has poor syntax for verifications in order, and for full verifications (that is, checking that all invocations to mock objects are explicitly verified). In the first case, an extra object needs to be created, and calls to verify made on it: InOrder inOrder = inOrder(mock1, mock2, ...). In the second case, calls like verifyNoMoreInteractions(mock) or verifyZeroInteractions(mock1, mock2) need to be made.
• With JMockit, you simply write new VerificationsInOrder() or new FullVerifications() instead of new Verifications() (or new FullVerificationsInOrder() to combine both requirements). No need to specify which mock objects are involved. No extra mocking API calls. And as a bonus, by calling unverifiedInvocations() inside an ordered verification block, you can perform order-related verifications that are simply impossible in Mockito.

Finally, the JMockit Testing Toolkit has a wider scope and more ambitious goals than other mocking toolkits, in order to provide a complete and sophisticated developer testing solution. A good API for mocking, even without artificial limitations, is not enough for productive creation of tests. An IDE-agnostic, easy to use, and well integrated Code Coverage tool is also essential, and that's what JMockit Coverage aims to provide. Another piece of the developer testing toolset which will become more useful as the test suite grows in size is the ability to incrementally rerun tests after a localized change to production code; this is also included in the Coverage tool.

(granted, the source may be biased, but well...)

I'd say go with JMockit. It's the easiest to use, flexible, and works for pretty much all cases even difficult ones and scenarios when you can't control the class to be tested (or you can't break it due to compatibility reasons etc.).

My experiences with JMockit have been very positive.

Mockito mock works when we mock the objects loosely.

Here is the change i have made to make it work:

when(controlWfDefTypeService.getDqCntlWfDefnTypCd(any(DqCntlWfDefn.class))
    .thenReturn(dqCntlWfDefnTyp);

Instead of passing the object of the Mock class, I passed the class with the Matcher any() and it works.