How to use clears_all_mocks method of org.mockito.internal.framework.DefaultMockitoFrameworkTest class

You are mocking the object that you're testing. That makes no sense. You should create a real WithDefinitions object and call its real method to test it. If you mock it, by definition, all its methods are replaced by mock implementations that do nothing.

Replace

WithDefinitions withDefinitions = Mockito.mock(WithDefinitions.class);

by something like

WithDefinitions withDefinitions = new WithDefinitions();

Use @Spy annotation

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class DemoTest {
    @Spy
    private SomeService service = new RealServiceImpl();

    @InjectMocks
    private Demo demo;

    /* ... */
}

Mockito will consider all fields having @Mock or @Spy annotation as potential candidates to be injected into the instance annotated with @InjectMocks annotation. In the above case 'RealServiceImpl' instance will get injected into the 'demo'

For more details refer

Mockito-home

@Spy

@Mock

You can do that by instantiating your main class with parametrized constructor in your junit and then creating a spy from it.

Let's suppose your main class is A. Where B and C are its dependencies

public class A {

    private B b;

    private C c;

    public A(B b,C c)
    {
        this.b=b;
        this.c=c;
    }

    void method() {
        System.out.println("A's method called");
        b.method();
        c.method();
        System.out.println(method2());

    }

    protected int method2() {
        return 10;
    }
}

Then you can write junit for this using your parametrized class as below

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ATest {

    A a;

    @Mock
    B b;

    @Mock
    C c;

    @Test
    public void test() {
        a=new A(b, c);
        A spyA=Mockito.spy(a);

        doReturn(20).when(spyA).method2();

        spyA.method();
    }
}

Output of test class

A's method called
20

1. Here B and C are mocked object that you injected in your class A using parametrized constructor.
2. Then we created a spy of A called spyA.
3. We checked if spy is really working by modifying the return value of a protected method method2 in class A which could not have been possible if spyA was not an actual spy of A.

A unit test shouldn't use any Spring configuration. You should simply instantiate your component, and inject dependencies (usually fake ones) manually.

You used field injection, which makes it a bit harder. With constructor injection, all you would need to do is

Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(MyController.class);
MyController controller = new MyController(logger);

Mockito can help injecting fake dependencies for you, though, even when using field injection, thanks to the @Mock, @Spy and @InjectMocks annotations:

@Spy
private Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(MyController.class);

@InjectMocks
private MyController controller;

@Before
public void prepare() {
    MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
}

That said, if I'm not mistaken, you're not using @RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class), so your test runner doesn't know anything about Spring, and thus doesn't create or use any Spring configuration.

For the mocks initialization, using the runner or the MockitoAnnotations.initMocks are strictly equivalent solutions. From the javadoc of the MockitoJUnitRunner :

JUnit 4.5 runner initializes mocks annotated with Mock, so that explicit usage of MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(Object) is not necessary. Mocks are initialized before each test method.

The first solution (with the MockitoAnnotations.initMocks) could be used when you have already configured a specific runner (SpringJUnit4ClassRunner for example) on your test case.

The second solution (with the MockitoJUnitRunner) is the more classic and my favorite. The code is simpler. Using a runner provides the great advantage of automatic validation of framework usage (described by @David Wallace in this answer).

Both solutions allows to share the mocks (and spies) between the test methods. Coupled with the @InjectMocks, they allow to write unit tests very quickly. The boilerplate mocking code is reduced, the tests are easier to read. For example:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Mock private ArticleCalculator calculator;
    @Mock(name = "database") private ArticleDatabase dbMock;
    @Spy private UserProvider userProvider = new ConsumerUserProvider();

    @InjectMocks private ArticleManager manager;

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        manager.initiateArticle();
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        manager.finishArticle();
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: The code is minimal

Cons: Black magic. IMO it is mainly due to the @InjectMocks annotation. With this annotation "you loose the pain of code" (see the great comments of @Brice)

The third solution is to create your mock on each test method. It allow as explained by @mlk in its answer to have "self contained test".

public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        // given
        ArticleCalculator calculator = mock(ArticleCalculator.class);
        ArticleDatabase database = mock(ArticleDatabase.class);
        UserProvider userProvider = spy(new ConsumerUserProvider());
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.initiateArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        // given
        ArticleCalculator calculator = mock(ArticleCalculator.class);
        ArticleDatabase database = mock(ArticleDatabase.class);
        UserProvider userProvider = spy(new ConsumerUserProvider());
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.finishArticle();

        // then
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: You clearly demonstrate how your api works (BDD...)

Cons: there is more boilerplate code. (The mocks creation)

My recommandation is a compromise. Use the @Mock annotation with the @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class), but do not use the @InjectMocks :

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Mock private ArticleCalculator calculator;
    @Mock private ArticleDatabase database;
    @Spy private UserProvider userProvider = new ConsumerUserProvider();

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        // given
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.initiateArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        // given
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.finishArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: You clearly demonstrate how your api works (How my ArticleManager is instantiated). No boilerplate code.

Cons: The test is not self contained, less pain of code

You can do that:

doThrow(...).doNothing().when(mock).voidMethod();

(edit: use doNothing, as mentioned by @Rogério)

Well, you can mock the MethodSignature class, but I imagine you want to further mock that to return a Method class instance. Well, since Method is final, it cannot be extended, and therefore cannot be mocked. You should be able to create a bogus method in your test class to represent your 'mocked' method. I usually do it something like this:

import org.aspectj.lang.ProceedingJoinPoint;
import org.aspectj.lang.reflect.MethodSignature;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnitRunner;

import java.lang.reflect.Method;

import static org.mockito.Mockito.mock;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.when;

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyTest {
    AccountService accountService;

    @Test
    public void testMyMethod() {
        accountService = new AccountService();

        ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint = mock(ProceedingJoinPoint.class);
        MethodSignature signature = mock(MethodSignature.class);

        when(joinPoint.getTarget()).thenReturn(accountService);
        when(joinPoint.getSignature()).thenReturn(signature);
        when(signature.getMethod()).thenReturn(myMethod());
        //work with 'someMethod'...
    }

    public Method myMethod() {
        return getClass().getDeclaredMethod("someMethod");
    }

    public void someMethod() {
        //customize me to have these:
        //1. The parameters you want for your test
        //2. The return type you want for your test
        //3. The annotations you want for your test
    }
}

The problem with using RETURN_DEEP_STUBS is that you'll get a different mock each time you call a method. I think from your question that you want to use a default Answer that actually returns the mock on which it was called, for each method that has the right return type. This could look something like the following. Note that I haven't tested this, so it may contain typos, but I hope that the intention is clear in any case.

import static org.mockito.Mockito.RETURNS_DEFAULTS;
import org.mockito.invocation.InvocationOnMock;
import org.mockito.stubbing.Answer;

public class SelfReturningAnswer implements Answer<Object> {

    public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
        Object mock = invocation.getMock();
        if(invocation.getMethod().getReturnType().isInstance(mock)){
            return mock;
        }
        return RETURNS_DEFAULTS.answer(invocation);
    }
}

Then, when you create your mock, specify this as your default answer. This will make your mock return itself from each method that it can; but it will behave like an ordinary mock when you call a method whose return type is wrong for the mock.

Create your mock like this

Builder mockBuilder = mock( Builder.class, new SelfReturningAnswer());

or create a constant for this class and write something like

@Mock(answer = SELF_RETURNING) private Builder mockBuilder;

Hope that helps.

At my work we have recently put together a couple of test suites to test some RESTful APIs we built. Like your services, ours can invoke other RESTful APIs they depend on. We split it into two suites.

• Suite 1 - Testing each service in isolation
  • Mocks any peer services the API depends on using restito. Other alternatives include rest-driver, wiremock, pre-canned and betamax.
  • The tests, the service we are testing and the mocks all run in a single JVM
  • Launches the service we are testing in Jetty

I would definitely recommend doing this. It has worked really well for us. The main advantages are:

• Peer services are mocked, so you needn't perform any complicated data setup. Before each test you simply use restito to define how you want peer services to behave, just like you would with classes in unit tests with Mockito.
• The suite is super fast as mocked services serve pre-canned in-memory responses. So we can get good coverage without the suite taking an age to run.
• The suite is reliable and repeatable as its isolated in it's own JVM, so no need to worry about other suites/people mucking about with an shared environment at the same time the suite is running and causing tests to fail.

• Suite 2 - Full End to End
  • Suite runs against a full environment deployed across several machines
  • API deployed on Tomcat in environment
  • Peer services are real 'as live' full deployments

This suite requires us to do data set up in peer services which means tests generally take more time to write. As much as possible we use REST clients to do data set up in peer services.

Tests in this suite usually take longer to write, so we put most of our coverage in Suite 1. That being said there is still clear value in this suite as our mocks in Suite 1 may not be behaving quite like the real services.

With regards to your points, here is what we do:

• Ability to define integration test cases which exercise business scenarios.
  • We use cucumber-jvm to define business scenarios for both of the above suites. These scenarios are English plain text files that business users can understand and also drive the tests.
• Set up the DB with test data before suite is run.
  • We don't do this for our integration suites, but in the past I have used unitils with dbunit for unit tests and it worked pretty well.
• Invoke the REST API that is running on a remote server (Tomcat)
  • We use rest-assured, which is a great HTTP client geared specifically for testing REST APIs.
• Validate the DB post test execution for verifying expected output
  • I can't provide any recommendations here as we don't use any libraries to help make this easier, we just do it manually. Let me know if you find anything.
• Have code coverage report of REST API so that we know how confident we should be in the scenarios covered by the suite.
  • We do not measure code coverage for our integration tests, only for our unit tests, so again I can't provide any recommendations here.

Keep your eyes peeled on our techblog as there may be more details on their in the future.