How to use findFirstUnverifiedInOrder method of org.mockito.internal.invocation.InvocationsFinder class

This is a known issue with PowerMock (see, e.g., bug 597). In short, if you replace the rule module with the rule-agent module, it should do the trick. I.e., replace this requirement:

<dependency>
    <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
    <artifactId>powermock-module-junit4-rule</artifactId>
    <version>${powermock-version}</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

With:

<dependency>
    <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
    <artifactId>powermock-module-junit4-rule-agent</artifactId>
    <version>${powermock-version}</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

The two syntaxes for stubbing are roughly equivalent. However, you can always use doReturn/when for stubbing; but there are cases where you can't use when/thenReturn. Stubbing void methods is one such. Others include use with Mockito spies, and stubbing the same method more than once.

One thing that when/thenReturn gives you, that doReturn/when doesn't, is type-checking of the value that you're returning, at compile time. However, I believe this is of almost no value - if you've got the type wrong, you'll find out as soon as you run your test.

I strongly recommend only using doReturn/when. There is no point in learning two syntaxes when one will do.

You may wish to refer to my answer at Forming Mockito "grammars" - a more detailed answer to a very closely related question.

import org.springframework.test.util.ReflectionTestUtils;

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public CustomServiceTest{

@InjectMocks
private CustomServiceImpl customService;

@Mock
private DataService dataService;

@Before
public void setup() {
    ReflectionTestUtils.setField(customService, "url", "http://someurl");
}    
...
}

This is because the type actually returned by SessionFactory.getCurrentSession() is org.hibernate.classic.Session, which is a sub-type of org.hibernate.Session. You'll need to change your mock to the correct type:

org.hibernate.classic.Session session = Mockito.mock(org.hibernate.classic.Session.class);

Your Java runtime version is from March 2014; plenty of bugs have been fixed in the VM ever since and you should really upgrade. I am 99% sure that this problem is related to type annotations (@NonNull) which were introduced in this version for the first time in this exact release. I am sure that your problem will go away if you upgrade your VM.

I can successfully execute your proposed test with a recent build of the HotSpot VM.

I've recently adopted a project that uses JMockit and I think the quality of the code has certainly suffered as a result of the library's ability to mock out static and private methods.

The tests are very brittle because implementation details contained in private methods are being tested (so if I change how the class does something it can break tests, even if what the class does has not been affected).

The code is also littered with calls to static methods - if the developers had not had the ability to mock these out then I think they would have made more effort to de-couple things a little better.

According to the Mockito_Maven page on the PowerMock wiki, use this:

<properties>
    <powermock.version>1.6.6</powermock.version>
</properties>
<dependencies>
   <dependency>
      <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
      <artifactId>powermock-module-junit4</artifactId>
      <version>${powermock.version}</version>
      <scope>test</scope>
   </dependency>
   <dependency>
      <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
      <artifactId>powermock-api-mockito</artifactId>
      <version>${powermock.version}</version>
      <scope>test</scope>
   </dependency>
</dependencies>

powermock-api-support seems to be "utility classes only", where you still need the core libraries provided in powermock-module-junit4.

If you want to mock the return result of motherFunction then you need not worry about the internal implementation of the method (which ends up calling functionVoid). What you do need to do is provide Mockito with an instruction as to what to do when the method, motherFunction is invoked, this can be achieved via the when clause with syntax;

    when(mockedObject.motherFunction()).thenReturn("Any old string");

If that misses the point of what you are attempting to achieve then look at how to mock void methods in the documentation and determine whether the use of doAnswer is applicable here, something like;

doAnswer(new Answer<Void>() {

  @Override
  public Void answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
    String output_value = invocation.getArguments()[0];
    output_value = "Not blank";
    return null;
  }
}).when(myClass2).functionVoid(anyString());

From what I read on "Issue 53" of mockito (https://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=53) , my code was experiencing a problem due to the validation framework involved in Mockito. Precisely the following code was causing the exception per se.

private ConstantNode getConstantNode(NumericalValue value){
    ConstantNode node = Mockito.mock(ConstantNode.class);
    Mockito.when(node.evaluate()).thenReturn(value);
    Mockito.when(node.toString()).thenReturn(value.toString());
    return node;
}

If you remember from my code, the parameter value is ALSO A MOCK, so that when value.toString() is called on the thenReturn(), I believe (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that the validation framework is triggered and makes sure that every "when" has had its thenReturn() called/validated/etc. So that if this happenes, the Mockito.when(node.toString()).thenReturn(value.toString() will not be validated because it hasn´t returned from the valute.toString(), which started the whole "validate everything" chain.

How I fixed it:

private ConstantNode getConstantNode(NumericalValue value){
    ConstantNode node = Mockito.mock(ConstantNode.class);
    Mockito.when(node.evaluate()).thenReturn(value);

    String numberToString = value.toString();

    Mockito.when(node.toString()).thenReturn(numberToString);
    return node;
}

This way, it can be validated. I find this a complete code smell because I will literally have to leave a comment that explains why I am using a seemingly useless intermediate variable in the code.

Thanks for the help.