How to use shouldFindFirstUnverifiedInvocationOnMock method of org.mockito.internal.invocation.InvocationsFinderTest class

You have a servlet implementation that uses the ServletContext, e.g.

public class SomeServlet extends HttpServlet{

    protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp) throws ServletException, IOException {
        ServletContext servletContext = getServletContext();
        Object attribute = servletContext.getAttribute("test");
        System.out.println(attribute.toString());
   }
}

in this case you have 2 options to test the doGet method

Use powermock's partitial mocking to only mock the getServletContext method.

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class SomeServletTest {

    @Test
    public void onGet() throws ServletException, IOException{
        SomeServlet someServlet = PowerMock.createPartialMock(SomeServlet.class, "getServletContext");   
        ServletContext servletContext = PowerMock.createNiceMock(ServletContext.class);
        HttpServletRequest httpServletRequest = PowerMock.createNiceMock(HttpServletRequest.class);
        HttpServletResponse httpServletResponse = PowerMock.createNiceMock(HttpServletResponse.class);

        someServlet.getServletContext();
        PowerMock.expectLastCall().andReturn(servletContext);

        servletContext.getAttribute("test");
        PowerMock.expectLastCall().andReturn("hello");

        PowerMock.replay(someServlet, servletContext, httpServletRequest, httpServletResponse);

        someServlet.doGet(httpServletRequest, httpServletResponse);
    }
}

or a simpler way is to just override the getServletContext method. In this case you don't need powermock. You can just do it using easymock. e.g.

public class SomeServletTest {

    @Test
    public void onGet() throws ServletException, IOException{
        HttpServletRequest httpServletRequest = EasyMock.createNiceMock(HttpServletRequest.class);
        HttpServletResponse httpServletResponse = EasyMock.createNiceMock(HttpServletResponse.class);
        final ServletContext servletContext = EasyMock.createNiceMock(ServletContext.class);
        SomeServlet someServlet = new SomeServlet(){
            public ServletContext getServletContext() {
                return servletContext; // return the mock
            }
        };

        EasyMock.expect(servletContext.getAttribute("test")).andReturn("hello");
        EasyMock.replay(servletContext, httpServletRequest, httpServletResponse);

        someServlet.doGet(httpServletRequest, httpServletResponse);
    }
}

there can be 100's. like initialContext.lookup() also dependent on container.

In this case you can either create an InitialContext mock and use this. If your code creates a new InitialContext, e.g.

public void someMethod(){
    InitialContext context = new InitialContext();
    context.lookup(....);
}

you can simply extract the InitialContext instantiation to a protected method that you can override in your tests like I showed above with the ServletContext

public void someMethod(){
    InitialContext context = createInitialContext();
    context.lookup(....);
}

protected InitialContext createInitialContext(){
    return new InitialContext(); // can be overridden by a subclass 
                                 // and therefore by tests as well to
                                 // return a mock
}

If you don't want or you can't modify the code in this way, then you can use Powermock to intercept the constructor.

EDIT

Can you post your Mockito code? It would be a pleasure, since the methods are named differently.

@Test
public void onGet() throws ServletException, IOException {
  HttpServletRequest httpServletRequest = Mockito.mock(HttpServletRequest.class);
  HttpServletResponse httpServletResponse = Mockito.mock(HttpServletResponse.class);
  final ServletContext servletContext = Mockito.mock(ServletContext.class);
  SomeServlet someServlet = new SomeServlet(){
    public ServletContext getServletContext() {
      return servletContext; // return the mock
    }
  };

  Mockito.doReturn("hello").when(servletContext).getAttribute("test");

  someServlet.doGet(httpServletRequest, httpServletResponse);
}

To answer your question directly, you cannot use Mockito to stub a method called from the constructor. Mockito needs an instance of the class before you can begin mocking, and you haven't given yourself a way to create an instance for testing.

More generally, as mentioned in Effective Java item 17, you should not call overridable methods from constructors. If you do so, for instance, you could provide an override in a subclass that refers to a final field but that runs before the final field is set. It probably won't get you in trouble here, but it's a bad habit in Java.

Luckily, you can restructure your code to do this very easily:

public class MyClass {
  public MyClass() {
    this(true);
  }

  /** For testing. */
  MyClass(boolean runSetup) {
    if (runSetup) {
      setup();
    }
  }

  /* ... */
}

To make it even more obvious, you can make the one-parameter MyClass constructor private, and provide a public static factory method:

/* ... */
  public static MyClass createForTesting() {
    return new MyClass(false);
  }

  private MyClass(boolean runSetup) {
/* ... */

Though some developers think it is a bad practice to write any code in methods that is used mostly for tests, remember that you are in charge of the design of your code, and tests are one of few consumers you absolutely know you will need to accommodate. Though it's still a good idea to avoid explicit test setup in "production" code, creating extra methods or overloads for the sake of testing will usually make your code cleaner overall and can drastically improve your test coverage and readability.

If you are using Spring 3, the easiest way is:

 @RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET)   
 public ModelAndView showResults(final HttpServletRequest request, Principal principal) {

     final String currentUser = principal.getName();

 }

The problem is that Spock Spring is looking for Spring's @ContextConfiguration annotation and doesn't manage to find it. Strictly speaking MyTestSpec is annotated with @ContextConfiguration as it's a meta-annotation on @SpringApplicationConfiguration but Spock Spring doesn't consider meta-annotations as part of its search. There's an issue to address this limitation. In the meantime you can work around it.

All that @SpringApplicationConfiguration is doing is customising @ContextConfiguration with a Boot-specific context loader. This means that you can achieve the same effect by using an appropriately configured @ContextConfiguration annotation instead:

@ContextConfiguration(loader = SpringApplicationContextLoader.class, classes = MyServer.class)
@WebAppConfiguration
@IntegrationTest
class MyTestSpec extends Specification {
    …
}

Update: Just to make sure it's clear (and based on the comments, it wasn't), for this to work you need to have org.spockframework:spock-spring on the classpath.

It should be enough to name your mocks serviceA and serviceB. From Mockito documentation:

Property setter injection; mocks will first be resolved by type, then, if there is several property of the same type, by the match of the property name and the mock name.

In your example:

@InjectMocks ServiceCaller classUnderTest;

@Mock SomeService serviceA;
@Mock SomeService serviceB;

Note that it is not necessary to manually create class instance when using @InjectMocks.

Nevertheless I personally prefer injecting dependencies using constructor. It makes it easier to inject mocks in tests (just call a constructor with your mocks - without reflections tools or @InjectMocks (which is useful, but hides some aspects)). In addition using TDD it is clearly visible what dependencies are needed for the tested class and also IDE can generate your constructor stubs.

Spring Framework completely supports constructor injection:

@Bean
public class ServiceCaller {
    private final SomeService serviceA;
    private final SomeService serviceB;

    @Autowired
    public ServiceCaller(@Qualifier("serviceA") SomeService serviceA,
                         @Qualifier("serviceB") SomeService serviceB) { ... }

    ...
}

This code can be tested with:

@Mock SomeService serviceA;
@Mock SomeService serviceB;

//in a setup or test method
ServiceCaller classUnderTest = new ServiceCaller(serviceA, serviceB); 

You cannot do this because according to spec you cannot put the same annotation twice on the same annotated element.

So, what is the solution? The solution is to put only one @RunWith() with runner you cannot stand without and replace other one with something else. In your case I guess you will remove MockitoJUnitRunner and do programatically what it does.

In fact the only thing it does it runs:

MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(test);

in the beginning of test case. So, the simplest solution is to put this code into setUp() method:

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

I am not sure, but probably you should avoid multiple call of this method using flag:

private boolean mockInitialized = false;
@Before
public void setUp() {
    if (!mockInitialized) {
        MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
        mockInitialized = true;  
    }
}

However better, reusable solution may be implemented with JUnt's rules.

public class MockitoRule extends TestWatcher {
    private boolean mockInitialized = false;

    @Override
    protected void starting(Description d) {
        if (!mockInitialized) {
            MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
            mockInitialized = true;  
        }
    }
}

Now just add the following line to your test class:

@Rule public MockitoRule mockitoRule = MockitoJUnit.rule();

and you can run this test case with any runner you want.

You could refactor MyClass so that it uses dependency injection. Instead of having it create an AnythingPerformerClass instance you could pass in an instance of the class to the constructor of MyClass like so :

class MyClass {

   private final AnythingPerformerClass clazz;

   MyClass(AnythingPerformerClass clazz) {
      this.clazz = clazz;
   }

   public boolean performAnything() {         
     return clazz.doSomething();        
   }
}

You can then pass in the mock implementation in the unit test

@Test
public void testPerformAnything() throws Exception {
   AnythingPerformerClass mockedPerformer = Mockito.mock(AnythingPerformerClass.class);
   MyClass clazz = new MyClass(mockedPerformer);
   ...
}

Alternatively, if your AnythingPerformerClass contains state then you could pass a AnythingPerformerClassBuilder to the constructor.

The nested generics-problem can be avoided with the @Captor annotation:

public class Test{

    @Mock
    private Service service;

    @Captor
    private ArgumentCaptor<ArrayList<SomeType>> captor;

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

    @Test 
    public void shouldDoStuffWithListValues() {
        //...
        verify(service).doStuff(captor.capture()));
    }
}

EDIT 2020-09-21: Since 3.4.0, Mockito supports mocking static methods, API is still incubating and is likely to change, in particular around stubbing and verification. It requires the mockito-inline artifact. And you don't need to prepare the test or use any specific runner. All you need to do is :

@Test
public void name() {
    try (MockedStatic<LoggerFactory> integerMock = mockStatic(LoggerFactory.class)) {
        final Logger logger = mock(Logger.class);
        integerMock.when(() -> LoggerFactory.getLogger(any(Class.class))).thenReturn(logger);
        new Controller().log();
        verify(logger).warn(any());
    }
}

The two inportant aspect in this code, is that you need to scope when the static mock applies, i.e. within this try block. And you need to call the stubbing and verification api from the MockedStatic object.

@Mick, try to prepare the owner of the static field too, eg :

@PrepareForTest({GoodbyeController.class, LoggerFactory.class})

EDIT1 : I just crafted a small example. First the controller :

import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

public class Controller {
    Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Controller.class);

    public void log() { logger.warn("yup"); }
}

Then the test :

import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.powermock.core.classloader.annotations.PrepareForTest;
import org.powermock.modules.junit4.PowerMockRunner;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

import static org.mockito.Matchers.any;
import static org.mockito.Matchers.anyString;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.mock;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.mockStatic;
import static org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito.when;

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({Controller.class, LoggerFactory.class})
public class ControllerTest {

    @Test
    public void name() throws Exception {
        mockStatic(LoggerFactory.class);
        Logger logger = mock(Logger.class);
        when(LoggerFactory.getLogger(any(Class.class))).thenReturn(logger);
        
        new Controller().log();
        
        verify(logger).warn(anyString());
    }
}

Note the imports ! Noteworthy libs in the classpath : Mockito, PowerMock, JUnit, logback-core, logback-clasic, slf4j

EDIT2 : As it seems to be a popular question, I'd like to point out that if these log messages are that important and require to be tested, i.e. they are feature / business part of the system then introducing a real dependency that make clear theses logs are features would be a so much better in the whole system design, instead of relying on static code of a standard and technical classes of a logger.

For this matter I would recommend to craft something like= a Reporter class with methods such as reportIncorrectUseOfYAndZForActionX or reportProgressStartedForActionX. This would have the benefit of making the feature visible for anyone reading the code. But it will also help to achieve tests, change the implementations details of this particular feature.

Hence you wouldn't need static mocking tools like PowerMock. In my opinion static code can be fine, but as soon as the test demands to verify or to mock static behavior it is necessary to refactor and introduce clear dependencies.