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

PowerMock 1.6 isn't compatible with Mockito 2.7 (take a look at https://github.com/powermock/powermock/wiki/Mockito#supported-versions)

You should use PowerMock 1.7.0RC2 (or 1.7.0RC3 if 1.7.0RC2 doesn't work), and also use powermock-api-mockito2 instead of powermock-api-mockito.

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
    }
}

I've finally been able to solve my problem. The key to the answer is the line

java.lang.IllegalStateException: Could not self-attach to current VM using external process

For Java 9 and more, one must add -Djdk.attach.allowAttachSelf=true as VM argument to avoid this exception. When I did, unit tests ran perfectly.

Here are the links where I've found this :

https://github.com/raphw/byte-buddy/issues/612

https://github.com/mockk/mockk/issues/254

The parentheses are poorly placed.

You need to use:

doThrow(new Exception()).when(mockedObject).methodReturningVoid(...);
                                          ^

and NOT use:

doThrow(new Exception()).when(mockedObject.methodReturningVoid(...));
                                                                   ^

This is explained in the documentation

You can use a spy on your static class and mock only specific methods:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest(MyStaticTest.MyStaticClass.class)
public class MyStaticTest {

public static class MyStaticClass {
    public static String getA(String a) {
        return a;
    }
    public static String getB(String b) {
        return b;
    }
}

@Test
public void should_partial_mock_static_class() throws Exception {
    //given
    PowerMockito.spy(MyStaticClass.class);
    given(MyStaticClass.getB(Mockito.anyString())).willReturn("B");
    //then
    assertEquals("A", MyStaticClass.getA("A"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getA("B"));
    assertEquals("C", MyStaticClass.getA("C"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("A"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("B"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("C"));
}

}

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

I would try any(byte[].class)

Since the for loop is just the syntax sugar of iterator() loop, you could just stub the method and return the mocked Iterator instance

Declare the exception in the test method.

public void testAddUser() throws ServiceException {
...
}