How to use captureArgumentsFrom method of org.mockito.internal.invocation.RealMethod class

You can use a Mock reponse or an actual response and then use when, e.g.:

Page<Company> companies = Mockito.mock(Page.class);
Mockito.when(companyRepository.findAllByIsActiveTrue(pageable)).thenReturn(companies);

Or, just instantiate the class:

List<Company> companies = new ArrayList<>();
Page<Company> pagedResponse = new PageImpl(companies);
Mockito.when(companyRepository.findAllByIsActiveTrue(pagedResponse)).thenReturn(pagedResponse);

The issue was resolved by adding the following code to the test class:

@Autowired
private WebApplicationContext context;

@Autowired
private Filter springSecurityFilterChain;

@Before
public void setup() {
    mockMvc = MockMvcBuilders.webAppContextSetup(context)
            .addFilters(springSecurityFilterChain).build();
}

Even more meaningful :

import static org.mockito.Mockito.never;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;

// ...

verify(dependency, never()).someMethod();

The documentation of this feature is there §4 "Verifying exact number of invocations / at least x / never", and the never javadoc is here.

Mockito/Hamcrest and generic classes

Yes, this is a general problem with Mockito/Hamcrest. Generally using isA() with generic classes produces a warning.

There are predifined Mockito matchers for the most common generic classes: anyList(), anyMap(), anySet() and anyCollection().

Suggestions:

anyIterable() in Mockito 2.1.0

Mockito 2.1.0 added a new anyIterable() method for matching Iterables:

when(client.runTask(anyString(), anyString(), anyIterable()).thenReturn(...)

Ignore in Eclipse

If you just want to get rid of the warning in Eclipse. Option exists since Eclipse Indigo:

Window > Preferences > Java > Compiler > Errors/Warnings > Generic types > Ignore unavoidable generic type problems

Quick Fix with @SuppressWarnings

I suggest you do this if you have the problem only once. I personally don't remember ever needing an isA(Iterable.class).

As Daniel Pryden says, you can limit the @SuppressWarnings to a local variable or a helper method.

Use a generic isA() matcher with TypeToken

This solves the problem for good. But it has two disadvantages:

• The syntax is not too pretty and might confuse some people.
• You have an additional dependency on the library providing the TypeToken class. Here I used the TypeToken class from Guava. There's also a TypeToken class in Gson and a GenericType in JAX-RS.

Using the generic matcher:

import static com.arendvr.matchers.InstanceOfGeneric.isA;
import static org.mockito.ArgumentMatchers.argThat;

// ...

when(client.runTask(anyString(), anyString(), argThat(isA(new TypeToken<Iterable<Integer>>() {}))))
            .thenReturn(...);

Generic matcher class:

package com.arendvr.matchers;

import com.google.common.reflect.TypeToken;
import org.mockito.ArgumentMatcher;

public class InstanceOfGeneric<T> implements ArgumentMatcher<T> {
    private final TypeToken<T> typeToken;

    private InstanceOfGeneric(TypeToken<T> typeToken) {
        this.typeToken = typeToken;
    }

    public static <T> InstanceOfGeneric<T> isA(TypeToken<T> typeToken) {
        return new InstanceOfGeneric<>(typeToken);
    }

    @Override
    public boolean matches(Object item) {
        return item != null && typeToken.getRawType().isAssignableFrom(item.getClass());
    }
}

MockitoJUnitRunner gives you automatic validation of framework usage, as well as an automatic initMocks().

The automatic validation of framework usage is actually worth having. It gives you better reporting if you make one of these mistakes.

• You call the static when method, but don't complete the stubbing with a matching thenReturn, thenThrow or then. (Error 1 in the code below)

• You call verify on a mock, but forget to provide the method call that you are trying to verify. (Error 2 in the code below)

• You call the when method after doReturn, doThrow or doAnswer and pass a mock, but forget to provide the method that you are trying to stub. (Error 3 in the code below)

If you don't have validation of framework usage, these mistakes are not reported until the following call to a Mockito method. This might be

• in the same test method (like error 1 below),
• in the next test method (like error 2 below),
• in the next test class.

If they occur in the last test that you run (like error 3 below), they won't be reported at all.

Here's how each of those types of errors might look. Assume here that JUnit runs these tests in the order they're listed here.

@Test
public void test1() {

    // ERROR 1
    // This compiles and runs, but it's an invalid use of the framework because 
    // Mockito is still waiting to find out what it should do when myMethod is called.
    // But Mockito can't report it yet, because the call to thenReturn might 
    // be yet to happen.
    when(myMock.method1());

    doSomeTestingStuff();

    // ERROR 1 is reported on the following line, even though it's not the line with
    // the error.
    verify(myMock).method2();

}

@Test
public void test2() {

    doSomeTestingStuff();

    // ERROR 2
    // This compiles and runs, but it's an invalid use of the framework because
    // Mockito doesn't know what method call to verify.  But Mockito can't report 
    // it yet, because the call to the method that's being verified might 
    // be yet to happen.
    verify(myMock);
}

@Test
public void test3() {

    // ERROR 2 is reported on the following line, even though it's not even in 
    // the same test as the error.
    doReturn("Hello").when(myMock).method1();


    // ERROR 3
    // This compiles and runs, but it's an invalid use of the framework because
    // Mockito doesn't know what method call is being stubbed.  But Mockito can't 
    // report it yet, because the call to the method that's being stubbed might 
    // be yet to happen.

    doReturn("World").when(myMock);

    doSomeTestingStuff(); 

    //  ERROR 3 is never reported, because there are no more Mockito calls. 
}

Now when I first wrote this answer more than five years ago, I wrote

So I would recommend the use of the MockitoJUnitRunner wherever possible. However, as Tomasz Nurkiewicz has correctly pointed out, you can't use it if you need another JUnit runner, such as the Spring one.

My recommendation has now changed. The Mockito team have added a new feature since I first wrote this answer. It's a JUnit rule, which performs exactly the same function as the MockitoJUnitRunner. But it's better, because it doesn't preclude the use of other runners.

Include

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

in your test class. This initialises the mocks, and automates the framework validation; just like MockitoJUnitRunner does. But now, you can use SpringJUnit4ClassRunner or any other JUnitRunner as well. From Mockito 2.1.0 onwards, there are additional options that control exactly what kind of problems get reported.

I think it should be

verify(mockBar, times(2)).doSomething(...)

Sample from mockito javadoc:

ArgumentCaptor<Person> peopleCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Person.class);
verify(mock, times(2)).doSomething(peopleCaptor.capture());

List<Person> capturedPeople = peopleCaptor.getAllValues();
assertEquals("John", capturedPeople.get(0).getName());
assertEquals("Jane", capturedPeople.get(1).getName());

ExpectedException works by wrapping your entire test method in a try-catch block via a JUnit @Rule. When your code throws an exception, it goes up the stack to the nearest try/catch, which happens to be in the ExpectedException instance (which checks that it is the exception you're expecting).

In Java, if an uncaught exception occurs in a method, control will never return to statements later in that method. The same rules apply here: Control never returns to the statements in your test after the exception.

Technically, you could put the verifications in a finally block, but that tends to be a bad habit. EDIT: Your system-under-test might throw an unexpected exception, or no exception at all, which would give you a helpful failure message and trace; however, if that failure then causes your verifications or assertions to fail in the finally block, then Java will show that rather than a message about the unexpected exception or unexpected success. This can make debugging difficult, especially because your error will come from lines of code following the root cause of the error, incorrectly implying that the code above it succeeded.

If you really need to verify state after the exception, on a per-method basis, you can always revert back to this idiom:

@Test
public void testExpectedException()
{
  MockedObject mockObj = mock(MockedObj.class);
  MySubject subject = new MySubject(mockedObj);
  try {
    subject.someMethodThrowingException();
    fail("Expected MyException.");
  } catch (MyException expected) {
    assertEquals("My exception message.", expected.getMessage());
  }
  verify(mockObj).someCleanup(eq(...));
}

Update: With Java 8's lambda expressions, you can wrap a functional interface call in a try block concisely enough to be useful. I imagine support for this syntax will find its way into many standard testing libraries.

assertThrows(MyException.class,
    () -> systemUnderTest.throwingMethod());

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 think the reason may be that mock object libraries typically create mocks by dynamically creating classes at runtime (using cglib). This means they either implement an interface at runtime (that's what EasyMock does if I'm not mistaken), or they inherit from the class to mock (that's what Mockito does if I'm not mistaken). Both approaches do not work for static members, since you can't override them using inheritance.

The only way to mock statics is to modify a class' byte code at runtime, which I suppose is a little more involved than inheritance.

That's my guess at it, for what it's worth...