How to use isMatchesMethod method of org.mockito.internal.invocation.TypeSafeMatching class

Provided you are using Mockito version 1.9.0 or later, the best way to achieve what you want is like this:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ServiceTest {

    @Mock
    private ServiceProxy proxy;

    @InjectMocks
    private Service service;

    @Test
    public void test() {
        assertNotNull(service);
        assertNotNull(proxy);
    }
}

First thing is the @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) declaration which will cause @Mock and @InjectMocks annotation to work automatically without any explicit initialization. The second thing is that starting with Mockito 1.9.0 @InjectMocks annotation can use the Constructor injection mechanism which is the best option for your Service class.

Other options for @InjectMocks are Setter injection and Field injection (see docs BTW) but you'd need a no argument constructor to use them.

So summarizing - your code cannot work because:

• you are not using the MockitoJUnitRunner nor MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this) so @Mock annotation takes no effect
• even if above were satisfied your example would fail because mockProxy would be initialized after the test is constructed and your service is tried to be initialized during the test class construction, hence it receives null mockProxy reference.

If for some reason you don't want to use @InjectMocks, the only way is to construct your Service object within the test method body or within the @Before annotated setUp method.

Technically speaking both "mocks" and "spies" are a special kind of "test doubles".

Mockito is unfortunately making the distinction weird.

A mock in mockito is a normal mock in other mocking frameworks (allows you to stub invocations; that is, return specific values out of method calls).

A spy in mockito is a partial mock in other mocking frameworks (part of the object will be mocked and part will use real method invocations).

You can do this by using Assume.

In below shown example, I want to check status in case if precondition==true and I want to assert that exception is thrown in case of precondition==false.

@Test
public final void testExecute() throws InvalidSyntaxException {
    Assume.assumeTrue(precondition);  // Further execution will be skipped if precondition holds false
    CommandResult result = sentence.getCommand().execute();
    boolean status = Boolean.parseBoolean(result.getResult());
    Assert.assertTrue(status);
}

@Test(expected = InvalidSyntaxException.class)
public final void testInvalidParse() throws InvalidSyntaxException {
    Assume.assumeTrue(!precondition);
    CommandResult result = sentence.getCommand().execute();
}

Hope this helps to you.

I think I am understanding your question. Let me re-phrase, you have a function that you are trying to test and want to mock the results of a function called within that function, but in a different class. I have handled that in the following way.

public MyUnitTest {
    private static final MyClass2 class2 = mock(MyClass2.class);

    @Begin
    public void setupTests() {
        when(class2.get(1000)).thenReturn(new User(1000, "John"));
        when(class2.validateObject(anyObj()).thenReturn(true);
    }

    @Test
    public void testFunctionCall() {
        String out = myClass.functionCall();
        assertThat(out).isEqualTo("Output");
    }
}

What this is doing is that within the function wrapped with the @Before annotation, I am setting up how I want the functions in class2 to respond given specific inputs. Then, from within the actual test, I am just calling the function that I am trying to test in the class I want to test. In this case, the myClass.functionCall() is running through as normal and you are not overwriting any of its methods, but you are just mocking the outputs that it gets from the methods (or method) within MyClass2.

You can't do this with Mockito, but Apache Commons actually has a way to do this using one of its built in utilities. You can put this in a function in JUnit that is run after Mockito injects the rest of the mocks but before your test cases run, like this:

@InjectMocks
MyClass myClass;

@Before
public void before() throws Exception {
    FieldUtils.writeField(myClass, "fieldName", fieldValue, true);
}

Just solved it by switching from Patterns.EMAIL_ADRESS.matcher() to PatternsCompat.EMAIL_ADRESS.matcher(). That should work.

I got the answer we can do it in the following way

when(nodeIterator.hasNext()).thenReturn(true).thenReturn(false);

this is known as method stubbing. Similarly if you want to call it twice and then you want to return false, then do as follows

when(nodeIterator.hasNext()).thenReturn(true).thenReturn(true).thenReturn(false);

There's no way to use anyMapOf to do this. It's designed to help with the simple case of mapping simple classes to simple classes in Java 7, and yours is more complex than that.

Java 8 parameter inference improved, so in Java 8, you can just use any().

verify(dataProcessor).process(Matchers.any());

Barring that, the best way to make this look is either like you wrote above:

verify(dataProcessor).process(Matchers.<Map<String, Set<String>>>any());

Or by extracting the matcher to a static function, which gives Java just enough information it needs to infer the type on its own:

@Test public void yourTest() {
  // ...
  verify(dataProcessor).process(anyStringSetMap());
}

private static Map<String, Set<String>> anyStringSetMap() {
  return any();
}

(Caveat: Note that the return value of anyStringSetMap() is null; it's the side-effect of calling any that you're looking for. The extracted method is just to inform the Java compiler of the expected return type; beware that doing anything fancier will probably break in really-quite-interesting ways.)

If the contract of class A includes the fact that it calls method B of an object of type C, then you should test this by making a mock of type C, and verifying that method B has been called.

This implies that the contract of class A has sufficient detail that it talks about type C (which might be an interface or a class). So yes, we're talking about a level of specification that goes beyond just "system requirements", and goes some way to describing implementation.

This is normal for unit tests. When you are unit testing, you want to ensure that each unit is doing the "right thing", and that will usually include its interactions with other units. "Units" here might mean classes, or larger subsets of your application.

Update:

I feel that this doesn't apply just to verification, but to stubbing as well. As soon as you stub a method of a collaborator class, your unit test has become, in some sense, dependent on implementation. It's kind of in the nature of unit tests to be so. Since Mockito is as much about stubbing as it is about verification, the fact that you're using Mockito at all implies that you're going to run across this kind of dependency.

In my experience, if I change the implementation of a class, I often have to change the implementation of its unit tests to match. Typically, though, I won't have to change the inventory of what unit tests there are for the class; unless of course, the reason for the change was the existence of a condition that I failed to test earlier.

So this is what unit tests are about. A test that doesn't suffer from this kind of dependency on the way collaborator classes are used is really a sub-system test or an integration test. Of course, these are frequently written with JUnit too, and frequently involve the use of mocking. In my opinion, "JUnit" is a terrible name, for a product that lets us produce all different types of test.