How to use getField method of org.mockito.internal.junit.util.JUnitFailureHacker class

Try adding servlet-api dependency

<dependency>
    <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
    <artifactId>javax.servlet-api</artifactId>
    <version>3.1.0</version>
    <scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>

It seems that this might be caused because it can't find bytebuddy installed, referring to:

Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: net.bytebuddy.dynamic.loading.MultipleParentClassLoader$Builder.appendMostSpecific(Ljava/util/Collection;)Lnet/bytebuddy/dynamic/loading/MultipleParentClassLoader$Builder;

From what I can find online adding bytebuddy to your dependencies might fix this.

    <dependency>
      <groupId>net.bytebuddy</groupId>
      <artifactId>byte-buddy</artifactId>
      <version>XXX</version>
    </dependency>

Perhaps it is too late for your question. I met it today and found the solution at the following url. Basically, you need to specify your argument type like.

whenNew(MimeMessage.class).**withParameterTypes(MyParameterType.class)**.withArguments(isA(MyParameter.class)).thenReturn(mimeMessageMock); 

http://groups.google.com/group/powermock/msg/347f6ef1fb34d946?pli=1

Hope it can help you. :)

In 2016 you can use runner delegate with PowerMockito, effectively using two runners:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PowerMockRunnerDelegate(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)

More details here: https://github.com/jayway/powermock/wiki/JUnit_Delegating_Runner

If I understand what you want to do correctly, you should be able to use andAnswer():

mockObject.someMethod(eq(param1), eq(param2));
expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {
    public Object answer() {
        //supply your mock implementation here...
        SomeClass arg1 = (SomeClass) getCurrentArguments()[0];
        AnotherClass arg2 = (AnotherClass) getCurrentArguments()[1];
        arg1.doSomething(blah);
        //return the value to be returned by the method (null for void)
        return null;
    }
});

The EasyMock User Guide explains:

Creating Return Values or Exceptions

Sometimes we would like our mock object to return a value or throw an exception that is created at the time of the actual call. Since EasyMock 2.2, the object returned by expectLastCall() and expect(T value) provides the method andAnswer(IAnswer answer) which allows [you] to specify an implementation of the interface IAnswer that is used to create the return value or exception.

Inside an IAnswer callback, the arguments passed to the mock call are available via EasyMock.getCurrentArguments(). If you use these, refactorings like reordering parameters may break your tests. You have been warned.

Actually, the problem is that each verify call is made on the same spySchool instance. Let me explain:

@Test 
public void testCountPerson() {    
    School mSchool = School.getInstance();
    School spySchool = Mockito.spy(mSchool); // a spy is created here, Mockito is listening in.
    spySchool.countPerson(true); // real method is invoked
    verify(spySchool).countIncludeTeacher(); // our spy identified that countIncludeTeacher was called

    spySchool.countPerson(false); // real method is invoked
    verify(spySchool, times(0)).countIncludeTeacher(); // our spy still identified that countIncludeTeacher was called, before it was called before
}

The thing is that in the latest verify, it fails because the countIncludeTeacher method was called on the spy before and that called was not deregistered.

You can do it using verifyNoMoreInteractions, which verifies that the object had no more interactions. You could also reset the object.

But note that this is really not recommended, quoting Mockito Javadoc:

A word of warning: Some users who did a lot of classic, expect-run-verify mocking tend to use verifyNoMoreInteractions() very often, even in every test method. verifyNoMoreInteractions() is not recommended to use in every test method. verifyNoMoreInteractions() is a handy assertion from the interaction testing toolkit. Use it only when it's relevant. Abusing it leads to overspecified, less maintainable tests. You can find further reading here.

And

Smart Mockito users hardly use this feature because they know it could be a sign of poor tests. Normally, you don't need to reset your mocks, just create new mocks for each test method.

Instead of reset() please consider writing simple, small and focused test methods over lengthy, over-specified tests. First potential code smell is reset() in the middle of the test method. This probably means you're testing too much. Follow the whisper of your test methods: "Please keep us small & focused on single behavior".

I would definitely suggest that you split this test in two: one for the true case and one for the false case.

Your imports only include the matchers from hamcrest-core, which are in CoreMatchers:

import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.*;

The hasProperty and hasSize methods are only in the Matchers class of hamcrest-library, which includes a larger set of matchers. Try to change your import to the following:

import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.*;

If this does not work, you might only be depending on hamcrest-core. In this case, change your dependency to the hamcrest-library or hamcrest-all artifact. An example for adding this dependency for Maven is below. See the Hamcrest GitHub page for some more details.

<dependency>
    <groupId>org.hamcrest</groupId>
    <artifactId>hamcrest-library</artifactId>
    <version>1.3</version>
</dependency>

I had a test dependency on a third-party jar which used powermock. In order to resolve this error, I had to add:

@PowerMockIgnore("jdk.internal.reflect.*")

To the class that is tested with powermock

For void methods, I think you need to use the doThrow syntax.

So in your case it would be:

doThrow(BookingException.builder().build())
      .when(booking)
      .validate(any());