How to use reset method of org.mockito.internal.progress.ArgumentMatcherStorageImpl class

This is possible using Mockito.when:

Mockito.when(statusRepository.delete(any(Post.class)).thenReturn(Mono.empty());

...call the method and verify...

Mockito.verify(statusRepository).delete(any(Post.class));

Annotate it with @Spy instead of @Mock. As Mockito cannot spy on an interface, use a concrete implementation, for example ArrayList. During test setup add the mocks to the List spy. This way you do not need to alter your test subject solely for test purposes.

@InjectMocks
private Wrapper testedObject = new Wrapper();

@Spy
private ArrayList<Strategy> mockedStrategies;

@Mock
private StrategyA strategyA;

@Mock
private StrategyB strategyB;

@Before
public void setup() throws Exception {
    mockedStrategies.add(strategyA);
    mockedStrategies.add(strategyB);
}

Use PowerMockito on top of Mockito.

Example code:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest(DriverManager.class)
public class Mocker {

    @Test
    public void shouldVerifyParameters() throws Exception {

        //given
        PowerMockito.mockStatic(DriverManager.class);
        BDDMockito.given(DriverManager.getConnection(...)).willReturn(...);

        //when
        sut.execute(); // System Under Test (sut)

        //then
        PowerMockito.verifyStatic();
        DriverManager.getConnection(...);

    }

More information:

• Why doesn't Mockito mock static methods?

I do not use Kotlin, but I have used PowerMock before for mocking final classes/methods and static methods. I was wondering about whether it might be possible to use Spock's GroovyMock and global GroovySpy features and tested it against Java code using Spock 1.1-groovy-2.4. In a first quick & dirty test scenario it seems to work:

Java class under test:

package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow;

public final class FinalClass {
  public static final String finalStaticMethod() {
    return "x";
  }

  public final String finalMethod() {
    return "x";
  }
}

Spock test:

package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow

import spock.lang.Specification

/**
 * See https://stackoverflow.com/q/48391716/1082681
 * See http://spockframework.org/spock/docs/1.1/all_in_one.html#GroovyMocks
 */
class FinalClassTest extends Specification {
  def "use GroovyMock for final method in final class"() {
    given:
    FinalClass finalClass = GroovyMock() {
      finalMethod() >> "mocked"
    }

    expect:
    finalClass.finalMethod() == "mocked"
  }

  def "use global GroovySpy for final static method in final class"() {
    given:
    GroovySpy(FinalClass, global: true)
    FinalClass.finalStaticMethod() >> "mocked"

    expect:
    FinalClass.finalStaticMethod() == "mocked"
  }
}

For me both feature methods were green when running the test. Maybe you want to give it a try with my example and subsequently with your Kotlin classes - no guarantees for the latter from me, though.

---

Attention: The Spock manual says:

When called from Java code, Groovy mocks will behave like regular mocks.

So maybe you will get disappointed when injecting Groovy Mocks as dependencies into Java classes under test.

---

Update: Okay, I tested it with another Java class using those fancy GroovyMocks and - as mentioned above - it does not work:

Java class using the mocked class as a dependency:

package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow;

public class AnotherClass {
  public String doSomething(FinalClass finalClass) {
    return finalClass.finalMethod();
  }

  public String doSomethingElse() {
    return FinalClass.finalStaticMethod();
  }
}

Spock test:

package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow

import spock.lang.Specification

/**
 * See https://stackoverflow.com/q/48391716/1082681
 * See http://spockframework.org/spock/docs/1.1/all_in_one.html#GroovyMocks
 */
class AnotherClassTest extends Specification {
  def "indirectly use GroovyMock for final method in final class"() {
    given:
    FinalClass finalClass = GroovyMock() {
      finalMethod() >> "mocked"
    }

    expect:
    new AnotherClass().doSomething(finalClass) == "mocked"
  }

  def "indirectly use global GroovySpy for final static method in final class"() {
    given:
    GroovySpy(FinalClass, global: true)
    FinalClass.finalStaticMethod() >> "mocked"

    expect:
    new AnotherClass().doSomethingElse() == "mocked"
  }
}

Unfortunately, both tests fail because the methods do not get stubbed when used from the Java class. I.e. you are stuck with PowerMock or Mockito. But still you can use all the other nice Spock features such as data tables, @Unroll and many more.

---

Update 2: THE SOLUTION

Add this to your Maven build (if you use Gradle, do something similar):

<dependency>
  <groupId>de.jodamob.kotlin</groupId>
  <artifactId>kotlin-runner-spock</artifactId>
  <version>0.3.1</version>
  <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

Now you can use the SpotlinTestRunner from project kotlin-testrunner in combination with annotations like

• @OpenedClasses([Foo, Bar, Zot])
• @OpenedPackages(["de.scrum_master.stackoverflow", "my.other.package"])

Of course this will not work for static methods (you still need PowerMock for it), but your question was about non-static methods in closed Kotlin classes. With this test runner you can just mock them because a special classloader opens them up via Javassist before test execution:

package de.scrum_master.stackoverflow

import de.jodamob.kotlin.testrunner.OpenedClasses
import de.jodamob.kotlin.testrunner.OpenedPackages
import de.jodamob.kotlin.testrunner.SpotlinTestRunner
import org.junit.runner.RunWith
import spock.lang.Specification

/**
 * See https://stackoverflow.com/q/48391716/1082681
 * See https://github.com/dpreussler/kotlin-testrunner
 */
@RunWith(SpotlinTestRunner)
@OpenedClasses(FinalClass)
//@OpenedPackages("de.scrum_master.stackoverflow")
class AnotherClassSpotlinRunnerTest extends Specification {
  def "use SpotlinRunner to stub final method in final class"() {
    given:
    FinalClass finalClass = Stub() {
      finalMethod() >> "mocked"
    }

    expect:
    new AnotherClass().doSomething(finalClass) == "mocked"
  }
}

What are you looking for is called partial mocking.

In PowerMock you can use mockStaticPartial method.

In PowerMockito you can use stubbing, which will stub only the method defined and leave other unchanged:

PowerMockito.stub(PowerMockito.method(StaticUtilClass.class, "someStaticMethod")).toReturn(5);

also don't forget about the

@PrepareForTest(StaticUtilClass.class)

Use when(spy.myMethod()).thenReturn(null). This will prevent the spy from invoking the wrapped instance. You have to tell Mockito what to return for a method that returns something. The default behavior for a mock is to return null. The default behavior for a spy is to call the wrapped object. When you stub a method in a spy it prevents the call to the wrapped object and executes the specified behavior.

Per documents of Spy, you could also do doReturn(null).when(spy).myMethod();

From the Mockito documentation :

Resetting mocks (Since 1.8.0)

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". There are several threads about it on mockito mailing list.

The only reason we added reset() method is to make it possible to work with container-injected mocks.

You should probably just recreate the spy in a @BeforeMethod :

public class Program {

    private TestObject testObject = new TestObject();
    private TestObject spyTestObject;

    @BeforeMethod
    public void buildSpy() {
        spyTestObject = spy(testObject);
    }

    @Test
    public void test1() {
       spyTestObject.makeSth(); 
       verify(spyTestObject , only()).someMethodNeedToBeChecked(); 
    }

    @Test
    public void test2() {
        // Some different scenario
       spyTestObject.makeSth(); 
       verify(spyTestObject , only()).someMethodNeedToBeChecked(); 
        ...
    }
}

The message is pretty obvious: You can't mock non-visible and final classes. Short answer : Create a named class of your anonymous one, and test this class instead!

Long answer, let's dig why !

An anonymous class is final

You instantiate an anonymous class of FilterFactory, when the compiler sees an anonymous class, it creates a final and package visible class. So the anonymous class is not mockable through standard mean i.e. through Mockito.

Mocking anonymous class : possible but BRITTLE if not HACKY

OK, now suppose you want to be able to mock this anonymous class through Powermock. Current compilers compile anonymous class with following scheme :

Declaring class + $ + <order of declaration starting with 1>

Mocking anonymous class possible but brittle (And I mean it) So supposing the anonymous class is the eleventh to be declared, it will appear as

InputHelper$11.class

So you could potentially prepare for test the anonymous class:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({InputHelper$11.class})
public class InputHelperTest {
    @Test
    public void anonymous_class_mocking works() throws Throwable {
        PowerMockito.spy(InputHelper.BZIP2_FACTORY);  // This line fails
    }
}

This code will compile, BUT will eventually be reported as an error with your IDE. The IDE probably doesn't know about InputHelper$11.class. IntelliJ who doesn't use compiled class to check the code report so.

Also the fact that the anonymous class naming actually depends on the order of the declaration is a problem, when someone adds another anonymous class before, the numbering could change. Anonymous classes are made to stay anonymous, what if the compiler guys decide one day to use letters or even random identifiers!

So mocking anonymous classes through Powermock is possible but brittle, don't ever do that in a real project!

EDITED NOTE : The Eclipse compiler has a different numbering scheme, it always uses a 3 digit number :

Declaring class + $ + <pad with 0> + <order of declaration starting with 1>

Also I don't think the JLS clearly specify how the compilers should name anonymous classes.

You don't reassign the spy to the static field

PowerMockito.spy(InputHelper.BZIP2_FACTORY);  // This line fails
whenNew(BufferedInputStream.class).withArguments(in).thenReturn(buffer);
whenNew(CBZip2InputStream.class).withArguments(buffer).thenReturn(expected);
InputStream observed = InputHelper.BZIP2_FACTORY.makeFilter(in);

PowerMockito.spy returns the spy, it doesn't change the value of InputHelper.BZIP2_FACTORY. So you would need to actually set via reflection this field. You can use the Whiteboxutility that Powermock provide.

Conclusion

Too much trouble to just test with mocks that the anonymous filter uses a BufferedInputStream.

Alternative

I would rather write the following code:

An input helper that will use the named class, I don't use the interface name to make clear to the user what is the intent of this filter!

public class InputHelper {
    public static final BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory BZIP2_FACTORY = new BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory();
}

And now the filter itself :

public class BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory {
    public InputStream makeFilter(InputStream in) {
        BufferedInputStream buffer = new BufferedInputStream(in);
        return new CBZip2InputStream(buffer);
    }
}

Now you can write a test like this :

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class BufferedBZIP2FilterFactoryTest {

    @Test
    @PrepareForTest({BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory.class})
    public void wraps_InputStream_in_BufferedInputStream() throws Exception {
        whenNew(CBZip2InputStream.class).withArguments(isA(BufferedInputStream.class))
                .thenReturn(Mockito.mock(CBZip2InputStream.class));

        new BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory().makeFilter(anInputStream());

        verifyNew(CBZip2InputStream.class).withArguments(isA(BufferedInputStream.class));
    }

    private ByteArrayInputStream anInputStream() {
        return new ByteArrayInputStream(new byte[10]);
    }
}

But could eventually avoid powermock stuff for this test scenario if you force the CBZip2InputStream to only accept BufferedInputStream. Usually using Powermock means something is wrong with the design. In my opinion Powermock is great for legacy softwares, but can blind developers when designing new code; as they are missing the point of OOP's good part, I would even say they are designing legacy code.

Hope that helps !

In the end, this is all about wording.

When you think of "correct" in its very fundamental sense, as in correctness, then the answer is simply: no.

You see, the goal of an integration test is to ensure that your integrated system (consisting of multiple, different components) functions as expected. The purpose of an integration test is to verify that your "plumbing" of components works as expected. Therefore: you can't verify that your system works when parts of that system are mocked out.

But then, you can think "correctness" less strictly.

Example: companies selling cars have to test ECUs. Basically a piece of hardware, running a potentially huge software stack. These ECUs normally operate within cars. So when you want to integration test an ECU, you would have to put the ECU into a car for testing, right? A car that probably doesn't exist yet. The solution here: there are hardware emulators. You plug the ECU into that emulator, and the ECU "thinks" that sits inside a real car.

So: there are good arguments to claim "a true integration test can't use mocking", but at the same time, in the real world, such "mocking" happens all the time.

The real answer is therefore: it depends on context. Therefore there isn't a universal answer. Instead, this is about communication. You "simply" have to ensure that all people in your group/org have the same understanding of such terms.

The term itself can be interpreted in different ways. You (jointly!) pick that definition that best fits your needs, to then make sure all people contributing to your project share that view (or at least know about it).