How to use isVoid_invocationOnVoidMethod_returnTrue method of org.mockito.internal.stubbing.answers.InvocationInfoTest class

To answer your second question first. If you're using JUnit 4, you can annotate your test with

@Test(expected=MyException.class)

to assert that an exception has occured. And to "mock" an exception with mockito, use

when(myMock.doSomething()).thenThrow(new MyException());

Figured out.

The method being called was a parameterized method, but could not infer the parameter type from the matcher argument (the last argument was of type Class).

Making the explicit call

when(restTemplate.<Long>exchange(isA(URI.class),eq(HttpMethod.POST),isA(HttpEntity.class), eq(Long.class))).thenThrow(new RestClientException(EXCEPTION_MESSAGE));

fixed my problem.

I think the answer is no -- perhaps you could pull it off with some intense reflection wrangling, but if so I don't think it would be worth your time.

But I think (without seeing your method), you can probably still get full coverage on your method:

• If your method takes any action after catching the exception, assert or verify that those actions happened.
  
  
• If no action happens after catching the exception, assert or verify that whatever actions were supposed to happen but were cut off by the exception, didn't happen.
  
  
• Finally, (again, not seeing your method I don't know exactly what you're dealing with) if your method is void, and nothing happens after catching the exception, and the last line of logic is what can throw the exception, then consider making your method return a boolean, have it return false if the exception is caught and true otherwise. Then in your test, make a scenario that should cause the exception to be thrown and caught, and test that the method returns false.
  
  

older question, but worth answering anyway... In eclipse, open the pom.xml file from the project. When it opens, select the Dependency Hierarchy tab at the bottom. In here you will see what is loading and where it is being called from. In the search filter, type the name (or part of the name) of the dependency that you think is in conflict, for example you could put in "slf4j" and see all the dependencies that depend on slf4j for logging. If you right click on any dependency, you can choose to exclude it in the pom file. When you save the pom.xml file, you will see the Dependency Hierarchy change. You can test your application again and see if you solved your problem, or excluded the wrong version, etc.

The only caveat to this is that if you want to put the dependency that you excluded back in, you need to switch to the "pom.xml" tab at the bottom and find the code that looks like this and delete it:

<exclusions>
  <exclusion>
    <artifactId>[artifactId of what you removed]</artifactId>
    <groupId>[groupId of what you removed]</groupId>
  </exclusion>
</exclusions>

Changes take place when you save the pom.xml file.

It is because of Java/Mockito compatibility. For example, if you are using Java 11 with Mockito 2.17.0, it will throw the same error (Upgrading to Mockito 2.22.0 or later will solve it). Aside from digging into their release artifact on Github, I am yet to see a comprehensive document that spells out the compatibility matrix. Here is a helpful compatibility Matrix (based on quick test)

• Mockito * - 2.17.0 => Java 8

(footnote: * - dont know how far back)

• Mockito 2.18.0 - 3.2.4 => Java 11

You seem to be after contradictory goals. On the one hand, you're trying to avoid writing data to disk, which isn't a bad goal in tests. On the other, you're trying to test your I/O-handling class, which means you'll be working with system utilities that assume that your File will work with native calls. As such, here's my guidance:

• Don't try to mock a File. Just don't. Too many native things depend on it.
• If you can, split your I/O-handling code into the half that opens a File and turns it into a Reader, and the half that parses HTML out of the Reader.
• At that point, you don't need a mock at all--just construct a StringReader to simulate the data source.
• While that handles your unit tests pretty well, you may also want to write an integration test that uses a temporary file and ensure that it reads right. (Thanks Brice for adding that tip!)

Don't be afraid to refactor your class to make testing easier, as here:

class YourClass {
  public int method(File file) {
    // do everything here, which is why it requires a mock
  }   
}   

class YourRefactoredClass {
  public int method(File file) {
    return methodForTest(file.getName(), file.isFile(),
        file.isAbsolute(), new FileReader(file));
  }   

  /** For testing only. */
  int methodForTest(
      String name, boolean isFile, boolean isAbsolute, Reader fileContents) {
    // actually do the calculation here
  }   
}   

class YourTest {
  @Test public int methodShouldParseBadHtml() {
    YourRefactoredClass yrc = new YourRefactoredClass();
    assertEquals(42, yrc.methodForTest(
        "bad.html", true, false, new StringReader(badHTMLText));
  }   
}   

At this point the logic in method is so straightforward it's not worth testing, and the logic in methodForTest is so easy to access that you can test it heavily.

Apparently, verifyZeroInteractions it is the same as verifyNoMoreInteractions in 2.x:

public static void verifyZeroInteractions(Object... mocks) {
    MOCKITO_CORE.verifyNoMoreInteractions(mocks);
}

But I guess it is going to change in 3.x - https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/989

As a temporary workaround, you can do the following:

trait MockitoHelper extends MockitoSugar {
  def doReturn(toBeReturned: Any): Stubber = {
    Mockito.doReturn(toBeReturned, Nil: _*)
  }
}

Then have your test mixin this MockitoHelper.

The answer is yes, you can, and there are basically two levels of doing this, based on the need of your test.

If you merely want to test the interaction with the mocked object, you can simply use the verify() method, to verify that the void method was called.

If your test genuinely needs the mocked object to modify parameters passed to it, you will need to implement an Answer:

EDITED to show proper form of using Answer with void method

doAnswer(new Answer() {
    @Override
    Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
        Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
        ((MyClass)args[0]).myClassSetMyField(NEW_VALUE);
        return null; // void method, so return null
    }
}).when(mock).someMethod();

In Java 8+, the above is simplified with a lambda:

doAnswer(invocation-> {
    Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
    ((MyClass)args[0]).myClassSetMyField(NEW_VALUE);
    return null;
}).when(mock).someMethod();