How to use can_define_class_in_open_reading_module method of org.mockito.moduletest.ModuleHandlingTest class

JUnit creates a new instance of test class each time it runs a new test method and runs @Before method each time it creates a new test class. You can easily test it:

@Before
public void setup() {
    System.out.println("setup");
    when(myMock.myMethod()).thenReturn("hello");
}

And MockitoJUnitRunner will create a new MyMock mock instance for every test method.

Here is a solution that will work for you particular case:

First of all you need to create a PersonMixin since you cannot add the required annotations to the mock.

import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonAutoDetect;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonProperty;


@JsonAutoDetect(getterVisibility = JsonAutoDetect.Visibility.NONE, isGetterVisibility = JsonAutoDetect.Visibility.NONE)
public interface PersonMixin {

    @JsonProperty
    String getName();

    @JsonProperty
    Integer getAge();
}

Now, use the object mapper like the in following code and you will get the same result as when you serialize the real object:

Person mockPerson = mock(Person.class);
when(mockPerson.getName()).thenReturn(name);
when(mockPerson.getAge()).thenReturn(age);
objectMapper.addMixInAnnotations(Person.class, PersonMixin.class);
try {
    System.out.println(objectMapper.writeValueAsString(mockPerson));
} catch (JsonProcessingException e) {
    e.printStackTrace();
    System.err.println("Failed to serialize mock object.");
}

Mockito supports changing the returned value; this support extends to PowerMockito. Just use OngoingStubbing.thenReturn(T value, T... values)

OngoingStubbing<T> thenReturn(T value, T... values)

Sets consecutive return values to be returned when the method is called.
E.g:

when(mock.someMethod()).thenReturn(1, 2, 3);

Last return value in the sequence (in example: 3) determines the behavior of further consecutive calls.

So, in this case, you would do:

PowerMockito.when(DBUtil.getCurrentCount()).thenReturn(100, 150);

Note: this answer assumes you already know how to mock static methods. If you do not, see this question.

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));

UPDATE

There are newer java7 versions that fix this issue. As is written in reply to Powermock / Javassist creates illegal constructors for JDK 1.7.0u65 and 1.8.0u11 with -target 7 #525

upgrading from java 7u71 to 7u75 fixed the problem

Rootcause

Upon investigation I heard cries for help from all over the internet from all tools and languages that built upon JDK.

Turns out the cause is new java bytecode standard that gets checked by new verifier. But unfortunately javassist sometimes is asked by powermock to produce changes into bytecode that are no longer accepted by this new shiny veryfier.

Workaround (for those who cannot go with newer java)

As a workaround in JRebel blog they suggested using -noverify flag upon starting JVM However i found from Java 7 Bytecode Verifier: Huge backward step for the JVM blog post alternative workaround that works on java7: -XX:-UseSplitVerifier

As my tests run in some unaccessible server and are executed as part of maven build, i needed to find a way to pass that argument along with my project files. First workable solution i discovered is to add this parameter to configurtaion of surefire plugin in pom.xml as follows:

<build>
    <plugins>
        <plugin>
            <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
            <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
            <version>2.10</version>
            <configuration>
                <argLine>-XX:-UseSplitVerifier</argLine>
            </configuration>
        </plugin>
        <plugin>
    </plugins>
</build>

I suppose that on java8 one could use similar method to call tests with -noverify key, but haven't had the chance to confirm that.

Other related resources to keep eye on

Powermock / Javassist creates illegal constructors for JDK 1.7.0u65 and 1.8.0u11 with -target 7. Powermock / Javassist creates illegal constructors for JDK 1.7.0u65 and 1.8.0u11 with -target 7 #525

Hamcrest matcher methods return Matcher<T> and Mockito matchers return T. So, for example: org.hamcrest.Matchers.any(Integer.class) returns an instance of org.hamcrest.Matcher<Integer>, and org.mockito.Matchers.any(Integer.class) returns an instance of Integer.

That means that you can only use Hamcrest matchers when a Matcher<?> object is expected in the signature - typically, in assertThat calls. When setting up expectations or verifications where you are calling methods of the mock object, you use the Mockito matchers.

For example (with fully qualified names for clarity):

@Test
public void testGetDelegatedBarByIndex() {
    Foo mockFoo = mock(Foo.class);
    // inject our mock
    objectUnderTest.setFoo(mockFoo);
    Bar mockBar = mock(Bar.class);
    when(mockFoo.getBarByIndex(org.mockito.Matchers.any(Integer.class))).
        thenReturn(mockBar);

    Bar actualBar = objectUnderTest.getDelegatedBarByIndex(1);
    
    assertThat(actualBar, org.hamcrest.Matchers.any(Bar.class));
    verify(mockFoo).getBarByIndex(org.mockito.Matchers.any(Integer.class));
}

If you want to use a Hamcrest matcher in a context that requires a Mockito matcher, you can use the org.mockito.Matchers.argThat (or org.mockito.hamcrest.MockitoHamcrest.argThat in Mockito 2). It converts a Hamcrest matcher into a Mockito matcher. So, say you wanted to match a double value with some precision (but not much). In that case, you could do:

when(mockFoo.getBarByDouble(argThat(is(closeTo(1.0, 0.001))))).
    thenReturn(mockBar);

Weird that your solution seems to work.
According to their documentation on Github it says.

Mocking of final classes and methods is an incubating, opt-in feature. It uses a combination of Java agent instrumentation and subclassing in order to enable mockability of these types. As this works differently to our current mechanism and this one has different limitations and as we want to gather experience and user feedback, this feature had to be explicitly activated to be available ; it can be done via the mockito extension mechanism by creating the file src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker containing a single line:

mock-maker-inline

After you created this file, Mockito will automatically use this new engine and one can do :

 final class FinalClass {
   final String finalMethod() { return "something"; }
 }

 FinalClass concrete = new FinalClass(); 

 FinalClass mock = mock(FinalClass.class);
 given(mock.finalMethod()).willReturn("not anymore");

 assertThat(mock.finalMethod()).isNotEqualTo(concrete.finalMethod());

In subsequent milestones, the team will bring a programmatic way of using this feature. We will identify and provide support for all unmockable scenarios. Stay tuned and please let us know what you think of this feature!

My working structure now looks like this.

This is a bug that occurs when you use JUnit 4.12 and PowerMock < 1.6.1. The problem is solved in PowerMock 1.6.1. Please update your dependencies accordingly

testCompile 'junit:junit:4.12',
            'org.powermock:powermock-core:1.6.1',
            'org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:1.6.1',
            'org.powermock:powermock-api-mockito:1.6.1'

If you cannot upgrade PowerMock then you can use JUnit 4.11.

testCompile 'junit:junit:4.11',
            'org.powermock:powermock-core:1.5.6',
            'org.powermock:powermock-module-junit4:1.5.6',
            'org.powermock:powermock-api-mockito:1.5.6'

Could you please add further lines of the stacktrace, which uncover more details about the problem.

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...