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

Since Mockito 1.9.5+ and Java 8+

You can use a lambda expression, like:

when(myMock.myFunction(anyString())).thenAnswer(i -> i.getArguments()[0]);

Where i is an instance of InvocationOnMock.

For older versions

You can create an Answer in Mockito. Let's assume, we have an interface named MyInterface with a method myFunction.

public interface MyInterface {
    public String myFunction(String abc);
}

Here is the test method with a Mockito answer:

public void testMyFunction() throws Exception {
    MyInterface mock = mock(MyInterface.class);
    when(mock.myFunction(anyString())).thenAnswer(new Answer<String>() {
    @Override
    public String answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
        Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
        return (String) args[0];
    }
    });

    assertEquals("someString",mock.myFunction("someString"));
    assertEquals("anotherString",mock.myFunction("anotherString"));
}

I don't quite follow what problem you're having using Mockito. Assuming you create a mock of the interface that contains your myMethod() method, you can then verify only the parameters to the method that you are interested in. For example (assuming the interface is called MyInterface and using JUnit 4):

@Test
public void test() {
    MyInterface myInterface = mock(MyInterface.class);
    FooBar expectedFooBar = new FooBar();        

    // other testing stuff

    verify(myInterface).myMethod(any(), any(), eq(expectedFooBar), any(), ...);
}

You'll need to do a static import on the Mockito methods for this to work. The any() matcher doesn't care what value has been passed when verifying.

You can't avoid passing something for every argument in your method (even if it's only NULL).

org.mockito.runners.MockitoJUnitRunner is now indeed deprecated, you are supposed to use org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnitRunner instead. As you can see only the package name has changed, the simple name of the class is still MockitoJUnitRunner.

Excerpt from the javadoc of org.mockito.runners.MockitoJUnitRunner:

Moved to MockitoJUnitRunner, this class will be removed with Mockito 3

You can write your own Answer:

when(mock.testMethod(anyString())).thenAnswer(new Answer<String>() {
    @Override
    public String answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
        return invocation.getArgumentAt(0, String.class);
    }
});

Or:

when(mock.testMethod(anyString()))
    .thenAnswer(AdditionalAnswers.<String>returnsFirstArg());

You are using a library designed for mocking, that lacks implementions. Because your test actually calls the method on the object, without using a mocking library to give it behavior, it's giving you that message.

As on the Android Unit Testing Support page:

"Method ... not mocked."

The android.jar file that is used to run unit tests does not contain any actual code - that is provided by the Android system image on real devices. Instead, all methods throw exceptions (by default). This is to make sure your unit tests only test your code and do not depend on any particular behaviour of the Android platform (that you have not explicitly mocked e.g. using Mockito). If that proves problematic, you can add the snippet below to your build.gradle to change this behavior:

android {
  // ...
  testOptions { 
    unitTests.returnDefaultValues = true
  }
}

To work around it, use a mocking framework like Mockito instead of calling real methods like put, or switch to Robolectric to use Java equivalents of classes otherwise implemented only in native code.

I have two critiques to that approach... and please bear in mind that my knowledge of your context is almost nil, which means that what I suggest here might not work for you.

I've only once experienced a problem like the one you mentioned, and it was a symptom that there was too much coupling between the objects because the responsbilities were way to broad. Since then I use a Domain-Driven Design approach and I haven't had this problem again.

I prefer to use Test-Data Builders to create test data. This approach allows me to have a template of what I want to build, and just replace the bits I'm interested in the test. If you decide to go this way, I strongly suggest you to use a tiny library called Make-It-Easy that simplifies the creation of these builders.

And two suggestions

If you have some time, I suggest you to

1. Watch a presetation called The Deep Synergy Between Testability and Good Design by Michael Feathers - Part of the talk is about something very similar to what you're experiencing.
2. Read the book Growing Object-Orieted Systems, Guided by Tests (aka GOOS), it has all sorts of insights about how to write simple, amazing, testable code.

Even more meaningful :

import static org.mockito.Mockito.never;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;

// ...

verify(dependency, never()).someMethod();

The documentation of this feature is there §4 "Verifying exact number of invocations / at least x / never", and the never javadoc is here.

I got this when combining PowerMock with Mockito. Fixed by using compatible version as shown here: https://github.com/powermock/powermock/wiki/Mockito#supported-versions

Use this :

import static org.mockito.Mockito.verifyZeroInteractions;

// ...

private PrintStream backup = System.out;

@Before
public void setUp() {
    System.setOut(mock(PrintStream.class));
}

@After
public void tearDown() {
    verifyZeroInteractions(System.out);
    System.setOut(backup);
}