How to use tearDown method of org.mockito.osgitest.OsgiTest class

@InjectMocks is a Mockito mechanism for injecting declared fields in the test class into matching fields in the class under test. It doesn't require the class under test to be a Spring component.

@Autowired is Spring's annotation for autowiring a bean into a production, non-test class.

If you wanted to leverage the @Autowired annotations in the class under test, another approach would be to use springockito which allows you to declare mock beans so that they will be autowired into the class under test the same way that Spring would autowire the bean. But typically that's not necessary.

The need is simple: to verify that the correct number of invocations were made. There are scenarios in which method calls should not happen, and others in which they should happen more or less than the default.

Consider the following modified version of embarkOnQuest:

public void embarkOnQuest() {
    quest.embark(); 
    quest.embarkAgain(); 
}

And suppose you are testing error cases for quest.embark():

@Test 
public void knightShouldEmbarkOnQuest() { 
    Quest mockQuest = mock(Quest.class); 
    Mockito.doThrow(RuntimeException.class).when(mockQuest).embark();
    ...
}

In this case you want to make sure that quest.embarkAgain is NOT invoked (or is invoked 0 times):

verify(mockQuest, times(0)).embarkAgain(); //or verifyZeroInteractions

Of course this is one other simple example. There are many other examples that could be added:

• A database connector that should cache entries on first fetch, one can make multiple calls and verify that the connection to the database was called just once (per test query)
• A singleton object that does initialization on load (or lazily), one can test that initialization-related calls are made just once.

It means that dependency graph contains multiple dependencies with the same group and module but different versions for e.g. org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core. Gradle tries to resolve conflicted versions automatically - by default the latest version is chosen. On the left side of -> is the requested version, on the right the version that will be picked. Here similar question can be found.

You're supposed to be creating a mock of the Query interface like this...

@Test
public void test() { 

    Query query = mock(Query.class);

    when(entityManager.createNamedQuery(queryName)).thenReturn(query);

    ...

Maybe you forgot the double quotes around the String literal "queryName". From your code I cannot see where the variable queryName is defined on the last line above.

For the future I would recommend Eran Harel's answer (refactoring moving new to factory that can be mocked). But if you don't want to change the original source code, use very handy and unique feature: spies. From the documentation:

You can create spies of real objects. When you use the spy then the real methods are called (unless a method was stubbed).

Real spies should be used carefully and occasionally, for example when dealing with legacy code.

In your case you should write:

TestedClass tc = spy(new TestedClass());
LoginContext lcMock = mock(LoginContext.class);
when(tc.login(anyString(), anyString())).thenReturn(lcMock);

Further reading has led me to try using ArgumentCaptors and the following works, although much more verbose than I would like.

ArgumentCaptor<String> argument = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(String.class);

verify(errors, atLeastOnce()).add(argument.capture(), any(ActionMessage.class));

List<String> values = argument.getAllValues();

assertTrue(values.contains("exception.message"));
assertTrue(values.contains("exception.detail"));

According to the Mockito documentation, you can make a mock serializable:

List serializableMock = mock(List.class, withSettings().serializable());

ExpectedException works by wrapping your entire test method in a try-catch block via a JUnit @Rule. When your code throws an exception, it goes up the stack to the nearest try/catch, which happens to be in the ExpectedException instance (which checks that it is the exception you're expecting).

In Java, if an uncaught exception occurs in a method, control will never return to statements later in that method. The same rules apply here: Control never returns to the statements in your test after the exception.

Technically, you could put the verifications in a finally block, but that tends to be a bad habit. EDIT: Your system-under-test might throw an unexpected exception, or no exception at all, which would give you a helpful failure message and trace; however, if that failure then causes your verifications or assertions to fail in the finally block, then Java will show that rather than a message about the unexpected exception or unexpected success. This can make debugging difficult, especially because your error will come from lines of code following the root cause of the error, incorrectly implying that the code above it succeeded.

If you really need to verify state after the exception, on a per-method basis, you can always revert back to this idiom:

@Test
public void testExpectedException()
{
  MockedObject mockObj = mock(MockedObj.class);
  MySubject subject = new MySubject(mockedObj);
  try {
    subject.someMethodThrowingException();
    fail("Expected MyException.");
  } catch (MyException expected) {
    assertEquals("My exception message.", expected.getMessage());
  }
  verify(mockObj).someCleanup(eq(...));
}

Update: With Java 8's lambda expressions, you can wrap a functional interface call in a try block concisely enough to be useful. I imagine support for this syntax will find its way into many standard testing libraries.

assertThrows(MyException.class,
    () -> systemUnderTest.throwingMethod());

Update July 29, 2015 by @durron597: This excellent answer was correct in 2013, however it has since been rendered obsolete by an update to Mockito. See this answer.

I use latest JUnit with Mockito core dependency and hamcrest 1.3 in many Maven projects at work. Till now nobody reported any problem with this. So if this works for your tests go with the newest Version for all three. Just ensure to use mockito core instead of all.

So I would recommend to go with option 2 to have all benefits of the newer versions. If you are really in doubt that anything could go wrong use option 4 which is the safest one. But of course you could go with option 2 and when in the near future anything would be wrong you could switch to option 2. Or since then a newer mockito is already out there solving this.

Note from mockito Issue 397: This problem does not appear with mockito-core.