How to use should_keep_same_instance_if_field_initialized method of org.mockitousage.annotation.AnnotationsTest class

In my case, I had a similar issue when I worked with JUnit5

@ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class)
class MyServiceTest {
...

@InjectMocks
MyService underTest;

@Test
void myMethodTest() {
...
}

underTest was null. The cause of the problem was that I used @Test from JUnit4 package import org.junit.Test; instead JUnit5 import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;

You can absolutely inject mocks on MyLauncher in your test. I am sure if you show what mocking framework you are using someone would be quick to provide an answer. With mockito I would look into using @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) and using annotations for myLauncher. It would look something like what is below.

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyLauncherTest
    @InjectMocks
    private MyLauncher myLauncher = new MyLauncher();

    @Mock
    private MyService myService;

    @Test
    public void someTest() {

    }
}

You miss the javax.el-api as dependency. Add:

<dependency>
    <groupId>javax.el</groupId>
    <artifactId>javax.el-api</artifactId>
    <version>3.0.0</version>
</dependency>

to your pom.xml

Reason: your test load one application context with bean mock inside. The bean mocks are dirty after any test. You have a dirty application context also.

Solution: you have to clean bean mock. Using Mockito.reset(mocks) after each test. I've found sth similar: How to clean up mocks in spring tests when using Mockito

It's a defect in Mockito with loading plugins when context class loader is different from which is used to load PowerMock and Mockito.

It could be fixed in Mockito 2, but as it mentioned in comments

Not sure we have the build infrastructure to backport the fix on 1.x

For Mockito 1, fix cannot be delivered, so I fixed in in PowerMock and fix will be include in next PowerMock release (PowerMock 1.6.5).

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).

Iterator mockIterator = mock(Iterator.class);
doCallRealMethod().when(fruits).forEach(any(Consumer.class));
when(fruits.iterator()).thenReturn(mockIterator);
when(mockIterator.hasNext()).thenReturn(true, false);
when(mockIterator.next()).thenReturn(mockObject);

Well yes - the actual code of Foo doesn't matter, because you're mocking it... and Mockito doesn't know there's meant to be a relationship between setName and getName. It doesn't assume that it should store the argument to setName and return it when getName is called... it could do that, but it doesn't as far as I'm aware. The mock provided by Mockito just allows you to specify what happens when methods are called on it, and check what was called later on. Instead of calling setName, you could mock a call to getName() and specify what it should return...

... or you could just use Foo directly instead of mocking it. Don't think you have to mock everything in your tests. Just mock (or fake) things that are awkward when you're using the real class, e.g. because it uses the file system or network.

I've also wandered how to inject a mock into a spy.

The following approach will not work:

@Spy
@InjectMocks
private MySpy spy;

But the desired behavior can be achieved by a "hybrid" approach, when using both annotation and manual mocking. The following works perfectly:

@Mock
private NeedToBeMocked needToBeMocked;

@InjectMocks
private MySpy mySpy;

@InjectMocks
private SubjectUnderTest sut;

@BeforeMethod
public void setUp() {
    mySpy = Mockito.spy(new MySpy());
    MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
}

(SubjectUnderTest here depends on MySpy, and MySpy in its turn depends on NeedToBeMocked).

UPD: Personally, I think that if you have to do such a magic too often, it might be a sign that there is something wrong with dependenicies between your classes and it is worth to perform a little bit of refactoring to improve your code.