How to use should_allow_inline_mock_creation method of org.mockitousage.basicapi.ResetInvocationsTest class

I have to strongly disagree with this question.

There is no justification for a mocking tool that limits design choices. It's not just static methods that are ruled out by EasyMock, EasyMock Class Extension, jMock, Mockito, and others. These tools also prevent you from declaring classes and methods final, and that alone is a very bad thing. (If you need one authoritative source that defends the use of final for classes and methods, see the "Effective Java" book, or watch this presentation from the author.)

And "initialising collaborators rather than injecting them" often is the best design, in my experience. If you decompose a class that solves some complex problem by creating helper classes that are instantiated from that class, you can take advantage of the ability to safely pass specific data to those child objects, while at the same time hiding them from client code (which provided the full data used in the high-level operation). Exposing such helper classes in the public API violates the principle of information hiding, breaking encapsulation and increasing the complexity of client code.

The abuse of DI leads to stateless objects which really should be stateful because they will almost always operate on data that is specific to the business operation. This is not only true for non-public helper classes, but also for public "business service" classes called from UI/presentation objects. Such service classes are usually internal code (to a single business application) that is inherently not reusable and have only a few clients (often only one) because such code is by nature domain/use-case specific. In such a case (a very common one, by the way) it makes much more sense to have the UI class directly instantiate the business service class, passing data provided by the user through a constructor.

Being able to easily write unit tests for code like this is precisely what led me to create the JMockit toolkit. I wasn't thinking about legacy code, but about simplicity and economy of design. The results I achieved so far convinced me that testability really is a function of two variables: the maintainability of production code, and the limitations of the mocking tool used to test that code. So, if you remove all limitations from the mocking tool, what do you get?

I just had this error and worked through the solution. My pom.xml file had the following dependency:

<dependency>
  <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
  <artifactId>powermock-mockito-release-full</artifactId>
  <version>1.5</version>
  <classifier>full</classifier>
  <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

The problem comes from the fact my code uses JUnit and the above dependency has an external dependency on TestNG. This was stopping my test from running. Why I don't know - you would have though a test framework would have been tested a little bit better!!!

Anyway the solution was to break down the 'full' dependencies to just those required:

<dependency>
  <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
  <artifactId>powermock-api-mockito</artifactId>
  <version>1.5</version>
  <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
  <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
  <artifactId>powermock-core</artifactId>
  <version>1.5</version>
  <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
  <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
  <artifactId>powermock-module-junit4</artifactId>
  <version>1.5</version>
  <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

That solved it. BTW I used mvn dependency:tree to understand the associated dependencies.

You are reusing your context, in order to have tests independent from one another you probably need to refresh your context after each test to reset everything.

I will suppose you are using Junit 4.5+. It would be similar with other test frameworks.

@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
@ContextConfiguration(locations={"mycontext.xml"})
@DirtiesContext(classMode = ClassMode.AFTER_EACH_TEST_METHOD)
public class MyTestClass {
...
    // my tests    
...
}

You can put the @DirtiesContext at the method level if the methods that need "fixing" are few, but if you are using Spring your best option is to do it after every test.

Anyway, I don't think you should be using mocks/spies in integration tests:

• In unit tests, use mocks (if you want) and inject manually. Here you want to verify the behaviour of your tested bean as a unit, so you isolate it from the rest by using mocks. This also has the advantage that JUnit isolates your tests by using a different instance of the test class for each test, so unless you use static or other test-unfriendly practices everything will just work.

• In integration tests, use real beans and let Spring inject. Here the goal is to verify that beans interact well with one another / with the environment (database, network, ...) You do not want to isolate beans here, so you should not use mocks.

See Spring documentation about testing for more detailed explanations.

Note that documentToPojo takes a Class as its second argument. any(Foo.class) returns an argument of type Foo, not of type Class<Foo>, whereas eq(WorkItemDTO.class) should return a Class<WorkItemDTO> as expected. I'd do it this way:

when(mongoUtil.documentToPojo(
    Mockito.any(Document.class),
    Mockito.eq(WorkItemDTO.class))).thenReturn(...);

According to the Mockito_Maven page on the PowerMock wiki, use this:

<properties>
    <powermock.version>1.6.6</powermock.version>
</properties>
<dependencies>
   <dependency>
      <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
      <artifactId>powermock-module-junit4</artifactId>
      <version>${powermock.version}</version>
      <scope>test</scope>
   </dependency>
   <dependency>
      <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
      <artifactId>powermock-api-mockito</artifactId>
      <version>${powermock.version}</version>
      <scope>test</scope>
   </dependency>
</dependencies>

powermock-api-support seems to be "utility classes only", where you still need the core libraries provided in powermock-module-junit4.

I think it requires more custom work.

verify(row, new LastCall()).saveToDatabase();

and then

public class LastCall implements VerificationMode {
    public void verify(VerificationData data) {
        List<Invocation> invocations = data.getAllInvocations();
        InvocationMatcher matcher = data.getWanted();
        Invocation invocation = invocations.get(invocations.size() - 1);
        if (!matcher.matches(invocation)) throw new MockitoException("...");
    }
}

Previous Answer:

You are right. verifyNoMoreInteractions is what you need.

verify(row).setSomething(value);
verify(row).setSomethingElse(anotherValue);
verify(row).editABunchMoreStuff();
verify(row).saveToDatabase();
verifyNoMoreInteractions(row);

Generally if you start new project and you (want to/ are forced) to use PowerMock because of the architecture of your code it means that this architecture is bad and needs improvement. Power Mock gives you access to mock static methods, constructors etc. and this means that your code is not following best programming principles.

Power Mock should be used in legacy applications where you cannot change the code which has been given to you. Often such code does not have unit/integration tests and even small change can result in bugs in application.

I wouldn't use exceptions to test that, but verifications. And another problem is that you can't use when() with methods returning void.

Here's how I would do it:

FizzConfigurator fixture = Mockito.spy(new FizzConfigurator());
doNothing().when(fixture).doWidget(Mockito.anyString(), Mockito.<Config>any()));
fixture.doBuzz("some string");
Mockito.verify(fixture).doWidget("some string", Config.SOMETIMES);

Powermock 1.6.3 uses javassist 3.15.2-GA which does not support certain types. Using 3.18.2-GA javassist worked for me. You may want to override dependency in your project.

    <dependency>
        <groupId>org.javassist</groupId>
        <artifactId>javassist</artifactId>
        <version>3.18.2-GA</version>
    </dependency>

You may face another problem for which the solution lies here Mockito + PowerMock LinkageError while mocking system class

Hope this helps.