How to use failIfMockIsSharedBetweenThreads method of org.mockitousage.bugs.ShouldNotDeadlockAnswerExecutionTest class

Usually when unit testing you want to mock all external dependencies of a class. That way the unit test can remain independent and focused on the class under test.

Nevertheless, if you want to mix Spring autowiring with Mockito mocks, an easy solution is to annotate with both @InjectMocks and @Autowired:

  @InjectMocks
  @Autowired
  private UploadServiceImpl uploadService;

The net effect of this is that first Spring will autowire the bean, then Mockito will immediately overwrite the mocked dependencies with the available mocks.

you can set the value using reflection. It doesn't need any change in production code.

ReflectionTestUtils.setField(YourClass.class, "fieldName", fieldValue);

Hate to be the person but: simply don't test this. Test the output, side effects, results - not the implementation.

If you really want to ensure the correct order, extract these methods into separate class(es) and mock them.

With Mockito framework, you can use AdditionalMatchers

ClassA classA = Mockito.mock(ClassA.class);
Mockito.when(classA.getString(Matchers.eq("a"))).thenReturn("something"); 
Mockito.when(classA.getString(AdditionalMatchers.not(Matchers.eq("a")))).thenReturn("something else");

Hope it helps.

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.

In general, testing a class's internal function calls makes your tests far too fragile. When unit testing, you only want to see that the class as a whole is doing what it is supposed to do. You are supposed to intentionally ignore the internals.

Ignoring the internals has a lot of useful benefits. Mainly, if you change the methods -- as long as the public interface stays the same -- your tests will all still pass. Yay. This is the type of stability you want your unit tests to have. Fragile unit tests are almost worse than no unit tests. A fragile test has to be changed every time the code changes even if everything is still working. That provides you with nothing but extra work.

There are exceptions though. I would consider mocking out internal function calls in the following cases:

1) The internal call pulls data from somewhere. For example a database or large file. This is often called a 'boundary' test. We don't want to really set up a database or file to test, so instead we just sub out the function. However, if you find yourself doing this, it probably means that your class should be split into two classes because it is doing too many different things. Make yourself a dedicated database class instead.

2) The internal call does heavy processing that takes a lot of time. In that case, it might make sense to sub out the function instead of waiting. However, once again this might be a sign that you're on the wrong track. You should try to find a way to make things more partitioned so no single step takes that long.

In conclusion, I would highly recommend you do not test at the method level. A class should be a distinct unit. If the class is working everything is fine. This approach give you the testing you need to be secure and the flexibility you need to change things.

@raspacorp

Indeed, if you only test one case, someone could hardcode var = 2 and then pass your test case. But it is your job in designing tests cases to cover enough different cases to be reasonably satisfied that it is behaving appropriately.

As far as tests changing because the code has changed, this is not what you want at all. You want your tests to verify that the responses you are getting are correct for all the different types of cases. As long as the responses are correct, you want to be able to change everything without changing the tests at all.

Imagine a large system with thousands of tests verifing that everything is working right. Now imagine that you want to make a HUGE optimization change that will make things go faster, but change how everything is stored and calculated. What you want your tests to allow you to do is only change code (not tests) and have the tests continually confirm that everything is still working. This is what unit tests are for, not catching every possible line change, but rather to verify that all the calculations and behaviors are corrent.

It really depends on GeneralConfigService#getInstance() implementation. Also you can simplify your test code a lot if you use @InjectMocks annotation.

When using MockitoJUnitRunner you don't need to initialize mocks and inject your dependencies manually:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class GeneralConfigServiceImplTest  {

    @InjectMocks
    private GeneralConfigService generalConfigService;

    @Mock
    private GeneralConfigDAO generalConfigDAO;

    @Test
    public void testAddGeneralConfigCallDAOSuccess() {
       // generalConfigService is already instantiated and populated with dependencies here
       ...
    }
}

As a follow up, the Mockito public API now has this method:

MockingDetails org.mockito.Mockito.mockingDetails(Object toInspect)

Which is the result of the issue that @David Wallace raised. The returned object supports the methods isMock() as well as isSpy() along with a few other methods that provide additional mocking information.

I think it should be

verify(mockBar, times(2)).doSomething(...)

Sample from mockito javadoc:

ArgumentCaptor<Person> peopleCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Person.class);
verify(mock, times(2)).doSomething(peopleCaptor.capture());

List<Person> capturedPeople = peopleCaptor.getAllValues();
assertEquals("John", capturedPeople.get(0).getName());
assertEquals("Jane", capturedPeople.get(1).getName());