How to use ToBeDeepStubbed method of org.mockitousage.bugs.deepstubs.DeepStubsWronglyReportsSerializationProblemsTest class

Actually, the problem is that each verify call is made on the same spySchool instance. Let me explain:

@Test 
public void testCountPerson() {    
    School mSchool = School.getInstance();
    School spySchool = Mockito.spy(mSchool); // a spy is created here, Mockito is listening in.
    spySchool.countPerson(true); // real method is invoked
    verify(spySchool).countIncludeTeacher(); // our spy identified that countIncludeTeacher was called

    spySchool.countPerson(false); // real method is invoked
    verify(spySchool, times(0)).countIncludeTeacher(); // our spy still identified that countIncludeTeacher was called, before it was called before
}

The thing is that in the latest verify, it fails because the countIncludeTeacher method was called on the spy before and that called was not deregistered.

You can do it using verifyNoMoreInteractions, which verifies that the object had no more interactions. You could also reset the object.

But note that this is really not recommended, quoting Mockito Javadoc:

A word of warning: Some users who did a lot of classic, expect-run-verify mocking tend to use verifyNoMoreInteractions() very often, even in every test method. verifyNoMoreInteractions() is not recommended to use in every test method. verifyNoMoreInteractions() is a handy assertion from the interaction testing toolkit. Use it only when it's relevant. Abusing it leads to overspecified, less maintainable tests. You can find further reading here.

And

Smart Mockito users hardly use this feature because they know it could be a sign of poor tests. Normally, you don't need to reset your mocks, just create new mocks for each test method.

Instead of reset() please consider writing simple, small and focused test methods over lengthy, over-specified tests. First potential code smell is reset() in the middle of the test method. This probably means you're testing too much. Follow the whisper of your test methods: "Please keep us small & focused on single behavior".

I would definitely suggest that you split this test in two: one for the true case and one for the false case.

First, you can't prevent people from messing with your game by declaring things 'final'. There are reflection tricks and whole code generation libraries that make it merely slightly inconvenient to get past this.

So, lose the finals, and then you can use jmock or whatever library you like to make mocks.

As stated in the offical documentation, it is possible and sometimes even advised:

Important gotcha on spying real objects!

Sometimes it's impossible or impractical to use when(Object) for stubbing spies. Therefore when using spies please consider doReturn|Answer|Throw() family of methods for stubbing.

But, once again as the doc states:

Stubbing voids requires different approach from when(Object) because the compiler does not like void methods inside brackets...

Is your method void?

Example from the documentation if void:

doAnswer(new Answer() {
    public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
        Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
        Mock mock = invocation.getMock();
        return null;
    }
}).when(mock).someMethod();

Thus, you should use the following code if your method is void:

MyObject spy = spy(myObject);

doAnswer(new Answer<Object>() {
    @Override
    public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
        return null;
    }
}).when(spy).notify();   

Or if it is not void:

when(spy.toString()).thenAnswer(new Answer<String>() {
    @Override
    public String answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
        return "this";
    }
});

The answer is yes, you can, and there are basically two levels of doing this, based on the need of your test.

If you merely want to test the interaction with the mocked object, you can simply use the verify() method, to verify that the void method was called.

If your test genuinely needs the mocked object to modify parameters passed to it, you will need to implement an Answer:

EDITED to show proper form of using Answer with void method

doAnswer(new Answer() {
    @Override
    Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
        Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
        ((MyClass)args[0]).myClassSetMyField(NEW_VALUE);
        return null; // void method, so return null
    }
}).when(mock).someMethod();

In Java 8+, the above is simplified with a lambda:

doAnswer(invocation-> {
    Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
    ((MyClass)args[0]).myClassSetMyField(NEW_VALUE);
    return null;
}).when(mock).someMethod();

You could simply put the thread to sleep for the desired time. Watch out tho - such things can really slow down your automated test execution, so you might want to isolate such tests in a separate suite

It would look similar to this:

when(mock.load("a")).thenAnswer(new Answer<String>() {
   @Override
   public String answer(InvocationOnMock invocation){
     Thread.sleep(5000);
     return "ABCD1234";
   }
});

The problem is that in your isEnabled you are creating a new RestTemplate. This is wrong for two reasons, one is that you cannot mock it since you are creating a new one, and second it is good to avoid creating new objects per request. RestTemplate is thread safe and hence can be a service class member, being used across many threads.

Change your service class to something like this:

public class Service{

    RestTemplate restTemplate = new RestTemplate();

    public boolean isEnabled(String xxx) {
        ResponseEntity<String> response = restTemplate.getForEntity("someurl",String.class);
        if(...)return true;
        return false;
    }
}

Now that your RestTemplate has become a class member you can now properly mock through one of two ways. One, inject it using the @InjectMock, or use a setter method that you call from your test.

Since you are using InjectMock in your code we can go with that.

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) 
public class ServiceTest {
    @Mock
    RestTemplate restTemplate;
    @InjectMocks
    @Spy
    Service service;
    ResponseEntity responseEntity = mock(ResponseEntity.class);

    @Test
    public void test() throws Exception {
        Mockito.when(restTemplate.getForEntity(
                Mockito.anyString(),
                ArgumentMatchers.any(Class.class)
                ))
                .thenReturn(responseEntity);
        boolean res = service.isEnabled("something");
        Assert.assertEquals(res, false);
    }

Notice that I made a few changes. First, I removed the new RestTemplate() and new Service(). You should let mockito create those for you. By annotating them with @Mock and @Spy you will ensure that Mockito will create them for you, and more importantly, will inject the mocks into your service object.

You can use a spy on your static class and mock only specific methods:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest(MyStaticTest.MyStaticClass.class)
public class MyStaticTest {

public static class MyStaticClass {
    public static String getA(String a) {
        return a;
    }
    public static String getB(String b) {
        return b;
    }
}

@Test
public void should_partial_mock_static_class() throws Exception {
    //given
    PowerMockito.spy(MyStaticClass.class);
    given(MyStaticClass.getB(Mockito.anyString())).willReturn("B");
    //then
    assertEquals("A", MyStaticClass.getA("A"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getA("B"));
    assertEquals("C", MyStaticClass.getA("C"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("A"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("B"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("C"));
}

}

If you are using Java 7 you can avoid StackMap frames using "-XX:-UseSplitVerifier" as a parameter to the JVM.

You can find more info here

Also, a slightly more terse way to get around this is to use the do syntax instead of when.

doReturn(User.class).when(methodParameter).getParameterType();