If you want the mocked method to call a method on (or otherwise alter) a parameter, you'll need to write an Answer as in this question ("How to mock a void return method affecting an object").

From Kevin Welker's answer there:

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

Note that newer best-practices would have a type parameter for Answer, as in Answer<Void>, and that Java 8's lambdas can compress the syntax further. For example:

doAnswer(invocation -> {
  Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
  ((MyClass)args[0]).myClassSetMyField(NEW_VALUE);
  return null; // void method in a block-style lambda, so return null
}).when(mock).someMethod();

You should use thenReturn or doReturn when you know the return value at the time you mock a method call. This defined value is returned when you invoke the mocked method.

thenReturn(T value) Sets a return value to be returned when the method is called.

@Test
public void test_return() throws Exception {
    Dummy dummy = mock(Dummy.class);
    int returnValue = 5;

    // choose your preferred way
    when(dummy.stringLength("dummy")).thenReturn(returnValue);
    doReturn(returnValue).when(dummy).stringLength("dummy");
}

Answer is used when you need to do additional actions when a mocked method is invoked, e.g. when you need to compute the return value based on the parameters of this method call.

Use doAnswer() when you want to stub a void method with generic Answer.

Answer specifies an action that is executed and a return value that is returned when you interact with the mock.

@Test
public void test_answer() throws Exception {
    Dummy dummy = mock(Dummy.class);
    Answer<Integer> answer = new Answer<Integer>() {
        public Integer answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
            String string = invocation.getArgumentAt(0, String.class);
            return string.length() * 2;
        }
    };

    // choose your preferred way
    when(dummy.stringLength("dummy")).thenAnswer(answer);
    doAnswer(answer).when(dummy).stringLength("dummy");
}

You can replace System.in with you own stream by calling System.setIn(InputStream in). InputStream can be a byte array:

InputStream sysInBackup = System.in; // backup System.in to restore it later
ByteArrayInputStream in = new ByteArrayInputStream("My string".getBytes());
System.setIn(in);

// do your thing

// optionally, reset System.in to its original
System.setIn(sysInBackup);

Different approach can be make this method more testable by passing IN and OUT as parameters:

public static int testUserInput(InputStream in,PrintStream out) {
    Scanner keyboard = new Scanner(in);
    out.println("Give a number between 1 and 10");
    int input = keyboard.nextInt();

    while (input < 1 || input > 10) {
        out.println("Wrong number, try again.");
        input = keyboard.nextInt();
    }

    return input;
}

There are two options I'd advise here.

Option 1 (separate unit tests suite for service and mapper)

If you want to unit test then mock your mapper in the service (other dependencies as well OFC) and test service logic only. For the mapper write a separate unit test suite. I created a code example here: https://github.com/jannis-baratheon/stackoverflow--mapstruct-mapper-testing-example.

Excerpts from the example:

Service class:

public class AService {
    private final ARepository repository;
    private final EntityMapper mapper;

    public AService(ARepository repository, EntityMapper mapper) {
        this.repository = repository;
        this.mapper = mapper;
    }

    public ADto getResource(int id) {
        AnEntity entity = repository.getEntity(id);
        return mapper.toDto(entity);
    }
}

Mapper:

import org.mapstruct.Mapper;

@Mapper
public interface EntityMapper {
    ADto toDto(AnEntity entity);
}

Service unit test:

import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.mock;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.when;

import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;

public class AServiceTest {

    private EntityMapper mapperMock;

    private ARepository repositoryMock;

    private AService sut;

    @Before
    public void setup() {
        repositoryMock = mock(ARepository.class);
        mapperMock = mock(EntityMapper.class);

        sut = new AService(repositoryMock, mapperMock);
    }

    @Test
    public void shouldReturnResource() {
        // given
        AnEntity mockEntity = mock(AnEntity.class);
        ADto mockDto = mock(ADto.class);

        when(repositoryMock.getEntity(42))
                .thenReturn(mockEntity);
        when(mapperMock.toDto(mockEntity))
                .thenReturn(mockDto);

        // when
        ADto resource = sut.getResource(42);

        // then
        assertThat(resource)
                .isSameAs(mockDto);
    }
}

Mapper unit test:

import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;

import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;

public class EntityMapperTest {

    private EntityMapperImpl sut;

    @Before
    public void setup() {
        sut = new EntityMapperImpl();
    }

    @Test
    public void shouldMapEntityToDto() {
        // given
        AnEntity entity = new AnEntity();
        entity.setId(42);

        // when
        ADto aDto = sut.toDto(entity);

        // then
        assertThat(aDto)
            .hasFieldOrPropertyWithValue("id", 42);
    }
}

Option 2 (integration tests for service and mapper + mapper unit tests)

The second option is to make an integration test where you inject a real mapper to the service. I'd strongly advise not to put too much effort into validating the mapping logic in integration tests though. It's very likely to get messy. Just smoke test the mappings and write unit tests for the mapper separately.

Summary

To sum up:

• unit tests for the service (using a mocked mapper) + unit tests for the mapper
• integration tests for the service (with real mapper) + unit tests for the mapper

I usually choose option number two where I test main application paths with MockMvc and write complete unit tests for smaller units.

You need to put the class where the constructor is called into the @PrepareForTest annotation instead of the class which is being constructed - see Mock construction of new objects.

In your case:

✗ @PrepareForTest(MyQueryClass.class)

✓ @PrepareForTest(A.class)

More general:

✗ @PrepareForTest(NewInstanceClass.class)

✓ @PrepareForTest(ClassThatCreatesTheNewInstance.class)

JUnit 5 has @TestInstance(PER_CLASS) annotation that can be used for this purpose. One of the features that it enables is non-static BeforeAll and AfterAll methods:

@TestInstance(PER_CLASS)
class BeforeAllTests {

    lateinit var isInit = false

    @BeforeAll
    fun setup() {
        isInit = true
    }

   @TestFactory
   fun beforeAll() = listOf(
       should("initialize isInit in BeforeAll") {
           assertTrue(isInit)
       }
   )
}

fun should(name: String, test: () -> Unit) = DynamicTest.dynamicTest("should $name", test)

You need to inject the mock into the class which you are testing. You do not need access to Subscriber. The way mockito and other mocking frameworks help is that you do not need access to objects which you are interacting with. You do however need a way to get mock objects into the class you are testing.

public class WebAdaptor {

    public WebAdaptor(Subscriber subscriber) { /* Added a new constructor */
       this.subscriber = subscriber;
    }

    private Subscriber subscriber;

    public void run() {
        subscriber.init();
    }
}

Now you can verify your interactions on the mock, rather than on the real object.

@Test
public void runShouldInvokeSubscriberInit() {

    // Given
    Subscriber mockSubscriber = mock(Subscriber.class);
    WebAdaptor adaptor = new WebAdaptor(mockSubscriber);  // Use the new constructor

    // When
    adaptor.run();

    // Then
    verify(mockSubscriber).init();
}

If adding the Subscriber to the constructor is not the correct approach, you could also consider using a factory to allow WebAdaptor to instantiate new Subscriber objects from a factory which you control. You could then mock the factory to provider mock Subscribers.

You can't instantiate an abstract class directly, but you can easily instantiate an anonymous subclass, and that's pretty trivial in this case as you're not forced to define any methods:

Mockito.when(mockDAO.getDatabaseResults()).thenThrow(new ProblemException(){});

Alternatively, you can just use another mock:

Mockito.when(mockDAO.getDatabaseResults()).thenThrow(Mockito.mock(ProblemException.class));

This would make sense if the abstract class forced the definition of other methods you don't care about in your test.

There is a type-safe way: use ArgumentMatchers.any() and qualify it with the type:

ArgumentMatchers.<AsyncCallback<ResponseX>>any()