How to use AtomicBoolean method of org.mockitousage.junitrule.JUnitTestRuleIntegratesWithRuleChainTest class

Found out that by changing the Async mode to AspectJ fixed the issue:

@EnableCaching
@SpringBootConfiguration
@EnableAutoConfiguration
@ComponentScan(lazyInit = true) 
@EnableAsync(mode = AdviceMode.ASPECTJ) // Changes here!!!
public class Main {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new SpringApplicationBuilder().sources(Main.class)
                                    .run(args);
    }
}

I'll accept this as a temporary hackish solution until I understand what's the real root cause of this issue.

There is no WebApplicationContext only an ApplicationContext unless you add the @WebAppConfiguration to your test class.

@ContextConfiguration(locations = { "classpath:/test/BeanConfig.xml" })
@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
@WebAppConfiguration
public class CandidateControllerTest { ... }

Instead of the @RunWith annotation you can also extend one of springs convenience classes.

@ContextConfiguration(locations = { "classpath:/test/BeanConfig.xml" })
@WebAppConfiguration
public class CandidateControllerTest extends AbstractJUnit4SpringContextTests { ... }

Links

1. WebAppConfiguration javadoc
2. Reference Guide

You can use the Mockito shipped answers:

when(mock.something()).then(AdditionalAnswers.returnsFirstArg())

Where AdditionalAnswers.returnsFirstArg() could be statically imported.

To verify the number of times it was invoked, use verify(spiedObject, times(x)).doSomething().

You should NOT be verifying the value returned from the spied object. It is not the object under test so why verify what it returns. Instead verify the behavior of the object under test in response to the value returned from the spy.

Also, if you don't KNOW what value will be returned by the spied object it would be better to use a mock instead of a spy.

I think the answer is no -- perhaps you could pull it off with some intense reflection wrangling, but if so I don't think it would be worth your time.

But I think (without seeing your method), you can probably still get full coverage on your method:

• If your method takes any action after catching the exception, assert or verify that those actions happened.
  
  
• If no action happens after catching the exception, assert or verify that whatever actions were supposed to happen but were cut off by the exception, didn't happen.
  
  
• Finally, (again, not seeing your method I don't know exactly what you're dealing with) if your method is void, and nothing happens after catching the exception, and the last line of logic is what can throw the exception, then consider making your method return a boolean, have it return false if the exception is caught and true otherwise. Then in your test, make a scenario that should cause the exception to be thrown and caught, and test that the method returns false.
  
  

It is very likely that the Runnable hasn't been executed yet by the asyncTaskExecutor when you verify the invocation, resulting in a verification error in your unit test.

The best way to fix this is to join on the generated thread and wait for execution before verifying the invocations.

If you cannot get the instance of the thread, a possible work around is to mock the asyncTaskExecutor and implement it so it will execute the runnable directly.

private ExecutorService executor;

@Before
public void setup() {
    executor = mock(ExecutorService.class);
    implementAsDirectExecutor(executor);
}

protected void implementAsDirectExecutor(ExecutorService executor) {
    doAnswer(new Answer<Object>() {
        public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Exception {
            ((Runnable) invocation.getArguments()[0]).run();
            return null;
        }
    }).when(executor).submit(any(Runnable.class));
}

The nested generics-problem can be avoided with the @Captor annotation:

public class Test{

    @Mock
    private Service service;

    @Captor
    private ArgumentCaptor<ArrayList<SomeType>> captor;

    @Before
    public void init(){
        MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
    }

    @Test 
    public void shouldDoStuffWithListValues() {
        //...
        verify(service).doStuff(captor.capture()));
    }
}

Something like this should do it (not tested):

doAnswer(new Answer() {
    public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
        Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
        List<?> list = (List<?>) args[0];
        list.clear();
        return null;
    }
}).when(test).clearList(any(List.class));

If the contract of class A includes the fact that it calls method B of an object of type C, then you should test this by making a mock of type C, and verifying that method B has been called.

This implies that the contract of class A has sufficient detail that it talks about type C (which might be an interface or a class). So yes, we're talking about a level of specification that goes beyond just "system requirements", and goes some way to describing implementation.

This is normal for unit tests. When you are unit testing, you want to ensure that each unit is doing the "right thing", and that will usually include its interactions with other units. "Units" here might mean classes, or larger subsets of your application.

Update:

I feel that this doesn't apply just to verification, but to stubbing as well. As soon as you stub a method of a collaborator class, your unit test has become, in some sense, dependent on implementation. It's kind of in the nature of unit tests to be so. Since Mockito is as much about stubbing as it is about verification, the fact that you're using Mockito at all implies that you're going to run across this kind of dependency.

In my experience, if I change the implementation of a class, I often have to change the implementation of its unit tests to match. Typically, though, I won't have to change the inventory of what unit tests there are for the class; unless of course, the reason for the change was the existence of a condition that I failed to test earlier.

So this is what unit tests are about. A test that doesn't suffer from this kind of dependency on the way collaborator classes are used is really a sub-system test or an integration test. Of course, these are frequently written with JUnit too, and frequently involve the use of mocking. In my opinion, "JUnit" is a terrible name, for a product that lets us produce all different types of test.