How to use should_collect_verification_failures method of org.mockitousage.junitrule.VerificationCollectorImplTest class

Mockito requires you to either use only raw values or only matchers when stubbing a method call. The full exception (not posted by you here) surely explains everything.

Simple change the line:

when(jdbcTemplate.queryForObject(anyString(), any(SqlParameterSource.class), String.class
                        )).thenReturn("Test");

to

when(jdbcTemplate.queryForObject(anyString(), any(SqlParameterSource.class), eq(String.class)
                        )).thenReturn("Test");

and it should work.

With mockito 2.x, JDK 8 default methods are supported.

With mockito 1.x it's not possible,

Old answer

Unfortunately it's not yet possible (mockito 1.10.19), from the README.md on the github'page

JDK8 status

Mockito should work fine with JDK8 if you stay away from default methods (aka defender methods). Lambda usage may work just as good for Answers. We're unsure about every JDK8 features at the moment, like serializing a mock that uses a lambda. Error report and pull request are welcome though (contributing guide).

EDIT 1: defender methods and default methods are different names for the same thing.

I hope for a mockmaker replacement that will handle java 8 opcodes properly for such cases as some opcodes have a different semantic in Java 8.

EDIT 2: Updated the mockito readme, and this quote accordingly

The first issue is that you have to use spyTemp object to expect something from Mockito. Here it is not the same as test. spyTemp is wrapped by the Mockito object temp.

Another issue is that you stub only methodB(), but you are trying to run methodA(). Yes in your implementation of methodA() you call methodB(), but you call this.methodB(), not spyTemp.methodB(). Here you have to understand that mocking would work only when you call it on the instance of temp. It's wrapped by a Mockito proxy which catches your call, and if you have overriden some method, it will call your new implementation instead of the original one. But since the original method is called, inside it you know nothing about Mockito proxy. So your "overriden" method would be called only when you run spyTemp.methodB()

This should work:

Mockito.doReturn(true).when(spyTemp).methodB(Mockito.any()); 
boolean status = spyTemp.methodA("XYZ");

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.

JMockit can handle final and static. Just pay attention to how to set it up as it requires the -javaagent JVM parameter, or classpath tweaks, or extra annotations to be able to mock final and static stuffs.

Mockito has some powerful tools for this.

List<MyClass> list = new ArrayList<>();
when(mapper.query(eq(MyClass.class), any(DynamoDBQueryExpression.class)))
    .thenReturn(mock(PaginatedQueryList.class, withSettings().defaultAnswer(new ForwardsInvocations(list))));

This will return a mocked PaginatedQueryList which forwards all method calls to list.

You need to inject mock inside the class you're testing. At the moment you're interacting with the real object, not with the mock one. You can fix the code in a following way:

void testAbc(){
     myClass.myObj = myInteface;
     myClass.abc();
     verify(myInterface).myMethodToBeVerified(new String("a"), new String("b"));
}

although it would be a wiser choice to extract all initialization code into @Before

@Before
void setUp(){
     myClass = new myClass();
     myClass.myObj = myInteface;
}

@Test
void testAbc(){
     myClass.abc();
     verify(myInterface).myMethodToBeVerified(new String("a"), new String("b"));
}

Mocking static methods is available since Mockito 3.4.

See pull request: Mockito #1013: Defines and implements API for static mocking.

Please note that the fact that this feature is available is not equivalent with recommendation to use it. It is aimed at legacy apps where you cannot refactor the source code.

Having said that:

Test when static method takes no arguments:

try (MockedStatic<SomePublicClass> dummyStatic = Mockito.mockStatic(SomePublicClass.class)) {
    dummyStatic.when(SomePublicClass::myPublicStaticFunc)
               .thenReturn(5);
    // when
    System.out.println(SomePublicClass.myPublicStaticFunc());
    //then
    dummyStatic.verify(
            times(1),
            SomePublicClass::myPublicStaticFunc
    );
}

Test when static methods takes arguments:

try (MockedStatic<SomePublicClass> dummyStatic = Mockito.mockStatic(SomePublicClass.class)) {
    dummyStatic.when(() -> SomePublicClass.myPublicStaticFunc(anyInt()))
               .thenReturn(5);
    // when
    System.out.println(SomePublicClass.myPublicStaticFunc(7));
    //then
    dummyStatic.verify(
            times(1), 
            () -> SomePublicClass.myPublicStaticFunc(anyInt())
    );
}

I will answer the question in two parts. First, yes it is code smell to mock or spy the class under test. That does not mean that it cannot be done correctly but that it is risk prone and should be avoided whenever possible.

WRT your specific example, I would see how the spy could be correctly used but that would be predicated on the assertion that you have elsewhere fully unit tested getStringMetadata. This then begs the question, if you have fully unit tested getStringMetadata elsewhere then you must know how to test it and therefore why not test getNumLines without the spy.

All this being said, millhouse makes a good point but either way you have to unit test the expensive code somewhere. His suggestion goes a long way to help isolate the expensive code and ensure that you only have to test / exercise it once.