How to use should_array_equals_deal_with_null_array method of org.mockitousage.matchers.CustomMatcherDoesYieldCCETest class

In this sort of situation, I would use physical files for testing the component and not rely on a mocking framework. As fge mentions it may be easier plus you don't have to worry about any incorrect assumptions you may make of your mock.

For instance, if you rely upon File#listFiles() you may have your mock return a fixed list of Files, however, the order they are returned in is not guaranteed - a fact you may only discover when you run your code on a different platform.

I would consider using JUnit's TemporaryFolder rule to help you set up the file and directory structure you need for your test, e.g.:

public class DummyFileClassTest {
    @Rule
    public TemporaryFolder folder = new TemporaryFolder();

    @Test
    public void someMethod() {
        // given
        final File file1 = folder.newFile("myfile1.txt");
        final File file2 = folder.newFile("myfile2.txt");

        ... etc...
    }
}

The rule should clean up any created files and directories when the test completes.

You can try the following idea (taken from similar discussion on github):

.doAnswer { throw ServiceException("Bad Request") }

In Mockito 2.1.0 and up with Java 8 you can pass the lambda to argThat out of the box so that one does not need a custom argument matchers. For the example in the OP would be:

verify(mockedFoo).doThing(argThat((Bar aBar) -> aBar.getI() == 5));

This is because as of Mockito 2.1.0, ArgumentMatcher is a functional interface.

The reason is that the spring configuration for the test having the @MockBean is different from the rest of the tests, so the spring framework cannot cache previously used context and needs to load it again. Here you can find a more detailed explanation: https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/issues/10015

As you said, if you move the mock bean to the parent class the context doesn't get reloaded, which makes sense as the bean configuration remains the same.

A possible workaround is defining your mock bean as a simple mock and injecting it manually where is required.

For instance, UserController has a dependency on Foo:

public class UserControllerTest extends BaseITCase {

    private Foo foo = Mockito.mock(Foo.class);

    @Autowired
    private UserController userController;

    @Before
    public void setUp() {
        super.setup();

        this.userController.setFoo(foo);
    }
}

@Component
public class UserController {

    private Foo foo;

    @Autowired
    public void setFoo(final Foo foo) {
        this.foo = foo;
    }
}

Hope this helps.

The article isn't very clear as it misses out the setup steps. By visiting the GitHub project linked in the article, you can see the full source code which explains those missing steps:

1) The code samples are extracted from a test class testing a specific activity. As part of the setup (i.e. in @Before), it replaces the Activity's reference to a GitHub API implementation with a mock one. It then calls the Activity's onCreate().

2) During onCreate(), the activity makes a call to the now-replaced GitHub API, passing in its Callback object.

Those first two steps explain why the Mockito.verify(mockApi).repositories(Mockito.anyString(), cb.capture()); step at the beginning of each test works. As the test is run after @Before, the mockApi has indeed had a call on its repositories() method.

The rest of the code is easier to understand once that's in place. As he's only created a mockApi, but not changed the actual Callback being used, the activity's content is changed. The rest of the code then verifies that those changes have taken place, either by checking a ListView or the Toasts.

So to answer your question, you need to:

1) At the start of your test method, replace the AuthAPI's loginService object with your mockApi object, then call AuthAPI.Login().

2) Use verify() as you already are to check that the function has been called.

3) Create a sample AuthObject and pass it to the cb.getValue().success() function.

4) Obtain the AuthObject from your Bus and assert that it is the same one you sent to the callback.success() function.

This tests that your AuthAPI.Login() correctly sends to your Bus the AuthObject that it would retrieve from Retrofit.

(I realise the SO question was written some time ago, but as I came across the same article and had the same confusion very recently, I thought this answer could be useful for others.)

The solution was to add in a Mockito verification step with a timeout and a check to ensure that the mocked component's method had been called the appropriate number of times:

    Mockito.verify(myComponentAsAMock, Mockito.timeout(1000).times(1)).doOtherStuff(ArgumentMatchers.any(MyClass.class));

I don't quite follow what problem you're having using Mockito. Assuming you create a mock of the interface that contains your myMethod() method, you can then verify only the parameters to the method that you are interested in. For example (assuming the interface is called MyInterface and using JUnit 4):

@Test
public void test() {
    MyInterface myInterface = mock(MyInterface.class);
    FooBar expectedFooBar = new FooBar();        

    // other testing stuff

    verify(myInterface).myMethod(any(), any(), eq(expectedFooBar), any(), ...);
}

You'll need to do a static import on the Mockito methods for this to work. The any() matcher doesn't care what value has been passed when verifying.

You can't avoid passing something for every argument in your method (even if it's only NULL).

On a first glance, the answer is simply: well, there are several mocking frameworks out there, and there are different ways to use them.

The first example tells JUnit to use the "unit test runner" that the Mockito mocking framework provides. The second example uses the unit test runner from the PowerMock framework.

In order for things to make sense, you would also have different import statements, as both frameworks have different implementations for the @Mock annotation for example.

( the main point of using these framework-specific test runners is that they take care of initializing all the fields with special framework-specific annotations ).

So: the difference here is simply that: the first example is written to use the Mockito framework, the second one uses PowerMock.

Now, which one of those to use?

Answer: Mockito.

Why? Somehow an ugly truth is: the PowerMock-one basically is a cry for help. It says "the class under test is badly designed, please fix it". Meaning: as a developer, you can write "easy to test" code, or "hard to test" code. Many people do the second: they write code that is hard to test. And then, PowerMock(ito) provides means to still test that code.

PowerMock(ito) gives you the ability to mock (thus control) calls to static methods, and to new(). To enable that, PowerMock(ito) manipulates the byte code of your code under test. That is perfectly fine for small code bases, but when you face millions of lines of production code, and thousands of unit tests, things are totally different.

I have seen many PowerMock tests fail for no apparent reason, to find out hours later ... that some "static" thing somewhere else was changed, and that somehow affect a different PowerMock static/new driven test case.

At some point, our team made a conscious decision: when you write new code, and you can only test that with PowerMock ... that isn't acceptable. Since then, we only created Mockito test cases, and not once since then we saw similar bizarre problems that bugged us with PowerMock.

The only acceptable reason to use PowerMock is when you want to test existing (maybe 3rd party) code that you do not want to modify. But of course, what is the point of testing such code? When you can't modify that code, why should tests fail all of a sudden?

Override the toString() method in your pojo class like below

@Override
public String toString() {
    return "brand: " + this.brand + ",color: " + this.color;
}


car1.toString().equals(car2.toString()); //It will return true if both objects has same values

In case you have large nos of parameter i will suggest you to go with bellow code

public static boolean comparePOJO(Object obj1, Object obj2) {
    return new Gson().toJson(obj1).equals(new Gson().toJson(obj2));
}
comparePOJO(car1,car2); //It will return true