How to use provides_default_instance_for_deprecated_plugin method of org.mockitousage.plugins.DeprecatedInstantiatorProviderTest class

Usually when unit testing you want to mock all external dependencies of a class. That way the unit test can remain independent and focused on the class under test.

Nevertheless, if you want to mix Spring autowiring with Mockito mocks, an easy solution is to annotate with both @InjectMocks and @Autowired:

  @InjectMocks
  @Autowired
  private UploadServiceImpl uploadService;

The net effect of this is that first Spring will autowire the bean, then Mockito will immediately overwrite the mocked dependencies with the available mocks.

Why it doesn't work

Well your problem here is that TransactionTemplate in your test is a mock. As such it has the same interface as TransactionTemplate but it does not know how to behave. You are in charge of its implementation - that's the whole point of mocks. You are explicitly calling template.execute() in your code and that is why your first verify passes. But that execute() isn't the one from Spring (or more precisely template in your test isn't an instance of Spring's TransactionTemplate, it's only a mock of it) - it's, well lets say it's "empty" as it is invoked on a mock and you did not tell the mock how invoking execute() on it should behave.

How I would fix it

In cases like this I would really discourage you from such unit tests because you are testing implementation here. What you should test, at least according to me, is the functionality meaning given certain conditions, when something happens then some result should occur. This would require changing this to an integration test (using lets say DBUnit or anything else) and asserting if you actually deleted what you were supposed to delete. I mean what do you really care about - knowing that some methods got invoked or that something you hoped for actually happened?

How you can, but IMHO shouldn't, fix it.

But if you really want to test that anonymous piece of code then I would simply extract it (the whole anonymous class) to a separate class and write a unit test just for that new class and more precisely for it's doInTransaction() method. In that case you would create it using new, setting a mock DataWarehouseMessageDao in it and simply do your verify().

The problem with using RETURN_DEEP_STUBS is that you'll get a different mock each time you call a method. I think from your question that you want to use a default Answer that actually returns the mock on which it was called, for each method that has the right return type. This could look something like the following. Note that I haven't tested this, so it may contain typos, but I hope that the intention is clear in any case.

import static org.mockito.Mockito.RETURNS_DEFAULTS;
import org.mockito.invocation.InvocationOnMock;
import org.mockito.stubbing.Answer;

public class SelfReturningAnswer implements Answer<Object> {

    public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
        Object mock = invocation.getMock();
        if(invocation.getMethod().getReturnType().isInstance(mock)){
            return mock;
        }
        return RETURNS_DEFAULTS.answer(invocation);
    }
}

Then, when you create your mock, specify this as your default answer. This will make your mock return itself from each method that it can; but it will behave like an ordinary mock when you call a method whose return type is wrong for the mock.

Create your mock like this

Builder mockBuilder = mock( Builder.class, new SelfReturningAnswer());

or create a constant for this class and write something like

@Mock(answer = SELF_RETURNING) private Builder mockBuilder;

Hope that helps.

Even more meaningful :

import static org.mockito.Mockito.never;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;

// ...

verify(dependency, never()).someMethod();

The documentation of this feature is there §4 "Verifying exact number of invocations / at least x / never", and the never javadoc is here.

You simply forgot to add the dependencies to your project which are according to the pom file:

<dependency>
  <groupId>net.bytebuddy</groupId>
  <artifactId>byte-buddy</artifactId>
  <version>1.3.16</version>
  <scope>runtime</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
  <groupId>org.objenesis</groupId>
  <artifactId>objenesis</artifactId>
  <version>2.1</version>
  <scope>runtime</scope>
</dependency>

In other words you need to add byte-buddy 1.3.16 and objenesis 2.1 to your project too.

More details here

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)

With this declaration you are suppose to write a unit test. Unit tests are exercising a single class mocking all dependencies. Typically you will inject mocked dependencies declared like this in your test case:

@Mock
private YourDependency yourDependencyMock;

@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)

Spring runner is meant for integration test (component test?) In this type of tests you are exercising a whole bunch of classes, in other words you are testing a single class with real dependencies (testing a controller with real services, DAOs, in-memory database, etc.)

You should probably have both categories in your application. Althought it is advices to have more unit tests and only few smoke integration tests, but I often found myself more confident writing almost only integration tests.

As for your second question, you should have:

• unit tests for each class (controller, services, DAOs) separately with mocked all other classes

• integration tests for a whole single CRUD operation. For instance creating a user that exercises controller, service, DAO and in-memory database.

tl;dr

• post-JDK8 : Use AssertJ or custom lambdas to assert exceptional behaviour.

• pre-JDK8 : I will recommend the old good try-catch block. (Don't forget to add a fail() assertion before the catch block)

Regardless of Junit 4 or JUnit 5.

the long story

It is possible to write yourself a do it yourself try-catch block or use the JUnit tools (@Test(expected = ...) or the @Rule ExpectedException JUnit rule feature).

But these ways are not so elegant and don't mix well readability wise with other tools. Moreover, JUnit tooling does have some pitfalls.

1. The try-catch block you have to write the block around the tested behavior and write the assertion in the catch block, that may be fine but many find that this style interrupts the reading flow of a test. Also, you need to write an Assert.fail at the end of the try block. Otherwise, the test may miss one side of the assertions; PMD, findbugs or Sonar will spot such issues.

2. The @Test(expected = ...) feature is interesting as you can write less code and then writing this test is supposedly less prone to coding errors. But this approach is lacking in some areas.

   • If the test needs to check additional things on the exception like the cause or the message (good exception messages are really important, having a precise exception type may not be enough).

   • Also as the expectation is placed around in the method, depending on how the tested code is written then the wrong part of the test code can throw the exception, leading to false-positive test and I'm not sure that PMD, findbugs or Sonar will give hints on such code.

     @Test(expected = WantedException.class)
     public void call2_should_throw_a_WantedException__not_call1() {
         // init tested
         tested.call1(); // may throw a WantedException
     
         // call to be actually tested
         tested.call2(); // the call that is supposed to raise an exception
     }
     

3. The ExpectedException rule is also an attempt to fix the previous caveats, but it feels a bit awkward to use as it uses an expectation style, EasyMock users know very well this style. It might be convenient for some, but if you follow Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) or Arrange Act Assert (AAA) principles the ExpectedException rule won't fit in those writing style. Aside from that it may suffer from the same issue as the @Test way, depending on where you place the expectation.

   @Rule ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none()
   
   @Test
   public void call2_should_throw_a_WantedException__not_call1() {
       // expectations
       thrown.expect(WantedException.class);
       thrown.expectMessage("boom");
   
       // init tested
       tested.call1(); // may throw a WantedException
   
       // call to be actually tested
       tested.call2(); // the call that is supposed to raise an exception
   }
   

   Even the expected exception is placed before the test statement, it breaks your reading flow if the tests follow BDD or AAA.

   Also, see this comment issue on JUnit of the author of ExpectedException. JUnit 4.13-beta-2 even deprecates this mechanism:

   Pull request #1519: Deprecate ExpectedException

   The method Assert.assertThrows provides a nicer way for verifying exceptions. In addition, the use of ExpectedException is error-prone when used with other rules like TestWatcher because the order of rules is important in that case.

So these above options have all their load of caveats, and clearly not immune to coder errors.

4. There's a project I became aware of after creating this answer that looks promising, it's catch-exception.

   As the description of the project says, it let a coder write in a fluent line of code catching the exception and offer this exception for the latter assertion. And you can use any assertion library like Hamcrest or AssertJ.

   A rapid example taken from the home page :

   // given: an empty list
   List myList = new ArrayList();
   
   // when: we try to get the first element of the list
   when(myList).get(1);
   
   // then: we expect an IndexOutOfBoundsException
   then(caughtException())
           .isInstanceOf(IndexOutOfBoundsException.class)
           .hasMessage("Index: 1, Size: 0") 
           .hasNoCause();
   

   As you can see the code is really straightforward, you catch the exception on a specific line, the then API is an alias that will use AssertJ APIs (similar to using assertThat(ex).hasNoCause()...). At some point the project relied on FEST-Assert the ancestor of AssertJ. EDIT: It seems the project is brewing a Java 8 Lambdas support.

   Currently, this library has two shortcomings :

   • At the time of this writing, it is noteworthy to say this library is based on Mockito 1.x as it creates a mock of the tested object behind the scene. As Mockito is still not updated this library cannot work with final classes or final methods. And even if it was based on Mockito 2 in the current version, this would require to declare a global mock maker (inline-mock-maker), something that may not what you want, as this mock maker has different drawbacks that the regular mock maker.

   • It requires yet another test dependency.

   These issues won't apply once the library supports lambdas. However, the functionality will be duplicated by the AssertJ toolset.

   Taking all into account if you don't want to use the catch-exception tool, I will recommend the old good way of the try-catch block, at least up to the JDK7. And for JDK 8 users you might prefer to use AssertJ as it offers may more than just asserting exceptions.

5. With the JDK8, lambdas enter the test scene, and they have proved to be an interesting way to assert exceptional behaviour. AssertJ has been updated to provide a nice fluent API to assert exceptional behaviour.

   And a sample test with AssertJ :

   @Test
   public void test_exception_approach_1() {
       ...
       assertThatExceptionOfType(IOException.class)
               .isThrownBy(() -> someBadIOOperation())
               .withMessage("boom!"); 
   }
   
   @Test
   public void test_exception_approach_2() {
       ...
       assertThatThrownBy(() -> someBadIOOperation())
               .isInstanceOf(Exception.class)
               .hasMessageContaining("boom");
   }
   
   @Test
   public void test_exception_approach_3() {
       ...
       // when
       Throwable thrown = catchThrowable(() -> someBadIOOperation());
   
       // then
       assertThat(thrown).isInstanceOf(Exception.class)
                         .hasMessageContaining("boom");
   }
   

6. With a near-complete rewrite of JUnit 5, assertions have been improved a bit, they may prove interesting as an out of the box way to assert properly exception. But really the assertion API is still a bit poor, there's nothing outside assertThrows.

   @Test
   @DisplayName("throws EmptyStackException when peeked")
   void throwsExceptionWhenPeeked() {
       Throwable t = assertThrows(EmptyStackException.class, () -> stack.peek());
   
       Assertions.assertEquals("...", t.getMessage());
   }
   

   As you noticed assertEquals is still returning void, and as such doesn't allow chaining assertions like AssertJ.

   Also if you remember name clash with Matcher or Assert, be prepared to meet the same clash with Assertions.

I'd like to conclude that today (2017-03-03) AssertJ's ease of use, discoverable API, the rapid pace of development and as a de facto test dependency is the best solution with JDK8 regardless of the test framework (JUnit or not), prior JDKs should instead rely on try-catch blocks even if they feel clunky.

This feature is builtin since Mockito 1.9.5. Just use

mock(ClassToMock.class, withSettings().verboseLogging())

This sounds very much like you have the wrong version of the servlet API in the class path.

Check when isAsyncStarted was added to the API and make sure the one you reference in your classpath is at least that version or higher.

In order to find the location where the 'wrong' class version is comming from you can use the

-verbose:class

Argument for java. It will list all the classes loaded and if I remember correctly whery they get loaded from. See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/windows/java.html for details.