How to use clean_state_after_null_passed method of org.mockitousage.stubbing.StubbingWithThrowablesTest class

Inlining code can sometimes be confusing. Let's unwrap the second block of code:

A source = mock(A.class);
final List<String> documents = getList();
final Iterator<String> iter = getList().iterator()
when(source.iterator()).thenReturn(iter);

Now, it's easier to understand. The same iter object is always returned, and hence it retains it's state. The fact that before the change above mockito had a function call in the brackets is inconsequential - mockito has an object passed to it, which it stores internally, and returns when required. It cannot "remember" that this object was produced by calling a function unless it has the actual code to execute it - for example, like you did in the first snippet.

Try Mockito. It is really stable and convenient for most cases. For example, you could write:

Inventory inventory = Mockito.mock(Inventory.class);
Mockito.when(inventory.getItem(Mockito.any())).thenReturn(somePresetItemStack);

You should use static import on Mockito.* methods for better readability:

import static org.Mockito.*;

MockMaker is a glue module that integrates dexmaker with Mockito. It does what's necessary for Mockito to generate concrete classes with Dalvik .dex files instead of JVM .class files.

It's possible that Powermock will work with Dexmaker, but it's unlikely advanced Powermock features will work. In particular, Powermock advertises this:

PowerMock uses a custom classloader and bytecode manipulation to enable mocking of static methods, constructors, final classes and methods, private methods, removal of static initializers and more.

That custom class loader is unlikely to work on dalvikvm.

You can use a spy on your static class and mock only specific methods:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest(MyStaticTest.MyStaticClass.class)
public class MyStaticTest {

public static class MyStaticClass {
    public static String getA(String a) {
        return a;
    }
    public static String getB(String b) {
        return b;
    }
}

@Test
public void should_partial_mock_static_class() throws Exception {
    //given
    PowerMockito.spy(MyStaticClass.class);
    given(MyStaticClass.getB(Mockito.anyString())).willReturn("B");
    //then
    assertEquals("A", MyStaticClass.getA("A"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getA("B"));
    assertEquals("C", MyStaticClass.getA("C"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("A"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("B"));
    assertEquals("B", MyStaticClass.getB("C"));
}

}

You can use a Mock reponse or an actual response and then use when, e.g.:

Page<Company> companies = Mockito.mock(Page.class);
Mockito.when(companyRepository.findAllByIsActiveTrue(pageable)).thenReturn(companies);

Or, just instantiate the class:

List<Company> companies = new ArrayList<>();
Page<Company> pagedResponse = new PageImpl(companies);
Mockito.when(companyRepository.findAllByIsActiveTrue(pagedResponse)).thenReturn(pagedResponse);

Instead of creating a equals method in your BPRequestVO class you can create a mock argument with "any(YourObject.class)" like this:

when(mockBPService.getProduct(any(BPRequestVO.class))).thenReturn(invalidServiceResponse);

The thenReturn method will always return what is passed to it. The code new Servicemock() is being executed prior to the call to thenReturn. The created ServiceMock is then being passed to thenReturn. Therefore thenReturn has a absolute instance of ServiceMock not a creation mechanism.

If you need to provide an new instance, use thenAnswer

when(mockedMergeContext.createNewEntityOfType(IService.class))
  .thenAnswer(new Answer<IService>() {
     public IService answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
        return new ServiceMock();
     }
   });

How about

when( method-call ).thenReturn( value1, value2, value3 );

You can put as many arguments as you like in the brackets of thenReturn, provided they're all the correct type. The first value will be returned the first time the method is called, then the second answer, and so on. The last value will be returned repeatedly once all the other values are used up.

I would avoid it. Generally speaking, you should structure things as best you can to avoid needing to test private variables and stick with the interactions that the rest of the application will be exposed to. This is typically public methods/properties and protected methods by using fakes/doubles.

The purpose of the unit tests are to verify how the object under test is interacted with, not necessarily it's implementation details. Basically, with input x, I should get output/effect y. If you get hung up on testing exactly how x produces y, you run the risk of making your classes inflexible to change. Every refactor of your class is likely to break your tests, even if the output and end result is the same.