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

You need to create an expectation on jdbcConnection.createStatement().

By default, I believe a null is returned.

Should read something like:

ResultSet resultSet = Mockito.mock(ResultSet.class);
Mockito.when(resultSet.next()).thenReturn(true).thenReturn(true).thenReturn(true).thenReturn(false);
Mockito.when(resultSet.getString(1)).thenReturn("table_r3").thenReturn("table_r1").thenReturn("table_r2");

Statement statement = Mockito.mock(Statement.class);
Mockito.when(statement.executeQuery("SELECT name FROM tables")).thenReturn(resultSet);

Connection jdbcConnection = Mockito.mock(Connection.class);
Mockito.when(jdbcConnection.createStatement()).thenReturn(statement);

An alternative approach would be to use the 'method to class' pattern.

1. Move the methods out of the customer class into another class/classes, say CustomerSomething eg/CustomerFinances (or whatever it's responsibility is).
2. Add a constructor to Customer.
3. Now you don't need to mock Customer, just the CustomerSomething class! You may not need to mock that either if it has no external dependencies.

Here's a good blog on the topic: https://simpleprogrammer.com/back-to-basics-mock-eliminating-patterns/

It shouldn't be that tedious in Mockito in fact, with the help of deep stub:

Drive mockDrive = mock(Drive.class, RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS);

....
// stubbing
when(service.files().get(anyString()).execute()).thenReturn(something);

// verify
verify(service.files().get("Some Field ID").execute();

Learn more from documentation of Mockito

It is fine if you write integration test to test against the actual Drive service, but it simply cannot replace unit testing.

The message is pretty obvious: You can't mock non-visible and final classes. Short answer : Create a named class of your anonymous one, and test this class instead!

Long answer, let's dig why !

An anonymous class is final

You instantiate an anonymous class of FilterFactory, when the compiler sees an anonymous class, it creates a final and package visible class. So the anonymous class is not mockable through standard mean i.e. through Mockito.

Mocking anonymous class : possible but BRITTLE if not HACKY

OK, now suppose you want to be able to mock this anonymous class through Powermock. Current compilers compile anonymous class with following scheme :

Declaring class + $ + <order of declaration starting with 1>

Mocking anonymous class possible but brittle (And I mean it) So supposing the anonymous class is the eleventh to be declared, it will appear as

InputHelper$11.class

So you could potentially prepare for test the anonymous class:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({InputHelper$11.class})
public class InputHelperTest {
    @Test
    public void anonymous_class_mocking works() throws Throwable {
        PowerMockito.spy(InputHelper.BZIP2_FACTORY);  // This line fails
    }
}

This code will compile, BUT will eventually be reported as an error with your IDE. The IDE probably doesn't know about InputHelper$11.class. IntelliJ who doesn't use compiled class to check the code report so.

Also the fact that the anonymous class naming actually depends on the order of the declaration is a problem, when someone adds another anonymous class before, the numbering could change. Anonymous classes are made to stay anonymous, what if the compiler guys decide one day to use letters or even random identifiers!

So mocking anonymous classes through Powermock is possible but brittle, don't ever do that in a real project!

EDITED NOTE : The Eclipse compiler has a different numbering scheme, it always uses a 3 digit number :

Declaring class + $ + <pad with 0> + <order of declaration starting with 1>

Also I don't think the JLS clearly specify how the compilers should name anonymous classes.

You don't reassign the spy to the static field

PowerMockito.spy(InputHelper.BZIP2_FACTORY);  // This line fails
whenNew(BufferedInputStream.class).withArguments(in).thenReturn(buffer);
whenNew(CBZip2InputStream.class).withArguments(buffer).thenReturn(expected);
InputStream observed = InputHelper.BZIP2_FACTORY.makeFilter(in);

PowerMockito.spy returns the spy, it doesn't change the value of InputHelper.BZIP2_FACTORY. So you would need to actually set via reflection this field. You can use the Whiteboxutility that Powermock provide.

Conclusion

Too much trouble to just test with mocks that the anonymous filter uses a BufferedInputStream.

Alternative

I would rather write the following code:

An input helper that will use the named class, I don't use the interface name to make clear to the user what is the intent of this filter!

public class InputHelper {
    public static final BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory BZIP2_FACTORY = new BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory();
}

And now the filter itself :

public class BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory {
    public InputStream makeFilter(InputStream in) {
        BufferedInputStream buffer = new BufferedInputStream(in);
        return new CBZip2InputStream(buffer);
    }
}

Now you can write a test like this :

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
public class BufferedBZIP2FilterFactoryTest {

    @Test
    @PrepareForTest({BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory.class})
    public void wraps_InputStream_in_BufferedInputStream() throws Exception {
        whenNew(CBZip2InputStream.class).withArguments(isA(BufferedInputStream.class))
                .thenReturn(Mockito.mock(CBZip2InputStream.class));

        new BufferedBZIP2FilterFactory().makeFilter(anInputStream());

        verifyNew(CBZip2InputStream.class).withArguments(isA(BufferedInputStream.class));
    }

    private ByteArrayInputStream anInputStream() {
        return new ByteArrayInputStream(new byte[10]);
    }
}

But could eventually avoid powermock stuff for this test scenario if you force the CBZip2InputStream to only accept BufferedInputStream. Usually using Powermock means something is wrong with the design. In my opinion Powermock is great for legacy softwares, but can blind developers when designing new code; as they are missing the point of OOP's good part, I would even say they are designing legacy code.

Hope that helps !

It looks like you're mocking out the only call you're making to production code.

In other words, your test says:

• When I call saveData(), fake the result to return true
• Now call saveData() - yay, the result was true!

None of your production code is being calls at all, as far as I can see.

The point of mocking is to mock out dependencies from your production class, or (sometimes, though I prefer not to) to mock out some methods of your production class that the code you're actually testing will call.

You should probably be mocking out the dependencies of Leaderboard rather than Leaderboard itself. If you must mock out saveData(), you should be testing the methods that call saveData()... check that they save the right data, that they act correctly when saveData() returns false, etc.

You are using a library designed for mocking, that lacks implementions. Because your test actually calls the method on the object, without using a mocking library to give it behavior, it's giving you that message.

As on the Android Unit Testing Support page:

"Method ... not mocked."

The android.jar file that is used to run unit tests does not contain any actual code - that is provided by the Android system image on real devices. Instead, all methods throw exceptions (by default). This is to make sure your unit tests only test your code and do not depend on any particular behaviour of the Android platform (that you have not explicitly mocked e.g. using Mockito). If that proves problematic, you can add the snippet below to your build.gradle to change this behavior:

android {
  // ...
  testOptions { 
    unitTests.returnDefaultValues = true
  }
}

To work around it, use a mocking framework like Mockito instead of calling real methods like put, or switch to Robolectric to use Java equivalents of classes otherwise implemented only in native code.

I think what you want is:

VendorObject vo = mock(VendorObject.class, new Answer() {
    @Override
    public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {

        // 1. Check if method exists on RedirectToObject.
        // 2a. If it does, call the method with the args and return the
        // result.
        // 2b. If it does not, throw an exception to fail the unit test.

    }
});

Of course, if you want to use this approach frequently, no need for the Answer to be anonymous.

From the documentation: "It's quite advanced feature and typically you don't need it to write decent tests. However it can be helpful when working with legacy systems." Sounds like you.

As noted in another answer, if you don't care about the order, you might do best to change the interface so it doesn't care about the order.

If order matters in the code but not in a specific test, you can use the ArgumentCaptor as you did. It clutters the code a bit.

If this is something you might do in multiple tests, you might do better to use appropriate Mockito Matchers or Hamcrest Matchers, or roll your own (if you don't find one that fills the need). A hamcrest matcher might be best as it can be used in other contexts besides mockito.

For this example you could create a hamcrest matcher as follows:

import org.hamcrest.BaseMatcher;
import org.hamcrest.Description;
import org.hamcrest.Matcher;

import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Set;

public class MyMatchers {
    public  static <T> Matcher<List<T>> sameAsSet(final List<T> expectedList) {
        return new BaseMatcher<List<T>>(){
            @Override
            public boolean matches(Object o) {
                List<T> actualList = Collections.EMPTY_LIST;
                try {
                    actualList = (List<T>) o;
                }
                catch (ClassCastException e) {
                    return false;
                }
                Set<T> expectedSet = new HashSet<T>(expectedList);
                Set<T> actualSet = new HashSet<T>(actualList);
                return actualSet.equals(expectedSet);
            }

            @Override
            public void describeTo(Description description) {
                description.appendText("should contain all and only elements of ").appendValue(expectedList);
            }
        };
    }
}

And then the verify code becomes:

verify(mockClassB).sendEvent(argThat(MyMatchers.sameAsSet(expectedFileList)));

If you instead created a mockito matcher, you wouldn't need the argThat, which basically wraps a hamcrest matcher in a mockito matcher.

This moves the logic of sorting or converting to set out of your test and makes it reusable.

The argThat return type is not being inferred for some reason. Try explicitly casting as shown below:

 Mockito.verify(foo).bar((Map<String, String>) argThat(Matchers.hasEntry("paramName", "paramValue")));

The testHasEntryCast() can be fixed as shown below. Notice that cast (Map<String, ?>) is to argThat return type:

@Test
public void testHasEntryCast() {
    Service mockService = mock(Service.class);
    Foo foo = new Foo(mockService);

    foo.bar();

    verify(mockService).activate((Map<String, ?>)  argThat(hasEntry("paramName", "paramValue")));
}