How to use shouldAllowOneMethodVerifiedInOrder method of org.mockitousage.verification.BasicVerificationInOrderTest class

PowerMock implements its own MockMaker which leads to incompatibility with Mockito mock-maker-inline, even if PowerMock is just added as a dependency and not used. If two org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker exist in path then any only one can be used, which one is undetermined.

PowerMock can however delegate calls to another MockMaker, and for then tests are run without PowerMock. Since PowerMock 1.7.0 this can be configured with using the PowerMock Configuration.

The MockMaker can be configured by creating the file org/powermock/extensions/configuration.properties and setting:

mockito.mock-maker-class=mock-maker-inline

Example of using Mockito mock-maker-inline with PowerMock: https://github.com/powermock/powermock-examples-maven/tree/master/mockito2

Updating Plugin to version 0.13.3 fixes this issue.

Your test is on methods, but it tests the whole class behavior. If your inner class is private then its an implementation detail. Something that the test shouldn't know. It there's a lot of behaviour in that inner-class and you want to test it independently maybe you should make it public and separate from this class.

Maybe you think: but then... it's a lot of code to test (a very big indivisible thing), can't I test something smaller? Well... yes. Test Driven Development mandates to make a minimal implementation and add more code only if you add more tests. So you start with some test and minimal implementation and evolve both of them until the tests have all the specification and the code all the implementation.

So don't worry about private inner classes. Test your class contract!

I think your results are compatible with the result that would happen if dbCollection is not a Mockito-mock (or your method is static or final). That would mean that a matcher is being used where none can be used; hence the "0 matchers expected, 1 recorded".

I have same kind of requirement in my project. where i need to set a string using @PostConstructor and I did not want to ran spring context or in other words I want simple mock. My requirement was follow:

public class MyService {

@Autowired
private SomeBean bean;

private String status;

@PostConstruct
private void init() {
    status = someBean.getStatus();
} 

}

Solution:

public class MyServiceTest(){

@InjectMocks
private MyService target;

@Mock
private SomeBean mockBean;

@Before
public void setUp() throws NoSuchMethodException,  InvocationTargetException, IllegalAccessException {

    MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);

    when(mockBean.getStatus()).thenReturn("http://test");

    //call post-constructor
    Method postConstruct =  MyService.class.getDeclaredMethod("init",null); // methodName,parameters
    postConstruct.setAccessible(true);
    postConstruct.invoke(target);
  }

}

Instead of mocking you can create a dummy ResourceBundle implementation, and then pass it as an argument to .thenReturn(resourceBundle):

    import java.util.ResourceBundle;

    ResourceBundle dummyResourceBundle = new ResourceBundle() {
        @Override
        protected Object handleGetObject(String key) {
            return "fake_translated_value";
        }

        @Override
        public Enumeration<String> getKeys() {
            return Collections.emptyEnumeration();
        }
    };

    // Example usage
    when(request.getResourceBundle(any(Locale.class))).thenReturn(dummyResourceBundle)

If you need the actual keys and values, then you'll need to provide an implementation for getKeys(), e.g. a hashmap for storage and key lookup.

The problem is that Spock Spring is looking for Spring's @ContextConfiguration annotation and doesn't manage to find it. Strictly speaking MyTestSpec is annotated with @ContextConfiguration as it's a meta-annotation on @SpringApplicationConfiguration but Spock Spring doesn't consider meta-annotations as part of its search. There's an issue to address this limitation. In the meantime you can work around it.

All that @SpringApplicationConfiguration is doing is customising @ContextConfiguration with a Boot-specific context loader. This means that you can achieve the same effect by using an appropriately configured @ContextConfiguration annotation instead:

@ContextConfiguration(loader = SpringApplicationContextLoader.class, classes = MyServer.class)
@WebAppConfiguration
@IntegrationTest
class MyTestSpec extends Specification {
    …
}

Update: Just to make sure it's clear (and based on the comments, it wasn't), for this to work you need to have org.spockframework:spock-spring on the classpath.

You either have to specify no matchers, or all the arguments need matches. So this:

when(userSubModuleDao.findById((any(UserSubModuleId.class)),false))

should be:

when(userSubModuleDao.findById(any(UserSubModuleId.class), eq(false)))

(I've removed the redundant brackets from around the any call.)

From the Matchers documentation:

Warning:

If you are using argument matchers, all arguments have to be provided by matchers.

You don't need MockRestServiceServer object. The annotation is @InjectMocks not @Inject. Below is an example code that should work

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class SomeServiceTest {
    @Mock
    private RestTemplate restTemplate;

    @InjectMocks
    private SomeService underTest;

    @Test
    public void testGetObjectAList() {
        ObjectA myobjectA = new ObjectA();
        //define the entity you want the exchange to return
        ResponseEntity<List<ObjectA>> myEntity = new ResponseEntity<List<ObjectA>>(HttpStatus.ACCEPTED);
        Mockito.when(restTemplate.exchange(
            Matchers.eq("/objects/get-objectA"),
            Matchers.eq(HttpMethod.POST),
            Matchers.<HttpEntity<List<ObjectA>>>any(),
            Matchers.<ParameterizedTypeReference<List<ObjectA>>>any())
        ).thenReturn(myEntity);

        List<ObjectA> res = underTest.getListofObjectsA();
        Assert.assertEquals(myobjectA, res.get(0));
    }