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

For the mocks initialization, using the runner or the MockitoAnnotations.initMocks are strictly equivalent solutions. From the javadoc of the MockitoJUnitRunner :

JUnit 4.5 runner initializes mocks annotated with Mock, so that explicit usage of MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(Object) is not necessary. Mocks are initialized before each test method.

The first solution (with the MockitoAnnotations.initMocks) could be used when you have already configured a specific runner (SpringJUnit4ClassRunner for example) on your test case.

The second solution (with the MockitoJUnitRunner) is the more classic and my favorite. The code is simpler. Using a runner provides the great advantage of automatic validation of framework usage (described by @David Wallace in this answer).

Both solutions allows to share the mocks (and spies) between the test methods. Coupled with the @InjectMocks, they allow to write unit tests very quickly. The boilerplate mocking code is reduced, the tests are easier to read. For example:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Mock private ArticleCalculator calculator;
    @Mock(name = "database") private ArticleDatabase dbMock;
    @Spy private UserProvider userProvider = new ConsumerUserProvider();

    @InjectMocks private ArticleManager manager;

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        manager.initiateArticle();
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        manager.finishArticle();
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: The code is minimal

Cons: Black magic. IMO it is mainly due to the @InjectMocks annotation. With this annotation "you loose the pain of code" (see the great comments of @Brice)

The third solution is to create your mock on each test method. It allow as explained by @mlk in its answer to have "self contained test".

public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        // given
        ArticleCalculator calculator = mock(ArticleCalculator.class);
        ArticleDatabase database = mock(ArticleDatabase.class);
        UserProvider userProvider = spy(new ConsumerUserProvider());
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.initiateArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        // given
        ArticleCalculator calculator = mock(ArticleCalculator.class);
        ArticleDatabase database = mock(ArticleDatabase.class);
        UserProvider userProvider = spy(new ConsumerUserProvider());
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.finishArticle();

        // then
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: You clearly demonstrate how your api works (BDD...)

Cons: there is more boilerplate code. (The mocks creation)

My recommandation is a compromise. Use the @Mock annotation with the @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class), but do not use the @InjectMocks :

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Mock private ArticleCalculator calculator;
    @Mock private ArticleDatabase database;
    @Spy private UserProvider userProvider = new ConsumerUserProvider();

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        // given
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.initiateArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        // given
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.finishArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: You clearly demonstrate how your api works (How my ArticleManager is instantiated). No boilerplate code.

Cons: The test is not self contained, less pain of code

I've also wandered how to inject a mock into a spy.

The following approach will not work:

@Spy
@InjectMocks
private MySpy spy;

But the desired behavior can be achieved by a "hybrid" approach, when using both annotation and manual mocking. The following works perfectly:

@Mock
private NeedToBeMocked needToBeMocked;

@InjectMocks
private MySpy mySpy;

@InjectMocks
private SubjectUnderTest sut;

@BeforeMethod
public void setUp() {
    mySpy = Mockito.spy(new MySpy());
    MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
}

(SubjectUnderTest here depends on MySpy, and MySpy in its turn depends on NeedToBeMocked).

UPD: Personally, I think that if you have to do such a magic too often, it might be a sign that there is something wrong with dependenicies between your classes and it is worth to perform a little bit of refactoring to improve your code.

You should also mock the next() method to have it return true the first time it's called, as mockito will return false by default.

Mockito.when(resultSetMock.next()).thenReturn(true).thenReturn(false);

You could capture the value, e.g.

final ArgumentCaptor<Double> captor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Double.class)
...
verify(myManager).method1(captor.capture());

Then assert:

assertEquals(expected, captor.getValue(), delta)

Or, perhaps, use an argument matcher which does the assertion:

verify(myManager).method1(doubleThat(new ArgumentMatcher<Double>() 
{
    @Override 
    public boolean matches(final Object actual)
    {
        return Math.abs(expected - (Double) actual) <= delta;
    }
}));

Update:

Instead of using either of the methods above, you could use AdditionalMatchers.eq(double, double) instead, e.g.:

verify(myManager).method1(AdditionalMatchers.eq(expected, delta));

Although use AdditonalMatchers matchers wisely, as per the documentation:

AdditionalMatchers provides rarely used matchers, kept only for somewhat compatibility with EasyMock. Use additional matchers very judiciously because they may impact readability of a test. It is recommended to use matchers from Matchers and keep stubbing and verification simple.

Unfortunately I can't tell you why this happened, but I can tell you how to get around this issue.

The problem was, that PowerMockito scanned tha class path and also added the RESTeasy classes (which are located within the package 'javax.ws.*'. Therefor the above mentioned RuntimeDelegate was loaded by the PowerMockito classloader and caused later the issue, that the class was compared against one from a different classloader.

To get around this issue, tell PowerMockito to ignore the javax.ws package when scanning for classes:

@PowerMockIgnore({"javax.ws.*"})

Caused by: java.util.MissingResourceException: Can't find bundle for base name javax.servlet.LocalStrings, locale es_ES

That's the real error.

Your running tests are missing the servlet-api dependency.

If you're using maven make sure this dependency is in your project:

<dependency>
  <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
  <artifactId>javax.servlet-api</artifactId>
  <version>3.1.0</version>
</dependency>

To answer your second question first. If you're using JUnit 4, you can annotate your test with

@Test(expected=MyException.class)

to assert that an exception has occured. And to "mock" an exception with mockito, use

when(myMock.doSomething()).thenThrow(new MyException());

Using Mockito, you can do spying on real objects like this:

import org.junit.Test;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;
public class MyClassTest {
    @Test
    public void otherMethodShouldBeCalled() {
        MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
        MyClass spy = spy(myClass);

        spy.myMethod(true);
        verify(spy).otherMethod();
    }
}

There are some gotchas, so take a look at the relevant documentation as well.

Not possible through mockito. From their wiki

Why Mockito doesn't mock private methods?

Firstly, we are not dogmatic about mocking private methods. We just don't care about private methods because from the standpoint of testing private methods don't exist. Here are a couple of reasons Mockito doesn't mock private methods:

It requires hacking of classloaders that is never bullet proof and it changes the api (you must use custom test runner, annotate the class, etc.).

It is very easy to work around - just change the visibility of method from private to package-protected (or protected).

It requires me to spend time implementing & maintaining it. And it does not make sense given point #2 and a fact that it is already implemented in different tool (powermock).

Finally... Mocking private methods is a hint that there is something wrong with OO understanding. In OO you want objects (or roles) to collaborate, not methods. Forget about pascal & procedural code. Think in objects.