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

In my case, I had a similar issue when I worked with JUnit5

@ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class)
class MyServiceTest {
...

@InjectMocks
MyService underTest;

@Test
void myMethodTest() {
...
}

underTest was null. The cause of the problem was that I used @Test from JUnit4 package import org.junit.Test; instead JUnit5 import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;

If you are able to set a fixed number of calls to expect, it can be done with an ArgumentCaptor:

import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.hasItem;

@Captor ArgumentCaptor<String> arg;

@Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
    // init the @Captor
    initMocks(this);
}

@Test
public void testWithTimeoutCallOrderDoesntMatter() throws Exception {
    // there must be exactly 99 calls
    verify(myMock, timeout(5000).times(99)).myMethod(arg.capture());
    assertThat(arg.getAllValues(), hasItem("expectedArg"));
}

Another way is to specify all the expected values to verify, but those need to be provided in the exact order that they are invoked. The difference to the above solution is that this doesn't fail even if the mock is additionally called with some non-verified arguments. In other words, no need to know the number of total invocations. Code example:

@Test
public void testWithTimeoutFollowingCallsDoNotMatter() throws Exception {
    // the order until expected arg is specific
    verify(callback, timeout(5000)).call("firstExpectedArg");
    verify(callback, timeout(5000)).call("expectedArg");
    // no need to tell more, if additional calls come after the expected arg
    // verify(callback, timeout(5000)).call("randomArg");
}

This is a known issue with PowerMock (see, e.g., bug 597). In short, if you replace the rule module with the rule-agent module, it should do the trick. I.e., replace this requirement:

<dependency>
    <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
    <artifactId>powermock-module-junit4-rule</artifactId>
    <version>${powermock-version}</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

With:

<dependency>
    <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
    <artifactId>powermock-module-junit4-rule-agent</artifactId>
    <version>${powermock-version}</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

I've had good success using Mockito.

When I tried learning about JMock and EasyMock, I found the learning curve to be a bit steep (though maybe that's just me).

I like Mockito because of its simple and clean syntax that I was able to grasp pretty quickly. The minimal syntax is designed to support the common cases very well, although the few times I needed to do something more complicated I found what I wanted was supported and easy to grasp.

Here's an (abridged) example from the Mockito homepage:

import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;

List mockedList = mock(List.class);
mockedList.clear();
verify(mockedList).clear();

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

The only major downside I can think of is that it won't mock static methods.

You have two options: Matching "any value but one", and overriding stubbing. (I suppose you could also use an Answer for complex custom behavior, but that's overkill for situations like this one.)

Stubbing any value except a given value

Mockito's AdditionalMatchers class offers a number of useful matchers, including operators such as not. This would allow you to set behavior for all values except for a specific value (or expression).

when(foo.bar(1)).thenReturn(99);
when(foo.bar(not(eq(1)))).thenThrow(new IllegalArgumentException());

Be careful to note that operators must be used with matchers instead of values, possibly requiring Matchers.eq as an explicit equals matcher, due to Mockito's argument matcher stack:

/* BAD */  when(foo.bar(not(  1  ))).thenThrow(new IllegalArgumentException());
/* GOOD */ when(foo.bar(not(eq(1)))).thenThrow(new IllegalArgumentException());

Overriding stubbing

For stubbing, the last-defined matching chain wins. This allows you to set up general test fixture behavior in a @Before method and override it in individual test cases if you wish, but also implies that order matters in your stubbing calls.

when(foo.baz(anyInt())).thenReturn("A", "B");  /* or .thenReturn("A").thenReturn("B"); */
when(foo.baz(9)).thenReturn("X", "Y");

foo.baz(6); /* "A" because anyInt() is the last-defined chain */
foo.baz(7); /* "B" as the next return value of the first chain */
foo.baz(8); /* "B" as Mockito repeats the final chain action forever */

foo.baz(9); /* "X" because the second chain matches for the value 9 */
foo.baz(9); /* "Y" forever because the second chain action still matches */

Consequently, you should never see the two stubs in the order listed in the question, because if a general match immediately follows a specific match then the specific match will never be used (and may as well be deleted).

Beware that you'll sometimes need to change syntax to doAnswer when overriding spies or dangerous stubbed behavior. Mockito knows not to count calls to when for verification or for advancing along thenVerb chains, but exceptions could still cause your test to fail.

/* BAD: the call to foo.bar(1) will throw before Mockito has a chance to stub it! */
when(foo.bar(anyInt())).thenThrow(new IllegalArgumentException());
when(foo.bar(1)).thenReturn(99);

/* GOOD: Mockito has a chance to deactivate behavior during stubbing. */
when(foo.bar(anyInt())).thenThrow(new IllegalArgumentException());
doReturn(99).when(foo).bar(1);

Use one, or more, ArgumentCaptors.

It is unclear what your types are here, but anyway. Let's suppose you have a mock which has a method doSomething() taking a Foo as an argument, then you do this:

final ArgumentCaptor<Foo> captor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Foo.class);

verify(mock).doSomething(captor.capture());

final Foo argument = captor.getValue();

// Test the argument

Also, it looks like your method returns void and you don't want it to do anything. Just write this:

doNothing().when(theMock).doSomething(any());

Updating my Android Studio to version 3.3 AND removing

testOptions {
    execution 'ANDROID_TEST_ORCHESTRATOR'
}

worked

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"));
}

}

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.