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

@Spy and @InjectMocks cannot be used well together (see Google Code issue #489 and GitHub issue #169), and for what they do it is not clear or common that they should be used together at all. In well-written Mockito usage, you generally should not even want to apply them to the same object.

• @InjectMocks works as a sort of stand-in dependency injection for the system under test: If you have a test that defines a @Mock or @Spy of the right type, Mockito will initialize any fields in your @InjectMocks instance with the contents of those test fields. This might be handy if you haven't otherwise structured your system-under-test for dependency injection (or if you use a DI framework that does field injection) and you want to replace those dependencies with mocks. It can be pretty fragile—unmatched fields will be silently ignored and will remain null if not set in an initializer—but remains a decent annotation for your system under test.

• @Spy, like @Mock, is designed to set up test doubles; you should use it when you have a collaborator that you want to stub or verify. Though there are cases where you could spy on your system under test, @Spy and @Mock are meant for dependencies, and not for the functionality you are testing.

Ideally, you should not have any class that fulfills both roles in the same test, or else you may find yourself writing a test that painstakingly tests behavior that you've stubbed rather than actual production behavior. In any case it will be more difficult to tell exactly what the test covers versus the behavior you've stubbed.

Of course, this may not apply if you're trying to use Mockito to test a single method in isolation, and you want to stub calls to one method while testing the other. This can be accomplished by creating a spy of your system-under-test and mocking some of its methods to avoid calling collaborators. However, this might also be an indication that your class is violating the Single Responsibility Principle, and that you should break down the class into multiple independent classes that work together. Then, in your test, you can allow instances to have exactly one role and never need both annotations at once.

For Jersey web services testing there are several testing frameworks, namely: Jersey Test Framework (already mentioned in other answer - see here documentation for version 1.17 here: https://jersey.java.net/documentation/1.17/test-framework.html) and REST-Assured (https://code.google.com/p/rest-assured) - see here a comparison/setup of both (http://www.hascode.com/2011/09/rest-assured-vs-jersey-test-framework-testing-your-restful-web-services/).

I find the REST-Assured more interesting and powerful, but Jersey Test Framework is very easy to use too. In REST-Assured to write a test case "to check response status and json format" you could write the following test (very much like you do in jUnit):

package com.example.rest;

import static com.jayway.restassured.RestAssured.expect;
import groovyx.net.http.ContentType;

import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;

import com.jayway.restassured.RestAssured;

public class Products{

    @Before
    public void setUp(){
        RestAssured.basePath = "http://localhost:8080";
    }

    @Test
    public void testGetProducts(){
        expect().statusCode(200).contentType(ContentType.JSON).when()
                .get("/getProducts/companyid/companyname/12345088723");
    }

}

This should do the trick for you... you can verify JSON specific elements also very easily and many other details. For instructions on more features you can check the very good guide from REST-Assured (https://code.google.com/p/rest-assured/wiki/Usage). Another good tutorial is this one http://www.hascode.com/2011/10/testing-restful-web-services-made-easy-using-the-rest-assured-framework/.

HTH.

Static methods aren't related to any object - your helper.fetchUsernameFromInternet(...) is the same (but a bit confusing) as HelperUtils.fetchUsernameFromInternet(...) - you should even get a compiler warning due to this helper.fetchUsernameFromInternet.

What's more, instead of Mockito.mock to mock static methods you have to use: @RunWith(...), @PrepareForTest(...) and then PowerMockito.mockStatic(...) - complete example is here: PowerMockito mock single static method and return object

In other words - mocking static methods (and also constructors) is a bit tricky. Better solution is:

• if you can change HelperUtils, make that method non-static and now you can mock HelperUtils with the usual Mockito.mock

• if you can't change HelperUtils, create a wrapper class which delegates to the original HelperUtils, but doesn't have static methods, and then also use usual Mockito.mock (this idea is sometimes called "don't mock types you don't own")

It is because of Java/Mockito compatibility. For example, if you are using Java 11 with Mockito 2.17.0, it will throw the same error (Upgrading to Mockito 2.22.0 or later will solve it). Aside from digging into their release artifact on Github, I am yet to see a comprehensive document that spells out the compatibility matrix. Here is a helpful compatibility Matrix (based on quick test)

• Mockito * - 2.17.0 => Java 8

(footnote: * - dont know how far back)

• Mockito 2.18.0 - 3.2.4 => Java 11

This took me a while to figure out, so I am answering my own question.

AFAIK, you need to "undo" each mock. Mockito.reset() will not work with Class<?> references. At the end of the test method, add:

// Undo the mock above because we need to call PathUtils.removeFile() within @After.
PowerMockito.doCallRealMethod().when(PathUtils.class);
PathUtils.removeFile(Mockito.any(File.class));

According to the Mockito_Maven page on the PowerMock wiki, use this:

<properties>
    <powermock.version>1.6.6</powermock.version>
</properties>
<dependencies>
   <dependency>
      <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
      <artifactId>powermock-module-junit4</artifactId>
      <version>${powermock.version}</version>
      <scope>test</scope>
   </dependency>
   <dependency>
      <groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
      <artifactId>powermock-api-mockito</artifactId>
      <version>${powermock.version}</version>
      <scope>test</scope>
   </dependency>
</dependencies>

powermock-api-support seems to be "utility classes only", where you still need the core libraries provided in powermock-module-junit4.

I recommend to use approach from article: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/wiki/Mocking-Object-Creation

You need to change little bit a class, applying approach for mocking from article in following way:

AwsHelper

public class AwsHelper {

    private AmazonSQS sqs;

    public void sendMessageToQueue(String message) {
        sqs = defaultClient();

        SendMessageRequest sendMessageRequest = new SendMessageRequest();
        sendMessageRequest.setQueueUrl("");
        sendMessageRequest.setMessageBody(message);
        sendMessageRequest.setMessageGroupId("");

        sqs.sendMessage(sendMessageRequest);
    }

    protected AmazonSQS defaultClient() {
        return AmazonSQSClientBuilder.defaultClient();
    }
}

AwsSQSReferralsUtilTest

public class AwsSQSReferralsUtilTest {

    @Spy
    private AwsHelper awsHelper;

    @Mock
    private AmazonSQS sqs;

    @BeforeClass
    public void setUp() {
        MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
    }
    
    @AfterMethod
    public void afterEachMethod() {
        Mockito.reset(awsHelper);
    }

    @Test
    public void shouldSendMessage() {
        //mocking object creation
        doReturn(sqs).when(awsHelper).defaultClient();

        when(sqs.sendMessage(any(SendMessageRequest.class))).thenReturn(new SendMessageRequest());
        awsHelper.sendMessageToQueue("");
    }

}

The following code works for me - when(mockRestTemplate.postForEntity(anyString(), any(), eq(String.class))).thenReturn(response);

It is possible for third-party plugins to register custom MockMaker implementations that create classes differently to the default behavior via Mockito's SPI. As a part of the specified behavior, since Mockito 2.0, a MockMaker can decide if a class is mockable, such as final classes in the case of PowerMock. In order to integrate such a custom behavior, PowerMock registers a custom MockMaker that is then used by Mockito.

In Mockito 2.0, the API for a custom MockMaker had to be extended but PowerMock does not yet adapt the API extensions. Therefore, this new method is not yet implemented by the PowerMock MockMaker what results in an AbstractMethodError.