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

I suppose that "any" is actually a Mockito.any() method? In that case you can rather use Mockito.matches("regex"). See docs: https://static.javadoc.io/org.mockito/mockito-core/1.9.5/org/mockito/Matchers.html#matches(java.lang.String)

EDIT: It turns out that MockRestServiceServer uses Hamcrest matchers to verify the expectations (methods like requestTo, withSuccess etc.).

There is also a method matchesPattern(java.util.regex.Pattern pattern) in org/hamcrest/Matchers class which is available since Hamcrest 2, and it can be used to solve your problem.

But in your project you probably have the dependency on the older version of Hamcrest (1.3) which is used by, for example, junit 4.12, the latest spring-boot-starter-test-2.13, or, finally, org.mock-server.mockserver-netty.3.10.8 (transitively).

So, you need to:

1. Check the actual version of Hamcrest in your project and (if it's not 2+) update this dependency manually: https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.hamcrest/hamcrest/2.1

<dependency>
    <groupId>org.hamcrest</groupId>
    <artifactId>hamcrest</artifactId>
    <version>2.1</version>
    <scope>test</scope>
</dependency>

2. Update your test:

mockServer.expect(requestTo(matchesPattern(".*exact-example-url.com.*")))
    .andExpect(method(HttpMethod.GET))
    .andRespond(withSuccess("response", MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON));

If isSkipped() is not a final method, this problem probably indicates that you try to stub a method while stubbing of another method is in progress. It's not supported because Mockito relies on order of method invocations (when(), etc) in its stubbing API.

I guess you have something like this in your test method:

when(...).thenReturn(getSkippedBuild());

If so, you need to rewrite it as follows:

DynamicBuild build = getSkippedBuild();
when(...).thenReturn(build);

when(myObject.someMethod()).thenReturn(someMockObject);
// run test
verify(myObject, times(n)).someMethod();

See the documentation for more conversion examples.

First, I would split your test into 2 separate tests, because you are testing 2 quite different scenarios:

@Test
public void testSuccessfulLogin() throws Exception {
    RequestBuilder requestBuilder = formLogin().user("test@tester.de").password("test");
    mockMvc.perform(requestBuilder).andExpect(redirectedUrl("/home")).andExpect(status().isFound());
}

@Test
public void testHomepageThrows500() throws Exception {

    // configure a mock service in the controller to throw an exception

    RequestBuilder requestBuilder = formLogin().user("test@tester.de").password("test");
    mockMvc.perform(requestBuilder).andExpect(redirectedUrl("/home")).andExpect(status().is5xxServerError());
}

Your first test is that of the successful login scenario.

The second test, as you've worded it in your question, is that where the home page (assuming a controller) returns a HTTP 500.
To get to the home page, you still need to login - it's not the act of logging on that generates the error, its the controller itself once you've logged on.
To make the controller return a HTTP 500 you are going to need to simulate some error. Without seeing your controller, I can only guess there is some service that is injected in. In your test you should be able to provide a mock of that, and then configure the mock to throw an exception.

You should be able to inject a mock something like this:

@RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
@WebMvcTest(HomeController.class)
public class HomeControllerIntegrationTest {

    @Autowired
    private MockMvc mockMvc;

    @MockBean
    private YourService yourService;

And then within your test do something like the following (I'm using the BDD methods of mockito):

@Test
public void testHomepageThrows500() throws Exception {

    given(yourService.someMethod()).willThrow(new Exception("something bad happened");

    RequestBuilder requestBuilder = formLogin().user("test@tester.de").password("test");
    mockMvc.perform(requestBuilder).andExpect(redirectedUrl("/home")).andExpect(status().is5xxServerError());
}

Change this:

thenThrow(DataAccessException.class)

to

thenThrow(new DataAccessException("..."){ })

Example:

when(userSubModuleDao.findById(any(UserSubModuleId.class),eq(false))).thenThrow(new DataAccessException("..."){});

You can only pass a Class reference when that Exception type has a No-Arg constructor, and the Spring exception does not have one.

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());

You can also use the non-type safe method doReturn for this purpose,

@Test
public void testMockitoWithGenerics()
{
    DummyClass dummyClass = Mockito.mock(DummyClass.class);
    List<? extends Number> someList = new ArrayList<Integer>();

    Mockito.doReturn(someList).when(dummyClass).dummyMethod();

    Assert.assertEquals(someList, dummyClass.dummyMethod());
}

as discussed on Mockito's google group.

While this is simpler than thenAnswer, again note that it is not type safe. If you're concerned about type safety, millhouse's answer is correct.

Additional Details

To be clear, here's the observed compiler error,

The method thenReturn(List<capture#1-of ? extends Number>) in the type OngoingStubbing<List<capture#1-of ? extends Number>> is not applicable for the arguments (List<capture#2-of ? extends Number>)

I believe the compiler has assigned the first wildcard type during the when call and then cannot confirm that the second wildcard type in the thenReturn call is the same.

It looks like thenAnswer doesn't run into this issue because it accepts a wildcard type while thenReturn takes a non-wildcard type, which must be captured. From Mockito's OngoingStubbing,

OngoingStubbing<T> thenAnswer(Answer<?> answer);
OngoingStubbing<T> thenReturn(T value);

You could use atLeast(0) in combination with ArgumentCaptor:

ArgumentCaptor<String> propertyKeyCaptor = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(String.class);
Mockito.verify(foo, atLeast(0)).getProperty(propertyKeyCaptor.capture(), anyString());

ArgumentCaptor<String> propertyKeyCaptor2 = ArgumentCaptor.forClass(String.class);
Mockito.verify(foo, atLeast(0)).getProperty(propertyKeyCaptor2.capture());

List<String> propertyKeyValues = propertyKeyCaptor.getAllValues();
List<String> propertyKeyValues2 = propertyKeyCaptor2.getAllValues();

assertTrue(!propertyKeyValues.isEmpty() || !propertyKeyValues2.isEmpty()); //JUnit assert -- modify for whatever testing framework you're using

I don't know of other benefits offhand, but I want to address 2 of your sub-questions (and this is way too long for a comment):

allow mocking without dependency injection - this one isn't clear to me. Can you elaborate?

I think this came from the Motivation wiki page where they describe a way of refactoring code to not invoke static methods to make it testable. For a concrete example of what I think they're getting at, let's say you have this code and you want to test the method mocking the behaviour of the static method, without using powermock:

public class MyClass {
     public void doGetString() {
         ...
         OtherClass.getString(); //It's complex and scary and needs mocking!
         ...
     }
}

One solution, would be to pull the static invocation into its own object, then inject an object that can be mocked come test time. For example, without using other frameworks, this could look like:

public class MyClass {
     public static class StringGetter {
         public getString() {
             return OtherClass.getString();                 
         }
     }

     private final StringGetter getter;

     //Existing Constructor
     public MyClass() {
         this(new StringGetter());
     }

     //DI Constructor
     MyClass(StringGetter getter) {
         this.getter = getter;
     }

     public void doGetString() {
         ...
         getter.getString();
         ...
     }
}

I've seperated the behaviour of my method from the behaviour of the static invocation, and can use the DI constructor to inject mocks easily at test time. Of course with powermock I could just mock the static method in place, and run with it.

And do I need to sacrifice something when using PowerMock?

Physically no, but I'd say philosophically yes :). The below are my opinions, and I try to give good reasons behind them, but of course they are opinions so take them with a grain of salt:

The potentially scary thing that is happening with PowerMock is that in order to accomplish the feats of mocking private and static methods, they are using a custom class loader (which shouldn't be present at runtime in production) and changing the bytecode of your classes. Arguably, this should not matter with the vast majority of classes most of the time, but if you think about it, if the bytecode has changed, and certain side effects are no longer present, you're effectively testing different Classes albiet based upon your existing Classes. Yes this is a very academic argument.

You can somewhat mitigate this first argument by having good comprehensive integration and higher level tests that don't use PowerMock. In this way you can be more confident in the behaviours of your objects even if your unit tests are using PowerMock.

The other argument I have against PowerMock, is that it could almost too easily become a crutch. I agree that PowerMock can help with testing code that uses legacy code and other code that you do not have control over. However I would argue that when you have control over the classes that you need to mock, you should avoid its use. If you write a class with a private method or static method that you need to explicitly mock in order to test other methods, my gut instinct would say that this method may be doing too much and should be refactored and broken up. Having PowerMock already available in a project, you may be tempted to just mock it and move on, which would mitigate the pain that should encourage you to refactor the same. Yes there are sometimes due to various technical and non-technical constraints this is not possible, but it's good to solve pain points instead of avoid them :)