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

The thenReturn method will always return what is passed to it. The code new Servicemock() is being executed prior to the call to thenReturn. The created ServiceMock is then being passed to thenReturn. Therefore thenReturn has a absolute instance of ServiceMock not a creation mechanism.

If you need to provide an new instance, use thenAnswer

when(mockedMergeContext.createNewEntityOfType(IService.class))
  .thenAnswer(new Answer<IService>() {
     public IService answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
        return new ServiceMock();
     }
   });

A good technique for getting rid of static calls on 3rd party API is hiding the static call behind an interface.

Let's say you make this interface :

interface IPDOFacade {

    IPDO getContextPDO();
}

and have a default implementation that simply calls the static method on the 3rd party API :

class IPDOFacadeImpl implements IPDOFacade {

    @Override
    public IPDO getContextPDO() {
        return Util.getContextPDO();
    }
}

Then it is simply a matter of injecting a dependency on the interface into MyClass and using the interface, rather than the 3rd party API directly :

public class MyClass {

    private final IPDOFacade ipdoFacade;

    public MyClass(IPDOFacade ipdoFacade) {
        this.ipdoFacade = ipdoFacade;
    }

    private IPDO getIPDO() {
        return ipdoFacade.getContextPDO();
    }

    public String handleIn(Object input) throws Throwable
    {
        String result = "";
        IPDO pdo = getIPDO();

        someImportantBusinessLogic(pdo);

        return result;
    }
    
    ...

}

In your unit test, you can then easily mock your own interface, stub it any way you like and inject it into the unit under test.

This

• avoids the need to make private methods package private.
• makes your tests more readable by avoiding partial mocking.
• applies inversion of control.
• decouples your application from a specific 3rd party library.

@InjectMocks is a Mockito mechanism for injecting declared fields in the test class into matching fields in the class under test. It doesn't require the class under test to be a Spring component.

@Autowired is Spring's annotation for autowiring a bean into a production, non-test class.

If you wanted to leverage the @Autowired annotations in the class under test, another approach would be to use springockito which allows you to declare mock beans so that they will be autowired into the class under test the same way that Spring would autowire the bean. But typically that's not necessary.

On a first glance, the answer is simply: well, there are several mocking frameworks out there, and there are different ways to use them.

The first example tells JUnit to use the "unit test runner" that the Mockito mocking framework provides. The second example uses the unit test runner from the PowerMock framework.

In order for things to make sense, you would also have different import statements, as both frameworks have different implementations for the @Mock annotation for example.

( the main point of using these framework-specific test runners is that they take care of initializing all the fields with special framework-specific annotations ).

So: the difference here is simply that: the first example is written to use the Mockito framework, the second one uses PowerMock.

Now, which one of those to use?

Answer: Mockito.

Why? Somehow an ugly truth is: the PowerMock-one basically is a cry for help. It says "the class under test is badly designed, please fix it". Meaning: as a developer, you can write "easy to test" code, or "hard to test" code. Many people do the second: they write code that is hard to test. And then, PowerMock(ito) provides means to still test that code.

PowerMock(ito) gives you the ability to mock (thus control) calls to static methods, and to new(). To enable that, PowerMock(ito) manipulates the byte code of your code under test. That is perfectly fine for small code bases, but when you face millions of lines of production code, and thousands of unit tests, things are totally different.

I have seen many PowerMock tests fail for no apparent reason, to find out hours later ... that some "static" thing somewhere else was changed, and that somehow affect a different PowerMock static/new driven test case.

At some point, our team made a conscious decision: when you write new code, and you can only test that with PowerMock ... that isn't acceptable. Since then, we only created Mockito test cases, and not once since then we saw similar bizarre problems that bugged us with PowerMock.

The only acceptable reason to use PowerMock is when you want to test existing (maybe 3rd party) code that you do not want to modify. But of course, what is the point of testing such code? When you can't modify that code, why should tests fail all of a sudden?

I've never used Mockito, but want to learn, so here goes. If someone less clueless than me answers, try their answer first!

Mockito.when(reader.document(anyInt())).thenAnswer(new Answer() {
 public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
     Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
     Object mock = invocation.getMock();
     return document(fakeIndex((int)(Integer)args[0]));
     }
 });

As this link you posted indicates, you've encountered a bug with Answers.RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS.

I don't actually see any reason to actually use RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS in your example code. You really should try to evaluate whether or not you need deep stubs, because, as the Mockito docs say, "every time a mock returns a mock a fairy dies." So if you can, just take that out and your example will work.

However, if you insist on using deep stubs, you can hack around this error by up-casting the return value from the method call to Object. For example, replace the offending line in your code with this:

when((Object)bList.get(0)).thenReturn(b);

All that being said, I personally agree with @jhericks. The best solution is probably to use an actual ArrayList which contains your mock as opposed to mocking List. The only problem is getting your list injected, so you'd have to use @Spy. For example:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
class ATest{
  private B b = mock(B.class);
  @Spy
  private List<B> bList = new ArrayList<B>() {{ add(b); }};

  @InjectMocks
  private C c = new C();

  @Test
  public void test(){
    c.methodIWantToTest();
    // verify results
  }
}

Difference between a Spy and a Mock

When Mockito creates a mock – it does so from the Class of a Type, not from an actual instance. The mock simply creates a bare-bones shell instance of the Class, entirely instrumented to track interactions with it. On the other hand, the spy will wrap an existing instance. It will still behave in the same way as the normal instance – the only difference is that it will also be instrumented to track all the interactions with it.

In the following example – we create a mock of the ArrayList class:

@Test
public void whenCreateMock_thenCreated() {
    List mockedList = Mockito.mock(ArrayList.class);

    mockedList.add("one");
    Mockito.verify(mockedList).add("one");

    assertEquals(0, mockedList.size());
}

As you can see – adding an element into the mocked list doesn’t actually add anything – it just calls the method with no other side-effect. A spy on the other hand will behave differently – it will actually call the real implementation of the add method and add the element to the underlying list:

@Test
public void whenCreateSpy_thenCreate() {
    List spyList = Mockito.spy(new ArrayList());
    spyList.add("one");
    Mockito.verify(spyList).add("one");

    assertEquals(1, spyList.size());
}

Here we can surely say that the real internal method of the object was called because when you call the size() method you get the size as 1, but this size() method isn’t been mocked! So where does 1 come from? The internal real size() method is called as size() isn’t mocked (or stubbed) and hence we can say that the entry was added to the real object.

Source: http://www.baeldung.com/mockito-spy + self notes.

What is wrong?

Well, the problem here is quite subtle, when you call Mockito.spy(p), mockito creates behind the scene some kind of decorator over your instance of ClassWithInnerObject allowing to monitor all methods calls on your instance. Thanks to that, you can check how many times a given method has been called but on the decorator only not on your instance. And here, when you use an inner class, it calls innerFunc() on your instance of ClassWithInnerObject not on the decorator so for Mockito innerFunc() has not been called.

To answer your question directly, you cannot use Mockito to stub a method called from the constructor. Mockito needs an instance of the class before you can begin mocking, and you haven't given yourself a way to create an instance for testing.

More generally, as mentioned in Effective Java item 17, you should not call overridable methods from constructors. If you do so, for instance, you could provide an override in a subclass that refers to a final field but that runs before the final field is set. It probably won't get you in trouble here, but it's a bad habit in Java.

Luckily, you can restructure your code to do this very easily:

public class MyClass {
  public MyClass() {
    this(true);
  }

  /** For testing. */
  MyClass(boolean runSetup) {
    if (runSetup) {
      setup();
    }
  }

  /* ... */
}

To make it even more obvious, you can make the one-parameter MyClass constructor private, and provide a public static factory method:

/* ... */
  public static MyClass createForTesting() {
    return new MyClass(false);
  }

  private MyClass(boolean runSetup) {
/* ... */

Though some developers think it is a bad practice to write any code in methods that is used mostly for tests, remember that you are in charge of the design of your code, and tests are one of few consumers you absolutely know you will need to accommodate. Though it's still a good idea to avoid explicit test setup in "production" code, creating extra methods or overloads for the sake of testing will usually make your code cleaner overall and can drastically improve your test coverage and readability.