How to use bridgeMethod method of org.mockitoutil.Conditions class

You can use a Mock reponse or an actual response and then use when, e.g.:

Page<Company> companies = Mockito.mock(Page.class);
Mockito.when(companyRepository.findAllByIsActiveTrue(pageable)).thenReturn(companies);

Or, just instantiate the class:

List<Company> companies = new ArrayList<>();
Page<Company> pagedResponse = new PageImpl(companies);
Mockito.when(companyRepository.findAllByIsActiveTrue(pagedResponse)).thenReturn(pagedResponse);

You can do it with Mockito and PowerMockito.

Say you have ClassUnderTest with a constructor

public class ClassUnderTest {
    String name;
    boolean condition;

    public ClassUnderTest(String name, boolean condition) {
       this.name = name;
       this.condition = condition;
       init();
    }

    ...
}

And another class that calls that constructor

public class MyClass {

    public MyClass() { } 

    public void createCUTInstance() {
       // ...
       ClassUnderTest cut = new ClassUnderTest("abc", true);
       // ...
    }

    ...
}

At the Test class we could...

(1) use PowerMockRunner and cite both target classes above in the PrepareForTest annotation:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest({ ClassUnderTest.class, MyClass.class })
public class TestClass {

(2) intercept the constructor to return a mock object:

@Before
public void setup() {
    ClassUnderTest cutMock = Mockito.mock(ClassUnderTest.class);
    PowerMockito.whenNew(ClassUnderTest.class)
                .withArguments(Matchers.anyString(), Matchers.anyBoolean())
                .thenReturn(cutMock);
}

(3) validate the constructor call:

@Test
public void testMethod() {
    // prepare
    MyClasss myClass = new MyClass();

    // execute
    myClass.createCUTInstance();

    // checks if the constructor has been called once and with the expected argument values:
    String name = "abc";
    String condition = true;
    PowerMockito.verifyNew(ClassUnderTest.class).withArguments(name, condition);
}

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.

Ok, first things first: I never used Mockito once in a life. But I was curious, so I spent several hours to figure this out and I guess there is much to improve.

So to get this working, we need:

1. The aforementioned (by @jewelsea) JUnit Threading Rule.
2. A custom MockMaker implementation, wrapping the default CglibMockMaker.
3. Wire the things together.

So 1+2 is this:

public class JavaFXMockMaker implements MockMaker {

    private final MockMaker wrapped = new CglibMockMaker();
    private boolean jfxIsSetup;

    private void doOnJavaFXThread(Runnable pRun) throws RuntimeException {
        if (!jfxIsSetup) {
            setupJavaFX();
            jfxIsSetup = true;
        }
        final CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(1);
        Platform.runLater(() -> {
            pRun.run();
            countDownLatch.countDown();
        });

        try {
            countDownLatch.await();
        } catch (InterruptedException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e);
        }
    }

    protected void setupJavaFX() throws RuntimeException {
        final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
        SwingUtilities.invokeLater(() -> {
            new JFXPanel(); // initializes JavaFX environment
            latch.countDown();
        });

        try {
            latch.await();
        } catch (InterruptedException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e);
        }
    }

    @Override
    public <T> T createMock(MockCreationSettings<T> settings, MockHandler handler) {
        AtomicReference<T> result = new AtomicReference<>();
        Runnable run = () -> result.set(wrapped.createMock(settings, handler));
        doOnJavaFXThread(run);
        return result.get();
    }

    @Override
    public MockHandler getHandler(Object mock) {
        AtomicReference<MockHandler> result = new AtomicReference<>();
        Runnable run = () -> result.set(wrapped.getHandler(mock));
        doOnJavaFXThread(run);
        return result.get();
    }

    @Override
    public void resetMock(Object mock, MockHandler newHandler, @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") MockCreationSettings settings) {
        Runnable run = () -> wrapped.resetMock(mock, newHandler, settings); 
        doOnJavaFXThread(run);
    }

}

Number 3 is just following the manual:

1. Copy the fully qualified class name of our MockMaker, eg. org.awesome.mockito.JavaFXMockMaker.
2. Create a file "mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker". The content of this file is exactly a one line with the qualified name.

Happy testing & kudos to Andy Till for his threading rule.

Warning: This implementation kind of hard-codes the MockMaker to use the CglibMockMaker which might not be be what you want in every case (see the JavaDocs).

Although not a direct answer to your question, however I suggest that you move away from field injection and use constructor injection instead (makes code more readable and testable).

Your code would look like:

class Patient {

  private final Syringe syringe;

  @Inject
  public Patient(Syringe syringe) {
    System.out.println("That hurt like crazy!");
  }

}

Then your test would simply be:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
class TestCase {

  @Mock
  Syringe siringeMock;

  Patient patient;

  @Before
  public void setup() {
     patient = new Patient(siringeMock);
  }

}

Update

As suggested by Erik-Karl in the comments, you could use @InjectMocks to get rid of the setup method. The solution works because Mockito will use the appropriate constructor injection (as described here). The code would then look like:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
class TestCase {

  @Mock
  Syringe siringeMock;

  @InjectMocks
  Patient patient;

}

@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.

You need to use mockito-inline version 3.4.0 or higher and remove mockito-core from your dependencies (mockito-inline depends on mockito-core so it will be retrieved automatically).

That way, you will be using mockito static mocking correctly, but it wouldn't solve the exception that you posted.

To fix it, you need to remove all dependencies of powermock as it conflicts with mockito and causes this error

The used MockMaker PowerMockMaker does not support the creation of static mocks

You need to provide a way of accessing the member variables so you can pass in a mock (the most common ways would be a setter method or a constructor which takes a parameter).

If your code doesn't provide a way of doing this, it's incorrectly factored for TDD (Test Driven Development).

I ran into this yesterday, for spies is best to do:

doReturn(X).when(spy).method(any())