Mockito has an isNull matcher, where you can pass in the name of the class. So if you need to use it with other matchers, the correct thing to do is

verify(client).method(eq("String"),isNull(Class<?>.class));

This is now deprecated, see the answer below for the new method - https://stackoverflow.com/a/41250852/1348

@Mock
JdbcTemplate jdbctemplate;

@Test
public void testRun(){
when(jdbctemplate.queryForObject(anyString(),eq(String.class),anyObject()).thenReturn("data");
}

As for me the easiest way it's just to save the link to the read object when you initialize your Spy object:

Foo realFoo = new Foo();
Foo spyFoo = Mockito.spy(realFoo);

Now you can stub it like this:

doAnswer(invocation -> realFoo.getSome() + "spyMethod").when(spyFoo).getSome();

One more way is to call invocation.callRealMethod():

doAnswer(invocation -> invocation.callRealMethod() + "spyMethod").when(spyFoo).getSome();

But in this case you may need to cast the return value as long as invocation.callRealMethod() returns Object.

Use a Hamcrest matcher, as shown in the documentation:

when(carFinderMock.find(argThat(isRed()))).thenReturn(car1);

where isRed() is defined as

private Matcher<MappingFilter> isRed() {
    return new BaseMatcher<MappingFilter>() {
        // TODO implement abstract methods. matches() should check that the filter is RED.
    }
}

After the call to verifyStatic, you'll need to actually call the method you're trying to verify, as in the documentation here:

PowerMockito.verifyStatic(Static.class);
Static.thirdStaticMethod(Mockito.anyInt());

At that point you can use Mockito argument captors, as demonstrated (but not tested):

ArgumentCaptor<Properties> propertiesCaptor =
    ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Properties.class);

PowerMockito.verifyStatic(SomeStaticClass.class);
SomeStaticClass.methodBeingStubbed(propertiesCaptor.capture());

Properties passedInValue = propertiesCaptor.getValue();

If you're used to @Mock annotations, or you need to capture a generic (as in List<String>), you may also be interested in using the @Captor annotation instead.

Use PowerMockito on top of Mockito.

Example code:

@RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
@PrepareForTest(DriverManager.class)
public class Mocker {

    @Test
    public void shouldVerifyParameters() throws Exception {

        //given
        PowerMockito.mockStatic(DriverManager.class);
        BDDMockito.given(DriverManager.getConnection(...)).willReturn(...);

        //when
        sut.execute(); // System Under Test (sut)

        //then
        PowerMockito.verifyStatic();
        DriverManager.getConnection(...);

    }

More information:

• Why doesn't Mockito mock static methods?

Of course, I could write something like don't use singleton, they are evil, use Guice/Spring/whatever but first, this wouldn't answer your question and second, you sometimes have to deal with singleton, when using legacy code for example.

So, let's not discuss the good or bad about singleton (there is another question for this) but let's see how to handle them during testing. First, let's look at a common implementation of the singleton:

public class Singleton {
    private Singleton() { }

    private static class SingletonHolder {
        private static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton();
    }

    public static Singleton getInstance() {
        return SingletonHolder.INSTANCE;
    }

    public String getFoo() {
        return "bar";
    }
}

There are two testing problems here:

1. The constructor is private so we can't extend it (and we can't control the creation of instances in tests but, well, that's the point of singletons).

2. The getInstance is static so it's hard to inject a fake instead of the singleton object in the code using the singleton.

For mocking frameworks based on inheritance and polymorphism, both points are obviously big issues. If you have the control of the code, one option is to make your singleton "more testable" by adding a setter allowing to tweak the internal field as described in Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Singleton (you don't even need a mocking framework in that case). If you don't, modern mocking frameworks based on interception and AOP concepts allow to overcome the previously mentioned problems.

For example, Mocking Static Method Calls shows how to mock a Singleton using JMockit Expectations.

Another option would be to use PowerMock, an extension to Mockito or JMock which allows to mock stuff normally not mock-able like static, final, private or constructor methods. Also you can access the internals of a class.

I had the same problem with the newer version. It looks to me that the doesNotExist() function will verify that the key is not in the result:

.andExpect(jsonPath("$.password").doesNotExist())

Well, the common approach to data storage in Java is, as you noted, not at all very object-oriented. This is in and of itself neither bad nor good: "object-orientedness" is neither an advantage nor disadvantage, it's just one of many paradigms, that sometimes helps with good architecture design (and sometimes not).

The reason DAOs in Java aren't usually object-oriented is exactly what you want to achieve – relaxing your dependency on the database. In a better-designed language, that allowed for multiple inheritances, this, of course, can be done very elegantly in an object-oriented way, but with Java, it just seems to be more troublesome than it is worth.

In a broader sense, the non-OO approach helps decouple your application-level data from the way it is stored. This is more than (non-)dependency on the specifics of a particular database, but also the storage schemas, which is especially important when using relational databases (don't get me started on ORM): you can have a well-designed relational schema seamlessly translated into the application OO model by your DAO.

So, what most DAOs are in Java nowadays are essentially what you mentioned in the beginning – classes, full of static methods. One difference is that, instead of making all the methods static, it is better to have a single static "factory method" (probably, in a different class), that returns a (singleton) instance of your DAO, which implements a particular interface, used by application code to access the database:

public interface GreatDAO {
    User getUser(int id);
    void saveUser(User u);
}
public class TheGreatestDAO implements GreatDAO {
   protected TheGreatestDAO() {}
   ... 
}
public class GreatDAOFactory {
     private static GreatDAO dao = null;
     protected static synchronized GreatDao setDAO(final GreatDAO d) {
         final GreatDAO old = dao;
         dao = d;
         return old;
     }
     public static synchronized GreatDAO getDAO() {
         return dao == null ? dao = new TheGreatestDAO() : dao;
     }
}

public class App {
     void setUserName(final int id, final String name) {
          final GreatDAO dao =  GreatDAOFactory.getDao();
          final User u = dao.getUser(id);
          u.setName(name);
          dao.saveUser(u);
     }
}

Why do it this way as opposed to static methods? Well, what if you do decide to switch to a different database? Naturally, you'd create a new DAO class, implementing the logic for your new storage. If you were using static methods, you would now have to go through all your code, accessing the DAO, and change it to use your new class, right? This could be a huge pain. And what if then you change your mind and want to switch back to the old DB?

With this approach, all you need to do is to change the GreatDAOFactory.getDAO() and make it create an instance of a different class, and all your application code will be using the new database without any changes.

In real life, this is often done without any changes to the code at all: the factory method gets the implementation class name via a property setting, and instantiates it using reflection, so, all you need to do to switch implementations is to edit a property file. There are actually frameworks – like spring or guice – that manage this "dependency injection" mechanism for you, but I won't go into details, first, because it is really beyond the scope of your question, and also, because I am not necessarily convinced that the benefit you get from using those frameworks is worth the trouble integrating with them for most applications.

Another (probably, more likely to be taken advantage of) benefit of this "factory approach" as opposed to "static" is testability. Imagine that you are writing a unit test that should test the logic of your App class independently of any underlying DAO. You don't want it to use any real underlying storage for several reasons (speed, having to set it up, and clean up afterwards, possible collisions with other tests, the possibility of polluting test results with problems in DAO, unrelated to App, which is actually being tested, etc.).

To do this, you want a test framework, like Mockito, that allows you to "mock out" the functionality of any object or method, replacing it with a "dummy" object, with predefined behavior (I'll skip the details, because, this again is beyond the scope). So, you can create this dummy object replacing your DAO, and make the GreatDAOFactory return your dummy instead of the real thing by calling GreatDAOFactory.setDAO(dao) before the test (and restoring it after). If you were using static methods instead of the instance class, this would not be possible.

One more benefit, which is kinda similar to switching databases I described above is "pimping up" your DAO with additional functionality. Suppose that your application becomes slower as the amount of data in the database grows, and you decide that you need a cache layer. Implement a wrapper class, that uses the real DAO instance (provided to it as a constructor parameter) to access the database, and caches the objects it reads in memory so that they can be returned faster. You can then make your GreatDAOFactory.getDAO instantiate this wrapper, for the application to take advantage of it.

(This is called "delegation pattern" … and seems like a pain in the butt, especially when you have lots of methods defined in your DAO: you will have to implement all of them in the wrapper, even to alter behavior of just one. Alternatively, you could simply subclass your DAO, and add caching to it this way. This would be a lot less boring coding upfront, but may become problematic when you do decide to change the database, or, worse, to have an option of switching implementations back and forth.)

One equally broadly used (but, in my opinion, inferior) alternative to the "factory" method is making the dao a member variable in all classes that need it:

public class App {
   GreatDao dao;
   public App(final GreatDao d) { dao = d; }
}

This way, the code that instantiates these classes needs to instantiate the DAO object (which could still use the factory) and provide it as a constructor parameter. The dependency injection frameworks I mentioned above, usually do something similar to this.

This provides all the benefits of the "factory method" approach, that I described earlier, but, as I said, is not as good in my opinion. The disadvantages here are having to write a constructor for each of your app classes, doing the same exact thing over, and over, also not being able to instantiate the classes easily when needed, and some lost readability: with a large enough code base, a reader of your code, not familiar with it, will have hard time understanding which actual implementation of the DAO is used, how it is instantiated, whether it is a singleton, a thread-safe implementation, whether it keeps state, or caches anything, how the decisions on choosing a particular implementation are made etc.