For the mocks initialization, using the runner or the MockitoAnnotations.initMocks are strictly equivalent solutions. From the javadoc of the MockitoJUnitRunner :

JUnit 4.5 runner initializes mocks annotated with Mock, so that explicit usage of MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(Object) is not necessary. Mocks are initialized before each test method.

The first solution (with the MockitoAnnotations.initMocks) could be used when you have already configured a specific runner (SpringJUnit4ClassRunner for example) on your test case.

The second solution (with the MockitoJUnitRunner) is the more classic and my favorite. The code is simpler. Using a runner provides the great advantage of automatic validation of framework usage (described by @David Wallace in this answer).

Both solutions allows to share the mocks (and spies) between the test methods. Coupled with the @InjectMocks, they allow to write unit tests very quickly. The boilerplate mocking code is reduced, the tests are easier to read. For example:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Mock private ArticleCalculator calculator;
    @Mock(name = "database") private ArticleDatabase dbMock;
    @Spy private UserProvider userProvider = new ConsumerUserProvider();

    @InjectMocks private ArticleManager manager;

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        manager.initiateArticle();
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        manager.finishArticle();
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: The code is minimal

Cons: Black magic. IMO it is mainly due to the @InjectMocks annotation. With this annotation "you loose the pain of code" (see the great comments of @Brice)

The third solution is to create your mock on each test method. It allow as explained by @mlk in its answer to have "self contained test".

public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        // given
        ArticleCalculator calculator = mock(ArticleCalculator.class);
        ArticleDatabase database = mock(ArticleDatabase.class);
        UserProvider userProvider = spy(new ConsumerUserProvider());
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.initiateArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        // given
        ArticleCalculator calculator = mock(ArticleCalculator.class);
        ArticleDatabase database = mock(ArticleDatabase.class);
        UserProvider userProvider = spy(new ConsumerUserProvider());
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.finishArticle();

        // then
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: You clearly demonstrate how your api works (BDD...)

Cons: there is more boilerplate code. (The mocks creation)

My recommandation is a compromise. Use the @Mock annotation with the @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class), but do not use the @InjectMocks :

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class ArticleManagerTest {

    @Mock private ArticleCalculator calculator;
    @Mock private ArticleDatabase database;
    @Spy private UserProvider userProvider = new ConsumerUserProvider();

    @Test public void shouldDoSomething() {
        // given
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.initiateArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).addListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }

    @Test public void shouldDoSomethingElse() {
        // given
        ArticleManager manager = new ArticleManager(calculator, 
                                                    userProvider, 
                                                    database);

        // when 
        manager.finishArticle();

        // then 
        verify(database).removeListener(any(ArticleListener.class));
    }
}

Pros: You clearly demonstrate how your api works (How my ArticleManager is instantiated). No boilerplate code.

Cons: The test is not self contained, less pain of code

I think this way should work:

Steps (this is a chrome example):

• Use the user-dir argument in your browser configuration:

  System.setProperty("webdriver.chrome.driver", "res/chromedriver.exe");
  DesiredCapabilities capabilities = DesiredCapabilities.chrome();
  ChromeOptions options = new ChromeOptions();
  options.addArguments("test-type");
  options.addArguments("start-maximized");
  options.addArguments("user-data-dir=D:/temp/");
  capabilities.setCapability("chrome.binary","res/chromedriver.exe");
  capabilities.setCapability(ChromeOptions.CAPABILITY,options);
  WebDriver driver = new ChromeDriver(capabilities);
  

• Add the items to your shopping cart

• Close the driver (do NOT quit)

  driver.close();
  

• In the background, delete the user-dir which is D:/temp/ which has the browser profile. This would be the cookie deleting part.

• Re-initialise the driver and verify shopping cart is empty

  driver = new ChromeDriver(capabilities);
  

PS: I hope this helps. I have seen that this type of code can be used to test the "Remember me" functionality. I am not so sure about shopping cart.

So...

Your prerequisites:

• excel file, each row - one dataset
• run test for each dataset

What can you do:

1. Create @DataProvider which return Iterator<Object[]> with your datasets where each Object[] is your row from excel. (the easiest one)
2. Use @Factory to manually iterate through your datasets and call test methods.
3. Use @DataProvider to provide data for @Factory and do as above. The 2nd and 3rd options are complicated, but have some benefits if you has other parameters, except datasets, to run tests.

If the code you are testing throws an exception, you must handle it in some way. Either by declaring a "throws Exception" in the method signature, or by using try-catch.

If the code you are calling in the method does not throw any exceptions, then you dont need either of those. The compiler will let you know if you need to catch an exception in some way.

Also note that you can do tests that makes sure an exception is thrown, see this answer

OK, I think this is very specific to TestNG configurations, since all of the JUnit examples work 'out of the box'!

Read through this link from the PowerMock GitHub site which describes further detail on how to use TestNG together with PowerMock. Exactly your scenario of verifying calls to mocked static methods is described there using this example code:

@PrepareForTest(IdGenerator.class)
public class MyTestClass {

   @Test
   public void demoStaticMethodMocking() throws Exception {
      mockStatic(IdGenerator.class);
      when(IdGenerator.generateNewId()).thenReturn(2L);       
      new ClassUnderTest().methodToTest();

      // Optionally verify that the static method was actually called
      verifyStatic();
      IdGenerator.generateNewId();
   }

}

Which is then followed by this nugget of information:

For this to work you need to tell TestNG to use the PowerMock object factory

This is done using either TestNG XML config, or in the test's code itself. For completeness I've copied below the options given at the above URL. FWIW I extended PowerMockTestCase and the verification worked as you expect.

Finally, don't forget to @PrepareForTest the correct class - i.e. the class containing the static methods which you want to mock, as @Bax pointed out here.

As a further hint (which you probably already know about, but worth mentioning here anyway) since you aren't using Mockito to mock objects, MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this) can be safely deleted.

Once you've got all this working, you might also like to consider whether the use of 'Black Magic' tools like Powermock is actually exposing code smells in your design? Especially since it looks like the classes containing static methods are under your ownership. This means you could use an alternative design that doesn't use statics. I highly recommend Michael Feathers' book Working Effectively with Legacy Code, it might just change your whole approach to software design and testing...

Good luck!

Configure TestNG to use the PowerMock object factory

Using suite.xml

In your suite.xml add the following in the suite tag: object-factory="org.powermock.modules.testng.PowerMockObjectFactory" e.g.

<suite name="dgf" verbose="10"
    object-factory="org.powermock.modules.testng.PowerMockObjectFactory">
    <test name="dgf">
        <classes>
            <class name="com.mycompany.Test1"/>
            <class name="com.mycompany.Test2"/>
        </classes>
    </test> 

If you're using Maven you may need to point out the file to Surefire:

<plugin>
    <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
    <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
    <configuration>
        <suiteXmlFiles>
        <suiteXmlFile>suite.xml</suiteXmlFile>
        </suiteXmlFiles>
    </configuration> 
</plugin> 

Programmatically

Add a method like this to your test class:

@ObjectFactory public IObjectFactory getObjectFactory() {
     return new org.powermock.modules.testng.PowerMockObjectFactory(); 
} 

or to be on the safe side you can also extend from the PowerMockTestCase:

@PrepareForTest(IdGenerator.class) 
public class MyTestClass extends PowerMockTestCase { ... }

I'm sure someone will consider my response "opinionated" and vote it down, but nevertheless I think that

Yes, if you have a test framework you are relying upon for your acceptance testing, the framework itself needs to be tested.

From my experience the value is in 2 areas:

1. Be able to change your framework with confidence. When you create some function, you know quite a lot about it, i.e. which use cases it supports, what it's designed to do, etc. But other people (or even you a year from now) may not have the same level of knowledge, even with documentation. So either new functions will pop up every time someone needs some slight modification in behavior (because they are not confident to change existing function), or someone may break whole bunch of acceptance tests.

   Best if those are true unit tests, able to run completely independently from anything (use mocks, predefined static test data, etc).

2. Protect yourself from unexpected changes / bugs in Selenium itself (or other important 3rd-party libraries). When you're updating Selenium to next version (and that usually needs to be done every 3-6 months), there's always a chance that they changed some default you were relying upon (and didn't even know), or broke something, or suddenly something returns a different exception, or does not throw exception where it previously did and so on. Of course no need to get carried away and duplicate Selenium own unit tests, but when it comes to non-trivial things, or relying on some features with poor documentation, those tests may help a lot.

   Those are integration tests. Ideally they should run against test-only webapp (not the real application) that replicate specifically tested behaviors in a way convenient for tests.

Of course some compromises possible as well. For example having a small subset of acceptance tests that are serving as unit / integration tests (they run first, and other tests only run if they are passing). Might be cheaper to begin with those and slowly migrate to proper unit/integration tests when you debug / fix issues in the test framework.

Another question is how do you separate tests testing your framework from actual acceptance tests for the product. What worked for me is keeping test framework and acceptance tests in 2 separate projects. That way I can change the framework, build it (which also includes running unit and integration tests) many times if needed. When all unit and integration tests are passing, then I can update the version used by actual acceptance tests.

There can be different ways to do this

1. After login your URL redirect to another page then you can use following way-

   String newUrl = driver.getCurrentUrl();
   
   if(newUrl.equalsIgnoreCase("expected_URL")){
       System.out.println("Login Success");
   }
   else {
       // your further action 
   }
   

2. Another way can be, you can locate an element which comes after successful login e.g you can find username of logged in user

   String usename = driver.findElement(By.yourLocater).getText();
       try {
        if(usename.equalsIgnoreCase("expected username")) {
             // success message
         }
        else {
           // your further actions
        }
      }
       catch(Exception e) {
           System.out.println(e);
       }
   

3. You can use assert of TestNG framework as well

   assertEquals(newUrl, driver.getCurrentUrl());
   

Mockito is great- I am personally a huge fan!

With Mockito, you can do something like the code below. You basically set up a stream mock, and you tell it to sleep for a very long time when the "read" method is invoked on it. You can then pass this mock into the code you want to test when the stream hangs.

import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;

//...
@Test
public void testMockitoSleepOnInputStreamRead() throws Exception{

    InputStream is = mock(InputStream.class);
    when(is.read()).thenAnswer(new Answer() {
        @Override
        public Object answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) {
            try {
            Thread.sleep(10000000000L);
            return null;
            } catch (InterruptedException ie) {
                throw new RuntimeException(ie);
            }

        }
    });

    //then use this input stream for your testing.
}

The simplest way is by using ITestResult.

    @Override
    public void afterInvocation(IInvokedMethod arg, ITestResult arg1) { 
      System.out.println(arg.getTestMethod().getMethodName());
      System.out.println(arg1.getMethod().getDescription());
    }

The second sysout will return a (String) description of the invoked test method.