List of Classes and Methods of org.mockito.internal.util.reflection package of Mockito Framework

You can not force a subclass to override a method. You can only force it to implement a method by making it abstract.

So if you can not make myMotherClass abstract you can only introduce another superclass that extends myMotherClass and delegates to the method that must be implemented:

public abstract class EnforceImplementation extends myMotherClass {

        public final void myMethod(){
             implementMyMethod();
        }

        public abstract void implementMyMethod();
}

EDIT

I found another interessting way of solving the problem in the hemcrest api that is e.g. used by mockito.

public interface Matcher<T> extends SelfDescribing {

    /**
     * Evaluates the matcher for argument <var>item</var>.
     * <p/>
     * This method matches against Object, instead of the generic type T. This is
     * because the caller of the Matcher does not know at runtime what the type is
     * (because of type erasure with Java generics). It is down to the implementations
     * to check the correct type. 
     *
     * @param item the object against which the matcher is evaluated.
     * @return <code>true</code> if <var>item</var> matches, otherwise <code>false</code>.
     *
     * @see BaseMatcher
     */
    boolean matches(Object item);

    /**
     * This method simply acts a friendly reminder not to implement Matcher directly and
     * instead extend BaseMatcher. It's easy to ignore JavaDoc, but a bit harder to ignore
     * compile errors .
     *
     * @see Matcher for reasons why.
     * @see BaseMatcher
     */
    void _dont_implement_Matcher___instead_extend_BaseMatcher_();
}

The interface specifies a method _dont_implement_Matcher___instead_extend_BaseMatcher_. Of course it does not prevent others from implementing the Matcher interface, but it guides the developer in the right direction.

And the BaseMatcher class implements the _dont_implement_Matcher___instead_extend_BaseMatcher_ method as final

public final void _dont_implement_Matcher___instead_extend_BaseMatcher_() {
    // See Matcher interface for an explanation of this method.
}

Finally I think that this is a design problem, because the BaseMatcher obviouosly implements logic that every Matcher should implement. Thus it would have been better to make the Matcher an abstract class and use a template method.

But I guess they did it because it was the best compromise between bytecode compatibility and new features.

proguard-maven-plugin will obfuscate the primary artifact of your project, not the secondary artifact jar-with-dependencies that the maven-assembly-plugin generated.

You need to configure the plugin to obfuscate the jar-with-dependencies by specifying the injar attribute:

Specifies the input jar name (or wars, ears, zips) of the application to be processed.

<injar>${project.build.finalName}-jar-with-dependencies.jar</injar>

Now, there is also a problem in the order of execution of plugins in your POM: we need to make sure that the maven-assembly-plugin is executed before the proguard-maven-plugin. As such, it is best to define an explicit execution for the maven-assembly-plugin bound to the package phase instead of manually invoking it from the command line with assembly:single. This would be the configuration:

<plugin>
    <artifactId>maven-assembly-plugin</artifactId>
    <executions>
        <execution>
            <id>assembly</id>
            <goals>
                <goal>single</goal>
            </goals>
            <phase>package</phase>
            <configuration>
                <descriptorRefs>
                    <descriptorRef>jar-with-dependencies</descriptorRef>
                </descriptorRefs>
            </configuration>
        </execution>
    </executions>
</plugin>

and then, you just need to make sure that the proguard-maven-plugin plugin configuration is after that in your POM.

Having done that, invoking Maven with mvn clean install will result in an obfuscated jar with dependencies.

To test with your actual POM, I added two repositories:

• https://repo.spongepowered.org/maven to resolve the spongeapi dependency.
• http://maven.restlet.com to resolve the org.restlet.jse dependencies.

With those 2 dependencies, warnings were generated by ProGuard because the org.restlet.ext.jackson dependency utilizes com.sun.msv.* classes that are not on the buildpath. Since I figure that your code is currently working, it means those classes don't need to be included and that those warnings can be ignored. As such, I added the -dontwarn option so that ProGuard doesn't error when there is a warning.

The final POM for which I was able to successfully obfuscate the jar with dependencies is the following:

<project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/xsd/maven-4.0.0.xsd">
    <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
    <groupId>com.mycompany</groupId>
    <artifactId>myproduct</artifactId>
    <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
    <repositories>
       <repository>
           <id>spongepowered</id>
           <url>https://repo.spongepowered.org/maven</url>
       </repository>
       <repository>
           <id>restlet</id>
           <url>http://maven.restlet.com</url>
       </repository>
    </repositories>
    <properties>
        <restlet-version>2.3.5</restlet-version>
    </properties>
    <build>
       <resources>
            <resource>
                <directory>${project.basedir}/src/main/resources</directory>
                <filtering>true</filtering>
            </resource>
        </resources>
        <plugins>
            <plugin>
                <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
                <version>3.3</version>
                <configuration>
                    <source>1.8</source>
                    <target>1.8</target>
                </configuration>
            </plugin>
            <plugin>
                <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
                <artifactId>templating-maven-plugin</artifactId>
                <version>1.0-alpha-3</version>
                <executions>
                    <execution>
                        <id>filter-src</id>
                        <goals>
                            <goal>filter-sources</goal>
                        </goals>
                    </execution>
                </executions>
            </plugin>
            <plugin>
                <artifactId>maven-assembly-plugin</artifactId>
                <executions>
                    <execution>
                        <id>assembly</id>
                        <goals>
                            <goal>single</goal>
                        </goals>
                        <phase>package</phase>
                        <configuration>
                            <descriptorRefs>
                                <descriptorRef>jar-with-dependencies</descriptorRef>
                            </descriptorRefs>
                        </configuration>
                    </execution>
                </executions>
            </plugin>
            <plugin>
                <groupId>com.github.wvengen</groupId>
                <artifactId>proguard-maven-plugin</artifactId>
                <version>2.0.8</version>
                <executions>
                    <execution>
                        <phase>package</phase>
                        <goals><goal>proguard</goal></goals>
                        <configuration>
                            <injar>${project.build.finalName}-jar-with-dependencies.jar</injar> <!-- make sure to obfuscate the jar with dependencies -->
                            <proguardVersion>5.2</proguardVersion>
                            <options>
                                <option>-allowaccessmodification</option>
                                <option>-dontoptimize</option>
                                <option>-dontshrink</option>
                                <option>-dontnote</option>
                                <option>-dontwarn</option> <!-- added option to ignore com.sun missing classes -->
                                <option>-keepattributes Signature</option>
                                <option>-keep class com.mycompany.MyPlugin { *; }</option>
                            </options>
                            <libs>
                                <lib>${java.home}/lib/rt.jar</lib>
                            </libs>
                            <dependencies>
                                <dependency>
                                    <groupId>net.sf.proguard</groupId>
                                    <artifactId>proguard-base</artifactId>
                                    <version>5.2</version>
                                    <scope>runtime</scope>
                                </dependency>
                            </dependencies>
                        </configuration>
                    </execution>
                </executions>
            </plugin>
        </plugins>
    </build>
    <dependencies>
       <dependency>
            <groupId>org.spongepowered</groupId>
            <artifactId>spongeapi</artifactId>
            <version>3.0.0</version>
            <scope>provided</scope>
        </dependency>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>junit</groupId>
            <artifactId>junit</artifactId>
            <version>4.12</version>
        </dependency>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.easytesting</groupId>
            <artifactId>fest-assert-core</artifactId>
            <version>2.0M8</version>
            <scope>test</scope>
        </dependency>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.mockito</groupId>
            <artifactId>mockito-core</artifactId>
            <version>1.10.19</version>
            <scope>test</scope>
        </dependency>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.restlet.jse</groupId>
            <artifactId>org.restlet</artifactId>
            <version>${restlet-version}</version>
        </dependency>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.restlet.jse</groupId>
            <artifactId>org.restlet.ext.jackson</artifactId>
            <version>${restlet-version}</version>
        </dependency>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>com.googlecode.json-simple</groupId>
            <artifactId>json-simple</artifactId>
            <version>1.1.1</version>
        </dependency>
    </dependencies>
</project>

It sounds like you may want to be using the .expects(1) type methods that mock frameworks usually provide.

Using mockito, if you were testing a List and wanted to verify that clear was called 3 times and add was called at least once with these parameters you do the following:

List mock = mock(List.class);        
someCodeThatInteractsWithMock();                 

verify(mock, times(3)).clear();
verify(mock, atLeastOnce()).add(anyObject());      

Source - MockitoVsEasyMock

You can't do this with Mockito, but Apache Commons actually has a way to do this using one of its built in utilities. You can put this in a function in JUnit that is run after Mockito injects the rest of the mocks but before your test cases run, like this:

@InjectMocks
MyClass myClass;

@Before
public void before() throws Exception {
    FieldUtils.writeField(myClass, "fieldName", fieldValue, true);
}

You can't do this with Mockito, but Apache Commons actually has a way to do this using one of its built in utilities. You can put this in a function in JUnit that is run after Mockito injects the rest of the mocks but before your test cases run, like this:

@InjectMocks
MyClass myClass;

@Before
public void before() throws Exception {
    FieldUtils.writeField(myClass, "fieldName", fieldValue, true);
}

How about

when( method-call ).thenReturn( value1, value2, value3 );

You can put as many arguments as you like in the brackets of thenReturn, provided they're all the correct type. The first value will be returned the first time the method is called, then the second answer, and so on. The last value will be returned repeatedly once all the other values are used up.

Try to use Mockito or Easymock for mocking service calls. You need to mock only these methods which are actually used - no need to mock every method. You can creat mock object for WebResource class, then mock accept method call.

In @BeforeClass/@Before JUnit test method write something like (Mockito example)

WebResource res = mock(WebResource.class);
when(res.accept(something)).thenReturn(thatWhatYouWant);

Then in your tests you can use res object as if it was real object and call mock method on it. Instead of returning value you can also throw exceptions. Mockito is pretty cool.

I think what you are trying to test is aspect weaving and pointcut matching. Please note that that would be an integration rather than a unit test. If you really want to unit test your aspect logic and because you have tagged the question by "mockito" anyway, I suggest you do just that: Write a unit test and mock the aspect's joinpoint and maybe its other parameters, if any. Here is a slightly more complex example with some intra-aspect logic:

Java class to be targeted by aspect:

package de.scrum_master.app;

public class Application {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new Application().doSomething(11);
        new Application().doSomething(-22);
        new Application().doSomething(333);
    }

    public void doSomething(int number) {
        System.out.println("Doing something with number " + number);
    }
}

Aspect under test:

package de.scrum_master.aspect;

import org.aspectj.lang.ProceedingJoinPoint;
import org.aspectj.lang.annotation.Around;
import org.aspectj.lang.annotation.Aspect;

@Aspect
public class SampleAspect {
    @Around("execution(* doSomething(int)) && args(number)")
    public Object intercept(final ProceedingJoinPoint thisJoinPoint, int number) throws Throwable {
        System.out.println(thisJoinPoint + " -> " + number);
        if (number < 0)
            return thisJoinPoint.proceed(new Object[] { -number });
        if (number > 99)
            throw new RuntimeException("oops");
        return thisJoinPoint.proceed();
    }
}

Console log when running Application.main(..):

As you can see, the aspect passes on 11, negates -22 and throws an exception for 333:

execution(void de.scrum_master.app.Application.doSomething(int)) -> 11
Doing something with number 11
execution(void de.scrum_master.app.Application.doSomething(int)) -> -22
Doing something with number 22
execution(void de.scrum_master.app.Application.doSomething(int)) -> 333
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.RuntimeException: oops
    at de.scrum_master.aspect.SampleAspect.intercept(SampleAspect.aj:15)
    at de.scrum_master.app.Application.doSomething(Application.java:10)
    at de.scrum_master.app.Application.main(Application.java:7)

Unit test for aspect:

Now we really want to verify that the aspect does what it should and cover all execution paths:

package de.scrum_master.aspect;

import org.aspectj.lang.ProceedingJoinPoint;
import org.junit.Rule;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.mockito.Mock;
import org.mockito.junit.MockitoJUnit;
import org.mockito.junit.MockitoRule;

import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;

public class SampleAspectTest {
    @Rule
    public MockitoRule mockitoRule = MockitoJUnit.rule();

    @Mock
    private ProceedingJoinPoint proceedingJoinPoint;

    private SampleAspect sampleAspect = new SampleAspect();

    @Test
    public void testPositiveSmallNumber() throws Throwable {
        sampleAspect.intercept(proceedingJoinPoint, 11);
        // 'proceed()' is called exactly once
        verify(proceedingJoinPoint, times(1)).proceed();
        // 'proceed(Object[])' is never called
        verify(proceedingJoinPoint, never()).proceed(null);
    }

    @Test
    public void testNegativeNumber() throws Throwable {
        sampleAspect.intercept(proceedingJoinPoint, -22);
        // 'proceed()' is never called
        verify(proceedingJoinPoint, never()).proceed();
        // 'proceed(Object[])' is called exactly once
        verify(proceedingJoinPoint, times(1)).proceed(new Object[] { 22 });
    }

    @Test(expected = RuntimeException.class)
    public void testPositiveLargeNumber() throws Throwable {
        sampleAspect.intercept(proceedingJoinPoint, 333);
    }
}

Now run this simple JUnit + Mockito test in order to test the aspect logic in isolation, not the wiring/weaving logic. For the latter you would need another type of test.

P.S.: Only for you I used JUnit and Mockito. Usually I just use Spock and its built-in mocking capabilities. ;-)

I have to strongly disagree with this question.

There is no justification for a mocking tool that limits design choices. It's not just static methods that are ruled out by EasyMock, EasyMock Class Extension, jMock, Mockito, and others. These tools also prevent you from declaring classes and methods final, and that alone is a very bad thing. (If you need one authoritative source that defends the use of final for classes and methods, see the "Effective Java" book, or watch this presentation from the author.)

And "initialising collaborators rather than injecting them" often is the best design, in my experience. If you decompose a class that solves some complex problem by creating helper classes that are instantiated from that class, you can take advantage of the ability to safely pass specific data to those child objects, while at the same time hiding them from client code (which provided the full data used in the high-level operation). Exposing such helper classes in the public API violates the principle of information hiding, breaking encapsulation and increasing the complexity of client code.

The abuse of DI leads to stateless objects which really should be stateful because they will almost always operate on data that is specific to the business operation. This is not only true for non-public helper classes, but also for public "business service" classes called from UI/presentation objects. Such service classes are usually internal code (to a single business application) that is inherently not reusable and have only a few clients (often only one) because such code is by nature domain/use-case specific. In such a case (a very common one, by the way) it makes much more sense to have the UI class directly instantiate the business service class, passing data provided by the user through a constructor.

Being able to easily write unit tests for code like this is precisely what led me to create the JMockit toolkit. I wasn't thinking about legacy code, but about simplicity and economy of design. The results I achieved so far convinced me that testability really is a function of two variables: the maintainability of production code, and the limitations of the mocking tool used to test that code. So, if you remove all limitations from the mocking tool, what do you get?