Develop Reference

Mockito - internal method call

I have a class called Availability.java and have two methods.
public Long getStockLevelStage() {
//some logic
getStockLevelLimit();
}
public Long getStockLevelLimit() {
String primaryOnlineArea = classificationFeatureHelper.getFirstFeatureName(productModel, FEATURE_CODE_PRODUCT_ONLINE_AREA_PRIMARY, language);
................
return new Long();
}
I'm writing a unit test class AvailabilityTest.java.
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class AvailabilityTest {
#InjectMocks
private Availability availability = new Availability();
#Test
public void testGetStockLevelStage() {
availability.getStockLevelStage();
}
}
When I call availability.getStockLevelStage() method, it calls getStockLevelLimit() method. Is it possible to mock the internal method call?
In this case, I don't want getStockLevelLimit() to be executed, when getStockLevelStage() gets executes.
Please help.

Try this:
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class AvailabilityTest {
#InjectMocks
#Spy
private Availability availability = new Availability();
#Test
public void testGetStockLevelStage() {
Mockito.doReturn(expectedLong).when(availability).getStockLevelLimit();
availability.getStockLevelStage();
}
}
Here is an article I wrote on Mockito Spying if you need a further read.

if getStockLevelLimit() has not to be executed during your test, it means in a some way you want to mock the class under test.
Doing it reduces the relevance and the authenticity of the behavior tested.
You should mock dependencies and not internal methods of the tested class.
I suppose you don't want to execute getStockLevelLimit() because it uses external dependency that you want to isolate or something of similar.
So you should mock and isolate which is behind getStockLevelLimit() and that doesn't make directly part of the Availability class.

JUNIT : run setup only once for a large number of test classes

I have a class, which I use as a basis for my unit tests. In this class I initialize the whole environment for my tests, setting up database mappings, enter a number of database records across multiple tables, etc. That class has a method with a #BeforeClass annotation which does the initialization. Next thing, I extend that class with specific classes in which I have #Test methods.
My question is, since the before class is exactly the same for all these test classes, how can I ensure that they are run only once for all the tests.
One simple solution is that I could keep all the tests in one class. However, the number of tests is huge, also they are categorised based on functional heads. So they are located in different classes. However since they need the exact same setup, they inherit the #BeforeClass. As a result the whole setup is done at least once per test class, taking much more time in total than I would prefer.
I could, though, put them all in various subpackages under one package, hence if there is a way, how I can run set up once for all the tests within that package, it would be great.

With JUnit4 test suite you can do something like this :
#RunWith(Suite.class)
#Suite.SuiteClasses({ Test1IT.class, Test2IT.class })
public class IntegrationTestSuite
{
#BeforeClass
public static void setUp()
{
System.out.println("Runs before all tests in the annotation above.");
}
#AfterClass
public static void tearDown()
{
System.out.println("Runs after all tests in the annotation above.");
}
}
Then you run this class as you would run a normal test class and it will run all of your tests.

JUnit doesn't support this, you will have to use the standard Java work-arounds for singletons: Move the common setup code into a static code block and then call an empty method in this class:
static {
...init code here...
}
public static void init() {} // Empty method to trigger the execution of the block above
Make sure that all tests call init(), for example my putting it into a #BeforeClass method. Or put the static code block into a shared base class.
Alternatively, use a global variable:
private static boolean initialize = true;
public static void init() {
if(!initialize) return;
initialize = false;
...init code here...
}

Create one base class for all tests:
public class BaseTest {
static{
/*** init code here ***/
}
}
and every test should inherit from it:
public class SomeTest extends BaseTest {
}

You can make one BaseTest class with a #BeforeClass method, then have all the other tests inherit from it. This way, when each test object is constructed, #BeforeClass gets executed.
Also avoid executing it just once for all the test suite, since all the test cases should be independent. #BeforeClass should execute only once each test case, not test suite.

If you can tolerate adding spring-test to your project, or you are using it already, then a good approach is to use the technique described here: How to load DBUnit test data once per case with Spring Test

Not sure if anyone still is using JUnit and trying to fix it without using Spring Runner (aka no spring integration). TestNG has this feature. But here is a JUnit based solution.
Create a RunOnce per thread operation like so. This maintains a list of classes for which the operation has run.
public class RunOnceOperation {
private static final ThreadLocal t = new ThreadLocal();
public void run(Function f) {
if (t.get() == null) {
t.set(Arrays.asList(getClass()));
f.apply(0);
} else {
if (!((List) t.get()).contains(getClass())) {
((List) t.get()).add(getClass());
f.apply(0);
}
}
}
}
Back in your unit test
#Before
public beforeTest() {
operation.run(new Function<Integer, Void>() {
#Override
public Void apply(Integer t) {
checkBeanProperties();
return null;
}
});
}
private void checkBeanProperties() {
//I only want to check this once per class.
//Also my bean check needs instance of the class and can't be static.
}
My function interface is like this:
interface Function<I,O> {
O apply(I i);
}
When you use this way, you can perform operations once per class using ThreadLocal.

Mocking a class object using Mockito and PowerMockito

Is it possible to mock a class object using Mockito and/or PowerMockito?
Something like:
Class<Runnable> mockRunnableClass = mock(Class<Runnable>.class);

An alternative to mocking Class might be to use a Factory instead. I know you are concerned about refactoring, but this could be done without changing the public API of the class. You haven't provided much code to understand the class you are trying to test, but here's an example of refactoring without changing the API. It's a trivial class, but it might give you an idea.
public class Instantiator {
public Runnable getNewInstance(Class<Runnable> runnableClass) throws Exception {
return runnableClass.newInstance();
}
}
Of course, the easiest thing to do to test this trivial class would be to use a genuine Runnable class, but if you tried to mock the Class, you would run into the problems you're having. So, you could refactor it thus:
public class PassThruFactory {
public Object newInstance(Class<?> clazz) throws Exception {
return clazz.newInstance();
}
}
public class Instantiator {
private PassThruFactory factory = new PassThruFactory();
public Runnable getNewInstance(Class<Runnable> runnableClass) throws Exception {
return (Runnable)factory.newInstance(runnableClass);
}
}
Now Instantiator does exactly the (trivially simple) thing it was doing before with the same public API and no need for any client of the class to do any special injecting of their own. However, if you wanted to mock the factory class and inject it, that's very easy to do.

why not using an agent if you can't refactor the code there isn't many options, as #jherics mentionned, java system classes are loaded by the bootstrap classloader and powermock can't redefine their bytecode.
However Powermock now coms with an agent, that will allow system classes mock. Check here for complete explanation.
The main idea is to modify your java command and add :
-javaagent: path/to/powermock-module-javaagent-1.4.12.jar
The basic thing this agent is doing is to definalize classes, to allow future mocking in a specific test, that's why you'll need to use specific types to communicate with the agent, for example with JUnit :
#Rule PowerMockRule rule = new PowerMockRule(); // found in the junit4 rule agent jar
TestNG is also supported. Just check the wiki page for more information.
Hope that helps.

First, as stated in the comments, you would need to do:
Class<Runnable> mockRunnableaClass = (Class<Runnable>)mock(Class.class);
But that won't work in the usual way because of a limitation with PowerMock. You cannot simply mock classes in from java.lang, java.net, java.io or other system classes because they're loaded by Java's bootstrap classloader and cannot be byte-code manipulated by PowerMock's classloader. (See PowerMock FAQ #4.) As of PowerMock 1.2.5, you can work around this. If the class you wanted to test was this:
public class ClassToTest {
private Class<Runnable> runnableClass;
public void setRunnableClass(Class<Runnable> runnableClass) {
this.runnableClass = runnableClass;
}
public Runnable foo() {
return runnableClass.newInstance();
}
}
Then you would do this:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({ ClassToTest.class }) // Prepare the calling class for test
public class SystemClassUserTest {
#Test
public void testFoo() throws Exception {
Class<Runnable> mockClass = (Class<Runnable>) mock(Class.class);
Runnable mockRunnable = mock(Runnable.class);
ClassToTest objectUT = new ClassToTest();
objectUT.setRunnableClass(mockClass);
when(mockClass.newInstance()).thenReturn(mockRunnable);
assertThat(objectUT.foo(), is(sameInstance(mockRunnable);
}
}

How about this. creating a get method of the has a Object (MS) in class PCService and then mock it.
public class PCService implements PCServiceIf {
public MSIf getMS() {
return ms;
}
private MSIf ms = new MS();
public boolean isMovieAccessibleToMyLevel(String myLevel, String movieId) {
return getMS().getPCL(movieId);
}
}
#Test
public void testIsMovieAccessibleToMyLevelMock() {
msMock = mock(MS.class);
spy = spy(new PCService());
doReturn(msMock).when(spy).getMS();
when(msMock.getPCL(movieId)).thenReturn(value);
when(spy.getMS().getPCL(movieId)).thenReturn(value);
assertTrue(spy.isMovieAccessibleToMyLevel("PG", movieId) == true);
}

how to setup a call to method of mocked object in mockito without calling the original method itself

mockito-version: 1.9.0
I want to setup a call to a method of a mocked object in mockito without calling the original method itself:
EDIT: this example actually works as expect, i.e. the body method "test()" of does not get executed. However, after further investigation I noticed that the original method had the default visibility modifier and I suspect this to cause problems since after changing it to public (shouldn't this be the same?!) it works as expected.
e.g.
public class TestClass {
public String test() {
System.out.println("test called!");
return "test";
}
}
//in test
TestClass mock = mock(TestClass.class);
when(mock.test()).thenReturn("mock!"); //<-- prints test called here? why? how can I switch it off?

The following, running under Mockito 1.9.0 and JUnit 4.8.2, does not print anything to my console:
import static org.mockito.Mockito.*;
import org.junit.Test;
public class TestNonCall {
public class TestClass {
public String test() {
System.out.println("test called!");
return "test";
}
}
#Test
public void doTest() {
final TestClass mock = mock(TestClass.class);
when(mock.test()).thenReturn("mock!");
}
}
Further, if I put a breakpoint in the test() method it is never hit.
Perhaps post more code? It looks like your example is not complex enough to demonstrate the behaviour you're having problems with.
Also: are you using the latest version of Mockito?
Edit: New Thought: Are You Mocking a Final Method?
If you add a final modifier to the method you are mocking, you get the behaviour you reported.
This is because Mockito does not mock final and static methods. Instead, it delegates the calls to the real implementation.
Might your actual code be attempting to mock a final method?
If so, you can use PowerMock, which is an extension to Mockito that allows mocking final methods.
You would need to add the following annotations to your test case class:
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(TestClass.class)
public class TestNonCall {
// ...
}
and mock the class using the PowerMock method in your test method:
final TestClass mock = PowerMockito.mock(TestClass.class);
then proceed as usual.

jUnit - How to assert that inherited methods are invoked?

Let's say you have some 3rd-party library class that you want to extend, simply to add convenience methods to it (so you can call an inherited method with default parameters for example).
Using jUnit/jMock, is it possible to write an assertion / mock expection that tests that the correct inherited method is called?
For example, something like this:
class SomeClass extends SomeLibraryClass {
public String method(String code) {
return method(code, null, Locale.default());
}
}
How can I assert that method is being called?

You can make a further subclass inside your unit test that actually tells you:
public class MyTest {
boolean methodCalled = false;
#Test
public void testMySubclass(){
TestSomeClass testSomeClass = new TestSomeClass();
// Invoke method on testSomeclass ...
assertTrue( methodCalled);
}
class TestSomeClass extends SomeClass{
public String method(String code){
methodCalled = true;
}
}
}

Unit testing is more useful to verify the functionality of given methods, not to assert coverage. Unit tests that care more about what method got called know way more about the classes they are testing than they probably should, not to mention will be confusing to the reader.
Coverage tools like Cobertura or EMMA will tell you whether you properly covered your code.

It may indeed be better to only write integration tests in this case, but if you really want a unit test, you can have it just as easily as in any other case:
public class SomeClassTest
{
#Test
public void testMethod()
{
final String code = "test";
new Expectations()
{
SomeLibraryClass mock;
{
mock.method(code, null, (Locale) any);
}
};
new SomeClass().method(code);
}
}
This test uses the JMockit mocking API.

it's hard to tell without a more concrete example, but I'd guess that this ought to be an integration test--test the whole package together--rather than a unit test. Sometimes one can be too fine-grained with unit testing.