I am using mockito for mock the unit test cases and am getting the following exception
org.mockito.exceptions.misusing.NotAMockException:
Argument passed to verify() is of type ConsumerImpl and is not a mock!
Make sure you place the parenthesis correctly!
See the examples of correct verifications:
verify(mock).someMethod();
verify(mock, times(10)).someMethod();
verify(mock, atLeastOnce()).someMetenter code herehod();
and my code is
MessageConsumer mConsumer = Mockito.mock(MessageConsumer.class);
String data = "new Message for Testing";
Message message = new Message(data.getBytes());
Mockito.when(mConsumer.next(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS)).thenReturn(message);
StringParserTest parserTest = new StringParserTest();
ConsumerImpl<String> consumer = new ConsumerImpl<String>(mConsumer, parserTest);
String mes=Mockito.verify(consumer,VerificationModeFactory.times(3)).consumeMessage(10,TimeUnit.SECONDS);
Please some one help me to solve this problem
Thanks in Advance
SRN
Well, that's exactly what mockito says, you are not passing a mock to verify !
ConsumerImpl<String> consumer = new ConsumerImpl<String>(mConsumer, parserTest);
String mes=Mockito.verify(consumer,VerificationModeFactory.times(3)).consumeMessage(10,TimeUnit.SECONDS);
Plus if you verified a mock why would you want to store the result of the invocation you verify, it wouldn't make sense since the consumer is mocked. Verify is to verify calls on mocked objects that are the collaborators of your unit tested object. Which in your case is not really clear.
Also you never use your mock mConsumer instance.
You should definitely separate your test in 3 phase, one for the fixture, one for the action, and one for the verifications. Use the BDD terminology to achieve that, it augments understanding and readability for the tester and future reader of this code (And Mockito offers them in the API through BDDMockito).
As I don't really get what the code is trying to test from the code you gave, I'll be imagining things. So for example you'll write this kind of code (using import static) :
// given a consumer
MessageConsumer message_consumer = mock(MessageConsumer.class);
String the_message_data = "new Message for Testing";
given(message_consumer.next(10, SECONDS)).willReturn(new Message(the_message_data.getBytes()));
// when calling the client of the customer (which is the unit that is tested)
new MessageProcessor(message_consumer).processAll();
// then verify that consumeMessage is called 3 times
verify(message_consumer, times(3)).consumeMessage(10, SECONDS);
Remember Mockito helps you focus on interactions between objects — as it's the most important notion of object oriented programming — and especially between the tested one and his collaborators that will certainly be mocked.
Usually we mock using #InjectMock and we try to verify a method called from inside the test case method.
Here is one scenario which generally give issue.
public class A{
#Autowired
Service s
public void method1(){
method2();
}
public void method2(){
s.someMethod();
}
}
public class ATest{
#InjectMocks
A a;
public void testM1(){
a.method1();
Mockito.verify(a, Mockito.times(1)).method2();
}
}
This will always give "NoAMockException while Mockito.verify"
instead of that we should use following verification.
public class ATest{
#InjectMocks
A a;
#Mock
Service s
public void testM1(){
a.method1();
Mockito.verify(s, Mockito.times(1)).someMethod();
}
}
Or if we want to verify() method2()
then we have to #Mock class A instead of #InjectMock
Related
I need mock some class with final method using mockito. I have wrote something like this
#Test
public void test() {
B b = mock(B.class);
doReturn("bar called").when(b).bar();
assertEquals("must be \"overrided\"", "bar called", b.bar());
//bla-bla
}
class B {
public final String bar() {
return "fail";
}
}
But it fails.
I tried some "hack" and it works.
#Test
public void hackTest() {
class NewB extends B {
public String barForTest() {
return bar();
}
}
NewB b = mock(NewB.class);
doReturn("bar called").when(b).barForTest();
assertEquals("must be \"overrided\"", "bar called", b.barForTest());
}
It works, but "smells".
So, Where is the right way?
Thanks.
From the Mockito FAQ:
What are the limitations of Mockito
Cannot mock final methods - their real behavior is executed without any exception. Mockito cannot warn you about mocking final methods so be vigilant.
There is no support for mocking final methods in Mockito.
As Jon Skeet commented you should be looking for a way to avoid the dependency on the final method. That said, there are some ways out through bytecode manipulation (e.g. with PowerMock)
A comparison between Mockito and PowerMock will explain things in detail.
You can use Powermock together with Mockito, then you do not need to subclass B.class. Just add this to the top of your test class
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(B.class)
#PrepareForTest instructs Powermock to instrument B.class to make the final and static methods mockable. A disadvantage of this approach is that you must use PowerMockRunner which precludes use of other test runners such as the Spring test runner.
Mockito 2 now supports mocking final methods but that's an "incubating" feature. It requires some steps to activate it which are described here:
https://github.com/mockito/mockito/wiki/What's-new-in-Mockito-2#mock-the-unmockable-opt-in-mocking-of-final-classesmethods
Mockito 2.x now supports final method and final class stubbing.
From the docs:
Mocking of final classes and methods is an incubating, opt-in feature. This feature has to be explicitly activated by creating the file src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker containing a single line:
mock-maker-inline
After you create this file you can do:
final class FinalClass {
final String finalMethod() { return "something"; }
}
FinalClass concrete = new FinalClass();
FinalClass mock = mock(FinalClass.class);
given(mock.finalMethod()).willReturn("not anymore");
assertThat(mock.finalMethod()).isNotEqualTo(concrete.finalMethod());
In subsequent milestones, the team will bring a programmatic way of using this feature. We will identify and provide support for all unmockable scenarios.
Assuming that B class is as below:
class B {
private String barValue;
public final String bar() {
return barValue;
}
public void final setBar(String barValue) {
this.barValue = barValue;
}
}
There is a better way to do this without using PowerMockito framework.
You can create a SPY for your class and can mock your final method.
Below is the way to do it:
#Test
public void test() {
B b = new B();
b.setBar("bar called") //This should the expected output:final_method_bar()
B spyB = Mockito.spy(b);
assertEquals("bar called", spyB.bar());
}
Mockito can be used to mock final classes or final methods. The problem is, this doesn't come as out of the box feature from Mockito and needs to be configured explicitely.
So, in order to do that,
Create a text file named org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker to the project's src/test/resources/mockito-extensions directory and add a single line of text as below
mock-maker-inline
Once done, you can use the mockito's when method to mock the behaviour like any other regular method.
See detailed examples here
I just did this same thing. My case was that I wanted to ensure the method didn't cause an error. But, since it's a catch/log/return method, I couldn't test for it directly without modifying the class.
I wanted to simply mock the logger I passed in. But, something about mocking the Log interface didn't seem to work, and mocking a class like SimpleLog didn't work because those methods are final.
I ended up creating an anonymous inner class extending SimpleLog that overrode the base-level log(level, string, error) method that the others all delegate to. Then the test is just waiting for a call with a level of 5.
In general, extending a class for behavior isn't really a bad idea, and might be preferable to mocking anyway if it's not too complicated.
I am using Mockito to test my classes. I am trying to use Deep stubbing as I didn't a way on injecting a Mock inside another mock object in Mockito.
class MyService{
#Resource
SomeHelper somehelper;
public void create()
{
//....
somehelper.invokeMeth(t);
}
}
class SomeHelper{
#Resource
private WebServiceTemplate webServiceTemplate;
public void invokeMeth(T t)
{
try{
//...
webServiceTemplate.marshalSendAndReceive(t);
}catch (final WebServiceIOException e) {
throw new MyAppException("Service not running");
}
}
}
Now I am trying to Unit test the MyService class's create() method.
I have injected a mock for SomeHelper as follows
#Mock(answer = Answers.RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS)
SomeHelper somehelper;
What I want now is when the invokeMeth() method gets called on the mocked somehelper object it calls the real method in this case.
when(somehelper.invokeMeth(isA(RequestObject.class)))
.thenCallRealMethod();
I was expecting the webServiceTemplate not be null in this case.
However I get a Nullpointer exception when the code tries to execute the line
webServiceTemplate.marshalSendAndReceive(t);
Any clue how I can get access to a deep mock object (i.e. mock within a mock - in this case webserviceTemplete mock inside somehelper mock) and then apply a when condition to throw a WebserviceIOException ?
I want this so that I can test the MyService.create() to check it behaves properly when a WebServiceIOException is thrown down the code.
Yes of course, you are mixing real objects and mocks. Plus using the thenCallRealMethod lloks like a partial mock, it feels wrong here, it's no wonder the javadoc of this method talks about that as well.
I definatelty should stress you than, design wise, having a mock that returns a mock is often a smell. More precisely you are breaking the Demeter Law, or not following the Tell, Don't Ask principle.
Any looking at your code I don't why the code would need to mock WebServiceTemplate. You want to unit test MyService, and I don't see a relationship to WebServiceTemplate. Instead you should focus on the interactions with you helper only. And unit test SomeHelper separately where you'll be able to check the interactions between SomeHelper and WebServiceTemplate.
Here's a little example of how I see the thing:
public void ensure_helper_is_used_to_invoke_a_RequestObject() {
// given a service that has an helper collaborator
... other fixture if necessary
// when
myService.behaviorToTest();
// then
verify(someHelperMock).invokeMeth(isA(RequestObject.class));
}
How those that look for your real use case ?
Hope that helps
I'm using Mockito 1.9.0. I want mock the behaviour for a single method of a class in a JUnit test, so I have
final MyClass myClassSpy = Mockito.spy(myInstance);
Mockito.when(myClassSpy.method1()).thenReturn(myResults);
The problem is, in the second line, myClassSpy.method1() is actually getting called, resulting in an exception. The only reason I'm using mocks is so that later, whenever myClassSpy.method1() is called, the real method won't be called and the myResults object will be returned.
MyClass is an interface and myInstance is an implementation of that, if that matters.
What do I need to do to correct this spying behaviour?
Let me quote the official documentation:
Important gotcha on spying real objects!
Sometimes it's impossible to use when(Object) for stubbing spies. Example:
List list = new LinkedList();
List spy = spy(list);
// Impossible: real method is called so spy.get(0) throws IndexOutOfBoundsException (the list is yet empty)
when(spy.get(0)).thenReturn("foo");
// You have to use doReturn() for stubbing
doReturn("foo").when(spy).get(0);
In your case it goes something like:
doReturn(resultsIWant).when(myClassSpy).method1();
In my case, using Mockito 2.0, I had to change all the any() parameters to nullable() in order to stub the real call.
My case was different from the accepted answer. I was trying to mock a package-private method for an instance that did not live in that package
package common;
public class Animal {
void packageProtected();
}
package instances;
class Dog extends Animal { }
and the test classes
package common;
public abstract class AnimalTest<T extends Animal> {
#Before
setup(){
doNothing().when(getInstance()).packageProtected();
}
abstract T getInstance();
}
package instances;
class DogTest extends AnimalTest<Dog> {
Dog getInstance(){
return spy(new Dog());
}
#Test
public void myTest(){}
}
The compilation is correct, but when it tries to setup the test, it invokes the real method instead.
Declaring the method protected or public fixes the issue, tho it's not a clean solution.
The answer by Tomasz Nurkiewicz appears not to tell the whole story!
NB Mockito version: 1.10.19.
I am very much a Mockito newb, so can't explain the following behaviour: if there's an expert out there who can improve this answer, please feel free.
The method in question here, getContentStringValue, is NOT final and NOT static.
This line does call the original method getContentStringValue:
doReturn( "dummy" ).when( im ).getContentStringValue( anyInt(), isA( ScoreDoc.class ));
This line does not call the original method getContentStringValue:
doReturn( "dummy" ).when( im ).getContentStringValue( anyInt(), any( ScoreDoc.class ));
For reasons which I can't answer, using isA() causes the intended (?) "do not call method" behaviour of doReturn to fail.
Let's look at the method signatures involved here: they are both static methods of Matchers. Both are said by the Javadoc to return null, which is a little difficult to get your head around in itself. Presumably the Class object passed as the parameter is examined but the result either never calculated or discarded. Given that null can stand for any class and that you are hoping for the mocked method not to be called, couldn't the signatures of isA( ... ) and any( ... ) just return null rather than a generic parameter* <T>?
Anyway:
public static <T> T isA(java.lang.Class<T> clazz)
public static <T> T any(java.lang.Class<T> clazz)
The API documentation does not give any clue about this. It also seems to say the need for such "do not call method" behaviour is "very rare". Personally I use this technique all the time: typically I find that mocking involves a few lines which "set the scene" ... followed by calling a method which then "plays out" the scene in the mock context which you have staged... and while you are setting up the scenery and the props the last thing you want is for the actors to enter stage left and start acting their hearts out...
But this is way beyond my pay grade... I invite explanations from any passing Mockito high priests...
* is "generic parameter" the right term?
One more possible scenario which may causing issues with spies is when you're testing spring beans (with spring test framework) or some other framework that is proxing your objects during test.
Example
#Autowired
private MonitoringDocumentsRepository repository
void test(){
repository = Mockito.spy(repository)
Mockito.doReturn(docs1, docs2)
.when(repository).findMonitoringDocuments(Mockito.nullable(MonitoringDocumentSearchRequest.class));
}
In above code both Spring and Mockito will try to proxy your MonitoringDocumentsRepository object, but Spring will be first, which will cause real call of findMonitoringDocuments method. If we debug our code just after putting a spy on repository object it will look like this inside debugger:
repository = MonitoringDocumentsRepository$$EnhancerBySpringCGLIB$$MockitoMock$
#SpyBean to the rescue
If instead #Autowired annotation we use #SpyBean annotation, we will solve above problem, the SpyBean annotation will also inject repository object but it will be firstly proxied by Mockito and will look like this inside debugger
repository = MonitoringDocumentsRepository$$MockitoMock$$EnhancerBySpringCGLIB$
and here is the code:
#SpyBean
private MonitoringDocumentsRepository repository
void test(){
Mockito.doReturn(docs1, docs2)
.when(repository).findMonitoringDocuments(Mockito.nullable(MonitoringDocumentSearchRequest.class));
}
Important gotcha on spying real objects
When stubbing a method using spies , please use doReturn() family of methods.
when(Object) would result in calling the actual method that can throw exceptions.
List spy = spy(new LinkedList());
//Incorrect , spy.get() will throw IndexOutOfBoundsException
when(spy.get(0)).thenReturn("foo");
//You have to use doReturn() for stubbing
doReturn("foo").when(spy).get(0);
I've found yet another reason for spy to call the original method.
Someone had the idea to mock a final class, and found about MockMaker:
As this works differently to our current mechanism and this one has different limitations and as we want to gather experience and user feedback, this feature had to be explicitly activated to be available ; it can be done via the mockito extension mechanism by creating the file src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker containing a single line: mock-maker-inline
Source: https://github.com/mockito/mockito/wiki/What%27s-new-in-Mockito-2#mock-the-unmockable-opt-in-mocking-of-final-classesmethods
After I merged and brought that file to my machine, my tests failed.
I just had to remove the line (or the file), and spy() worked.
One way to make sure a method from a class is not called is to override the method with a dummy.
WebFormCreatorActivity activity = spy(new WebFormCreatorActivity(clientFactory) {//spy(new WebFormCreatorActivity(clientFactory));
#Override
public void select(TreeItem i) {
log.debug("SELECT");
};
});
As mentioned in some of the comments, my method was "static" (though being called on by an instance of the class)
public class A {
static void myMethod() {...}
}
A instance = spy(new A());
verify(instance).myMethod(); // still calls the original method because it's static
Work around was make an instance method or upgrade Mockito to a newer version with some config: https://stackoverflow.com/a/62860455/32453
Bit late to the party but above solutions did not work for me , so sharing my 0.02$
Mokcito version: 1.10.19
MyClass.java
private int handleAction(List<String> argList, String action)
Test.java
MyClass spy = PowerMockito.spy(new MyClass());
Following did NOT work for me (actual method was being called):
1.
doReturn(0).when(spy , "handleAction", ListUtils.EMPTY_LIST, new String());
2.
doReturn(0).when(spy , "handleAction", any(), anyString());
3.
doReturn(0).when(spy , "handleAction", null, null);
Following WORKED:
doReturn(0).when(spy , "handleAction", any(List.class), anyString());
So I have been asked to read up on mocking and BDD for our development team and play around with mocks so as to improve a handful of our existing unit tests (as an experiment).
I have ultimately chosen to go with Mockito for a number of reasons (some outside the scope of my control), but namely because it supports both stubbing and mocking for instances when mocking would not be appropriate.
I have spent all day learning about Mockito, mocking (in general) and BDD. And now I am ready to dig in and start augmenting our unit tests.
So we have a class called WebAdaptor that has a run() method:
public class WebAdaptor {
private Subscriber subscriber;
public void run() {
subscriber = new Subscriber();
subscriber.init();
}
}
Please note: I do not have a way to modify this code (for reasons outside the scope of this question!). Thus I do not have the ability to add a setter method for Subscriber, and thus it can be thought of as an unreachable "blackbox" inside of my WebAdaptor.
I want to write a unit test which incorporates a Mockito mock, and uses that mock to verify that executing WebAdaptor::run() causes Subscriber::init() to be called.
So here's what I've got so far (inside WebAdaptorUnitTest):
#Test
public void runShouldInvokeSubscriberInit() {
// Given
Subscriber mockSubscriber = mock(Subscriber.class);
WebAdaptor adaptor = new WebAdaptor();
// When
adaptor.run();
// Then
verify(mockSubscriber).init();
}
When I run this test, the actual Subscriber::init() method gets executed (I can tell from the console output and seeing files being generated on my local system), not the mockSubscriber, which shouldn't do (or return) anything.
I have checked and re-checked: init is public, is neither static or final, and it returns void. According to the docs, Mockito should have no problem mocking this object.
So it got me thinking: do I need to explictly associate the mockSubscriber with the adaptor? If this is a case, then ordinarily, the following would normally fix it:
adaptor.setSubscriber(mockSubscriber);
But since I cannot add any such setter (please read my note above), I'm at a loss as to how I could force such an association. So, several very-closely-related questions:
Can anyone confirm that I've set the test up correctly (using the Mockito API)?
Is my suspicion about the missing setter correct? (Do I need to associate these objects via a setter?)
If my above suspicion is true, and I can't modify WebAdaptor, are there any circumventions at my dispose?
Thanks in advance!
You need to inject the mock into the class which you are testing. You do not need access to Subscriber. The way mockito and other mocking frameworks help is that you do not need access to objects which you are interacting with. You do however need a way to get mock objects into the class you are testing.
public class WebAdaptor {
public WebAdaptor(Subscriber subscriber) { /* Added a new constructor */
this.subscriber = subscriber;
}
private Subscriber subscriber;
public void run() {
subscriber.init();
}
}
Now you can verify your interactions on the mock, rather than on the real object.
#Test
public void runShouldInvokeSubscriberInit() {
// Given
Subscriber mockSubscriber = mock(Subscriber.class);
WebAdaptor adaptor = new WebAdaptor(mockSubscriber); // Use the new constructor
// When
adaptor.run();
// Then
verify(mockSubscriber).init();
}
If adding the Subscriber to the constructor is not the correct approach, you could also consider using a factory to allow WebAdaptor to instantiate new Subscriber objects from a factory which you control. You could then mock the factory to provider mock Subscribers.
If you don't want to change the production code and still be able to mock the functionality of the Subscriber class you should have a look at PowerMock. It works fine together with Mockito and allows you to mock the creation of new objects.
Subscriber mockSubscriber = mock(Subscriber.class);
whenNew(Subscriber.class).withNoArguments().thenReturn(mockSubscriber);
Further details are explained in the documentation for the PowerMock framework.
There is a way to inject your mock into the class under test without making any modifications to the code. This can be done using the Mockito WhiteBox. This is a very good feature that can be used to inject the dependencies of your Class Under Test from your tests. Following is a simple example on how it works,
#Mock
Subscriber mockSubscriber;
WebAdaptor cut = new WebAdaptor();
#Before
public void setup(){
//sets the internal state of the field in the class under test even if it is private
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
//Now the whitebox functionality injects the dependent object - mockSubscriber
//into the object which depends on it - cut
Whitebox.setInternalState(cut, "subscriber", mockSubscriber);
}
#Test
public void runShouldInvokeSubscriberInit() {
cut.run();
verify(mockSubscriber).init();
}
Hope this helps :-)
You could have used PowerMock to mock the constructor call without changing the original code:
import org.mockito.Mockito;
import org.powermock.api.mockito.PowerMockito;
import org.powermock.core.classloader.annotations.PrepareForTest;
import org.powermock.modules.junit4.PowerMockRunner;
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(WebAdaptor.class)
public class WebAdaptorTest {
#Test
public void testRunCallsSubscriberInit() {
final Subscriber subscriber = mock(Subscriber.class);
whenNew(Subscriber.class).withNoArguments().thenReturn(subscriber);
new WebAdaptor().run();
verify(subscriber).init();
}
}
You cannot mock the Subscriber using Mockito in your current implementation.
The problem you have is that the Subscriber is constructed and then immediately accessed, Mockito has no ability to replace (or spy) the Subscriber instance after creation but before the init method is called.
public void run() {
subscriber = new Subscriber();
// Mockito would need to jump in here
subscriber.init();
}
David V's answer solves this by adding the Subscriber to the constructor. An alternative that retains the hidden Subscriber construction would be to instantiate the Subscriber in a WebAdapter no-arg constructor and then use reflection to replace that instance before calling the run method.
Your WebAdapter would look like this,
public class WebAdaptor {
private Subscriber subscriber;
public WebAdaptor() {
subscriber = new Subscriber();
}
public void run() {
subscriber.init();
}
}
And you could use ReflectionTestUtils from Springframework's test module to inject dependencies into that private field.
#Test
public void runShouldInvokeSubscriberInit() {
// Given
Subscriber mockSubscriber = mock(Subscriber.class);
WebAdaptor adaptor = new WebAdaptor();
ReflectionTestUtils.setField( adaptor "subscriber", mockSubscriber );
// When
adaptor.run(); // This will call mockSubscriber.init()
// Then
verify(mockSubscriber).init();
}
ReflectionTestUtils is really just a wrapper about Java's reflection, the same could be achieved manually (and much more verbosely) without the Spring dependency.
Mockito's WhiteBox (as Bala suggests) would work here in place of ReflectionTestUtils, it is contained within Mockito's internal package so I shy away from it, YMMV.
I need mock some class with final method using mockito. I have wrote something like this
#Test
public void test() {
B b = mock(B.class);
doReturn("bar called").when(b).bar();
assertEquals("must be \"overrided\"", "bar called", b.bar());
//bla-bla
}
class B {
public final String bar() {
return "fail";
}
}
But it fails.
I tried some "hack" and it works.
#Test
public void hackTest() {
class NewB extends B {
public String barForTest() {
return bar();
}
}
NewB b = mock(NewB.class);
doReturn("bar called").when(b).barForTest();
assertEquals("must be \"overrided\"", "bar called", b.barForTest());
}
It works, but "smells".
So, Where is the right way?
Thanks.
From the Mockito FAQ:
What are the limitations of Mockito
Cannot mock final methods - their real behavior is executed without any exception. Mockito cannot warn you about mocking final methods so be vigilant.
There is no support for mocking final methods in Mockito.
As Jon Skeet commented you should be looking for a way to avoid the dependency on the final method. That said, there are some ways out through bytecode manipulation (e.g. with PowerMock)
A comparison between Mockito and PowerMock will explain things in detail.
You can use Powermock together with Mockito, then you do not need to subclass B.class. Just add this to the top of your test class
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest(B.class)
#PrepareForTest instructs Powermock to instrument B.class to make the final and static methods mockable. A disadvantage of this approach is that you must use PowerMockRunner which precludes use of other test runners such as the Spring test runner.
Mockito 2 now supports mocking final methods but that's an "incubating" feature. It requires some steps to activate it which are described here:
https://github.com/mockito/mockito/wiki/What's-new-in-Mockito-2#mock-the-unmockable-opt-in-mocking-of-final-classesmethods
Mockito 2.x now supports final method and final class stubbing.
From the docs:
Mocking of final classes and methods is an incubating, opt-in feature. This feature has to be explicitly activated by creating the file src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker containing a single line:
mock-maker-inline
After you create this file you can do:
final class FinalClass {
final String finalMethod() { return "something"; }
}
FinalClass concrete = new FinalClass();
FinalClass mock = mock(FinalClass.class);
given(mock.finalMethod()).willReturn("not anymore");
assertThat(mock.finalMethod()).isNotEqualTo(concrete.finalMethod());
In subsequent milestones, the team will bring a programmatic way of using this feature. We will identify and provide support for all unmockable scenarios.
Assuming that B class is as below:
class B {
private String barValue;
public final String bar() {
return barValue;
}
public void final setBar(String barValue) {
this.barValue = barValue;
}
}
There is a better way to do this without using PowerMockito framework.
You can create a SPY for your class and can mock your final method.
Below is the way to do it:
#Test
public void test() {
B b = new B();
b.setBar("bar called") //This should the expected output:final_method_bar()
B spyB = Mockito.spy(b);
assertEquals("bar called", spyB.bar());
}
Mockito can be used to mock final classes or final methods. The problem is, this doesn't come as out of the box feature from Mockito and needs to be configured explicitely.
So, in order to do that,
Create a text file named org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker to the project's src/test/resources/mockito-extensions directory and add a single line of text as below
mock-maker-inline
Once done, you can use the mockito's when method to mock the behaviour like any other regular method.
See detailed examples here
I just did this same thing. My case was that I wanted to ensure the method didn't cause an error. But, since it's a catch/log/return method, I couldn't test for it directly without modifying the class.
I wanted to simply mock the logger I passed in. But, something about mocking the Log interface didn't seem to work, and mocking a class like SimpleLog didn't work because those methods are final.
I ended up creating an anonymous inner class extending SimpleLog that overrode the base-level log(level, string, error) method that the others all delegate to. Then the test is just waiting for a call with a level of 5.
In general, extending a class for behavior isn't really a bad idea, and might be preferable to mocking anyway if it's not too complicated.