There are many ways to initialize a mock object using MockIto. What is best way among these ?
1.
public class SampleBaseTestCase {
@Before public void initMocks() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
}
@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
mock(XXX.class);
suggest me if there are any other ways better than these...
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