Test that void method didn't get called with EasyMock

Is this possible?
I tried with EasyMock.expectLastCall().times(0); but EasyMock complains that times must be >=1

edited Sep 29 '18 at 0:08

risingTide

55141136

asked Sep 14 '10 at 16:09

nkr1pt

3,51942852

See stackoverflow.com/questions/859031/easymock-void-methods , not sure it's a dupe though.

– philant
Sep 14 '10 at 18:45

5

It isn't a duplicate.

– hiergiltdiestfu
Jul 22 '13 at 10:30

add a comment |

Is this possible?
I tried with EasyMock.expectLastCall().times(0); but EasyMock complains that times must be >=1

edited Sep 29 '18 at 0:08

risingTide

55141136

asked Sep 14 '10 at 16:09

nkr1pt

3,51942852

See stackoverflow.com/questions/859031/easymock-void-methods , not sure it's a dupe though.

– philant
Sep 14 '10 at 18:45

5

It isn't a duplicate.

– hiergiltdiestfu
Jul 22 '13 at 10:30

add a comment |

Is this possible?
I tried with EasyMock.expectLastCall().times(0); but EasyMock complains that times must be >=1

edited Sep 29 '18 at 0:08

risingTide

55141136

asked Sep 14 '10 at 16:09

nkr1pt

3,51942852

Is this possible?
I tried with EasyMock.expectLastCall().times(0); but EasyMock complains that times must be >=1

java unit-testing easymock

edited Sep 29 '18 at 0:08

risingTide

55141136

asked Sep 14 '10 at 16:09

nkr1pt

3,51942852

edited Sep 29 '18 at 0:08

risingTide

55141136

asked Sep 14 '10 at 16:09

nkr1pt

3,51942852

edited Sep 29 '18 at 0:08

risingTide

55141136

edited Sep 29 '18 at 0:08

risingTide

55141136

edited Sep 29 '18 at 0:08

risingTide

55141136

asked Sep 14 '10 at 16:09

nkr1pt

3,51942852

asked Sep 14 '10 at 16:09

nkr1pt

3,51942852

asked Sep 14 '10 at 16:09

nkr1pt

3,51942852

See stackoverflow.com/questions/859031/easymock-void-methods , not sure it's a dupe though.

– philant
Sep 14 '10 at 18:45

5

It isn't a duplicate.

– hiergiltdiestfu
Jul 22 '13 at 10:30

add a comment |

See stackoverflow.com/questions/859031/easymock-void-methods , not sure it's a dupe though.

– philant
Sep 14 '10 at 18:45

5

It isn't a duplicate.

– hiergiltdiestfu
Jul 22 '13 at 10:30

See stackoverflow.com/questions/859031/easymock-void-methods , not sure it's a dupe though.

– philant
Sep 14 '10 at 18:45

It isn't a duplicate.

– hiergiltdiestfu
Jul 22 '13 at 10:30

add a comment |

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

You could use .andThrow(new AssertionFailedError()).anyTimes(); - this is the same exception that Assert.fail() throws, but is less verbose than making an Answer.

edited Jan 16 '13 at 21:34

answered Jan 16 '13 at 20:58

Dawood ibn Kareem

56.4k106390

2

Maybe adding a good description on why the test failed further improves this solution (which is the best of all given here IMO).

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:27

add a comment |

with easymock 3.0, you need to add a .anyTimes() on the expectLastCall or the test will fail:

Expectation failure on verify: myMethod(): expected: 1, actual: 0`

based on nkr1pt example:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

      Assert.assertFail();

      return null;

    }

}).anyTimes();

answered May 30 '11 at 13:43

David Nguyen

19618

3

I think: Assert.assertFail(); should just be: Assert.fail();

– Matt
May 27 '13 at 21:06

1

While this is a working answer, I like the one from David Wallace better since it's less verbose.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:25

add a comment |

The fact that some method is not called is controlled by Mock or StrictMock. They will throw an exception, when that not recorded method is called. This problem occurs only when using NiceMocks, where default values are returned when calling for not recorded methods.

So a solution can be not to use NiceMocks.

edited Feb 12 '15 at 11:55

answered Aug 23 '12 at 14:51

Vic

1,31021532

2

I strongly disagree with the conclusion. Maybe, in this case, nice mock is not the best choice. But if you want to make sure one method will not get called, in fact this is the only thing you want to test, it's better to emphasize this with a mocked method that fails with an appropriate message.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:24

1

It is a good argument. I wanted to point this one out, since I had stumbled upon why I cannot specify times(0). And only later I realized, that that kind of contradicts with the idea of nice mocking, and not nice mocking does not allow unrecorded methods to be executed. Throwing an assert exception as the answer seemed more like a workaround for me and that 0 method calls should be specified using not nice mocks. Maybe I am a bit assertive in the conclusion. I'll just correct it.

– Vic
Feb 12 '15 at 11:54

add a comment |

Looks like a bug to me. The internal class Range does not allow to set a maximum less than 1.

Couldn't you mock that method, and just call Assert.fail() ?

answered Sep 15 '10 at 6:54

Christian Strempfer

5,69443868

yes, I did it that way eventually, see my answer

– nkr1pt
Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

add a comment |

If you expect your method not to be called then just don't record it. But I agree it won't work with a nice mock.

answered Sep 16 '10 at 21:54

Henri Tremblay

59642

add a comment |

I managed to come up with a solution:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

        Assert.assertFail();

        return null;

    }

});

answered Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

nkr1pt

3,51942852

For me it doesn't work. It says "expected: 1, actual: 0".

– Vic
Aug 23 '12 at 14:44

1

Agreed that this doesn't work. The correct answer is from David Nguyen.

– dhaag23
Sep 2 '14 at 21:01

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f3710717%2ftest-that-void-method-didnt-get-called-with-easymock%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

You could use .andThrow(new AssertionFailedError()).anyTimes(); - this is the same exception that Assert.fail() throws, but is less verbose than making an Answer.

edited Jan 16 '13 at 21:34

answered Jan 16 '13 at 20:58

Dawood ibn Kareem

56.4k106390

2

Maybe adding a good description on why the test failed further improves this solution (which is the best of all given here IMO).

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:27

add a comment |

You could use .andThrow(new AssertionFailedError()).anyTimes(); - this is the same exception that Assert.fail() throws, but is less verbose than making an Answer.

edited Jan 16 '13 at 21:34

answered Jan 16 '13 at 20:58

Dawood ibn Kareem

56.4k106390

2

Maybe adding a good description on why the test failed further improves this solution (which is the best of all given here IMO).

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:27

add a comment |

You could use .andThrow(new AssertionFailedError()).anyTimes(); - this is the same exception that Assert.fail() throws, but is less verbose than making an Answer.

edited Jan 16 '13 at 21:34

answered Jan 16 '13 at 20:58

Dawood ibn Kareem

56.4k106390

You could use .andThrow(new AssertionFailedError()).anyTimes(); - this is the same exception that Assert.fail() throws, but is less verbose than making an Answer.

edited Jan 16 '13 at 21:34

answered Jan 16 '13 at 20:58

Dawood ibn Kareem

56.4k106390

edited Jan 16 '13 at 21:34

answered Jan 16 '13 at 20:58

Dawood ibn Kareem

56.4k106390

answered Jan 16 '13 at 20:58

Dawood ibn Kareem

56.4k106390

answered Jan 16 '13 at 20:58

Dawood ibn Kareem

56.4k106390

2

Maybe adding a good description on why the test failed further improves this solution (which is the best of all given here IMO).

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:27

add a comment |

2

Maybe adding a good description on why the test failed further improves this solution (which is the best of all given here IMO).

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:27

Maybe adding a good description on why the test failed further improves this solution (which is the best of all given here IMO).

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:27

add a comment |

with easymock 3.0, you need to add a .anyTimes() on the expectLastCall or the test will fail:

Expectation failure on verify: myMethod(): expected: 1, actual: 0`

based on nkr1pt example:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

      Assert.assertFail();

      return null;

    }

}).anyTimes();

answered May 30 '11 at 13:43

David Nguyen

19618

3

I think: Assert.assertFail(); should just be: Assert.fail();

– Matt
May 27 '13 at 21:06

1

While this is a working answer, I like the one from David Wallace better since it's less verbose.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:25

add a comment |

with easymock 3.0, you need to add a .anyTimes() on the expectLastCall or the test will fail:

Expectation failure on verify: myMethod(): expected: 1, actual: 0`

based on nkr1pt example:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

      Assert.assertFail();

      return null;

    }

}).anyTimes();

answered May 30 '11 at 13:43

David Nguyen

19618

3

I think: Assert.assertFail(); should just be: Assert.fail();

– Matt
May 27 '13 at 21:06

1

While this is a working answer, I like the one from David Wallace better since it's less verbose.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:25

add a comment |

with easymock 3.0, you need to add a .anyTimes() on the expectLastCall or the test will fail:

Expectation failure on verify: myMethod(): expected: 1, actual: 0`

based on nkr1pt example:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

      Assert.assertFail();

      return null;

    }

}).anyTimes();

answered May 30 '11 at 13:43

David Nguyen

19618

with easymock 3.0, you need to add a .anyTimes() on the expectLastCall or the test will fail:

Expectation failure on verify: myMethod(): expected: 1, actual: 0`

based on nkr1pt example:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

      Assert.assertFail();

      return null;

    }

}).anyTimes();

answered May 30 '11 at 13:43

David Nguyen

19618

answered May 30 '11 at 13:43

David Nguyen

19618

answered May 30 '11 at 13:43

David Nguyen

19618

answered May 30 '11 at 13:43

David Nguyen

19618

3

I think: Assert.assertFail(); should just be: Assert.fail();

– Matt
May 27 '13 at 21:06

1

While this is a working answer, I like the one from David Wallace better since it's less verbose.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:25

add a comment |

3

I think: Assert.assertFail(); should just be: Assert.fail();

– Matt
May 27 '13 at 21:06

1

While this is a working answer, I like the one from David Wallace better since it's less verbose.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:25

I think: Assert.assertFail(); should just be: Assert.fail();

– Matt
May 27 '13 at 21:06

While this is a working answer, I like the one from David Wallace better since it's less verbose.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:25

add a comment |

So a solution can be not to use NiceMocks.

edited Feb 12 '15 at 11:55

answered Aug 23 '12 at 14:51

Vic

1,31021532

2

I strongly disagree with the conclusion. Maybe, in this case, nice mock is not the best choice. But if you want to make sure one method will not get called, in fact this is the only thing you want to test, it's better to emphasize this with a mocked method that fails with an appropriate message.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:24

1

It is a good argument. I wanted to point this one out, since I had stumbled upon why I cannot specify times(0). And only later I realized, that that kind of contradicts with the idea of nice mocking, and not nice mocking does not allow unrecorded methods to be executed. Throwing an assert exception as the answer seemed more like a workaround for me and that 0 method calls should be specified using not nice mocks. Maybe I am a bit assertive in the conclusion. I'll just correct it.

– Vic
Feb 12 '15 at 11:54

add a comment |

So a solution can be not to use NiceMocks.

edited Feb 12 '15 at 11:55

answered Aug 23 '12 at 14:51

Vic

1,31021532

2

I strongly disagree with the conclusion. Maybe, in this case, nice mock is not the best choice. But if you want to make sure one method will not get called, in fact this is the only thing you want to test, it's better to emphasize this with a mocked method that fails with an appropriate message.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:24

1

It is a good argument. I wanted to point this one out, since I had stumbled upon why I cannot specify times(0). And only later I realized, that that kind of contradicts with the idea of nice mocking, and not nice mocking does not allow unrecorded methods to be executed. Throwing an assert exception as the answer seemed more like a workaround for me and that 0 method calls should be specified using not nice mocks. Maybe I am a bit assertive in the conclusion. I'll just correct it.

– Vic
Feb 12 '15 at 11:54

add a comment |

So a solution can be not to use NiceMocks.

edited Feb 12 '15 at 11:55

answered Aug 23 '12 at 14:51

Vic

1,31021532

So a solution can be not to use NiceMocks.

edited Feb 12 '15 at 11:55

answered Aug 23 '12 at 14:51

Vic

1,31021532

edited Feb 12 '15 at 11:55

answered Aug 23 '12 at 14:51

Vic

1,31021532

answered Aug 23 '12 at 14:51

Vic

1,31021532

answered Aug 23 '12 at 14:51

Vic

1,31021532

2

I strongly disagree with the conclusion. Maybe, in this case, nice mock is not the best choice. But if you want to make sure one method will not get called, in fact this is the only thing you want to test, it's better to emphasize this with a mocked method that fails with an appropriate message.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:24

1

It is a good argument. I wanted to point this one out, since I had stumbled upon why I cannot specify times(0). And only later I realized, that that kind of contradicts with the idea of nice mocking, and not nice mocking does not allow unrecorded methods to be executed. Throwing an assert exception as the answer seemed more like a workaround for me and that 0 method calls should be specified using not nice mocks. Maybe I am a bit assertive in the conclusion. I'll just correct it.

– Vic
Feb 12 '15 at 11:54

add a comment |

2

I strongly disagree with the conclusion. Maybe, in this case, nice mock is not the best choice. But if you want to make sure one method will not get called, in fact this is the only thing you want to test, it's better to emphasize this with a mocked method that fails with an appropriate message.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:24

1

It is a good argument. I wanted to point this one out, since I had stumbled upon why I cannot specify times(0). And only later I realized, that that kind of contradicts with the idea of nice mocking, and not nice mocking does not allow unrecorded methods to be executed. Throwing an assert exception as the answer seemed more like a workaround for me and that 0 method calls should be specified using not nice mocks. Maybe I am a bit assertive in the conclusion. I'll just correct it.

– Vic
Feb 12 '15 at 11:54

I strongly disagree with the conclusion. Maybe, in this case, nice mock is not the best choice. But if you want to make sure one method will not get called, in fact this is the only thing you want to test, it's better to emphasize this with a mocked method that fails with an appropriate message.

– qben
Feb 12 '15 at 10:24

It is a good argument. I wanted to point this one out, since I had stumbled upon why I cannot specify times(0). And only later I realized, that that kind of contradicts with the idea of nice mocking, and not nice mocking does not allow unrecorded methods to be executed. Throwing an assert exception as the answer seemed more like a workaround for me and that 0 method calls should be specified using not nice mocks. Maybe I am a bit assertive in the conclusion. I'll just correct it.

– Vic
Feb 12 '15 at 11:54

add a comment |

Looks like a bug to me. The internal class Range does not allow to set a maximum less than 1.

Couldn't you mock that method, and just call Assert.fail() ?

answered Sep 15 '10 at 6:54

Christian Strempfer

5,69443868

yes, I did it that way eventually, see my answer

– nkr1pt
Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

add a comment |

Looks like a bug to me. The internal class Range does not allow to set a maximum less than 1.

Couldn't you mock that method, and just call Assert.fail() ?

answered Sep 15 '10 at 6:54

Christian Strempfer

5,69443868

yes, I did it that way eventually, see my answer

– nkr1pt
Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

add a comment |

Looks like a bug to me. The internal class Range does not allow to set a maximum less than 1.

Couldn't you mock that method, and just call Assert.fail() ?

answered Sep 15 '10 at 6:54

Christian Strempfer

5,69443868

Looks like a bug to me. The internal class Range does not allow to set a maximum less than 1.

Couldn't you mock that method, and just call Assert.fail() ?

answered Sep 15 '10 at 6:54

Christian Strempfer

5,69443868

answered Sep 15 '10 at 6:54

Christian Strempfer

5,69443868

answered Sep 15 '10 at 6:54

Christian Strempfer

5,69443868

answered Sep 15 '10 at 6:54

Christian Strempfer

5,69443868

yes, I did it that way eventually, see my answer

– nkr1pt
Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

add a comment |

yes, I did it that way eventually, see my answer

– nkr1pt
Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

yes, I did it that way eventually, see my answer

– nkr1pt
Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

add a comment |

If you expect your method not to be called then just don't record it. But I agree it won't work with a nice mock.

answered Sep 16 '10 at 21:54

Henri Tremblay

59642

add a comment |

If you expect your method not to be called then just don't record it. But I agree it won't work with a nice mock.

answered Sep 16 '10 at 21:54

Henri Tremblay

59642

add a comment |

If you expect your method not to be called then just don't record it. But I agree it won't work with a nice mock.

answered Sep 16 '10 at 21:54

Henri Tremblay

59642

If you expect your method not to be called then just don't record it. But I agree it won't work with a nice mock.

answered Sep 16 '10 at 21:54

Henri Tremblay

59642

answered Sep 16 '10 at 21:54

Henri Tremblay

59642

answered Sep 16 '10 at 21:54

Henri Tremblay

59642

answered Sep 16 '10 at 21:54

Henri Tremblay

59642

add a comment |

I managed to come up with a solution:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

        Assert.assertFail();

        return null;

    }

});

answered Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

nkr1pt

3,51942852

For me it doesn't work. It says "expected: 1, actual: 0".

– Vic
Aug 23 '12 at 14:44

1

Agreed that this doesn't work. The correct answer is from David Nguyen.

– dhaag23
Sep 2 '14 at 21:01

add a comment |

I managed to come up with a solution:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

        Assert.assertFail();

        return null;

    }

});

answered Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

nkr1pt

3,51942852

For me it doesn't work. It says "expected: 1, actual: 0".

– Vic
Aug 23 '12 at 14:44

1

Agreed that this doesn't work. The correct answer is from David Nguyen.

– dhaag23
Sep 2 '14 at 21:01

add a comment |

I managed to come up with a solution:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

        Assert.assertFail();

        return null;

    }

});

answered Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

nkr1pt

3,51942852

I managed to come up with a solution:

expectLastCall().andAnswer(new IAnswer() {

    public Object answer() {

        Assert.assertFail();

        return null;

    }

});

answered Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

nkr1pt

3,51942852

answered Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

nkr1pt

3,51942852

answered Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

nkr1pt

3,51942852

answered Sep 15 '10 at 20:54

nkr1pt

3,51942852

For me it doesn't work. It says "expected: 1, actual: 0".

– Vic
Aug 23 '12 at 14:44

1

Agreed that this doesn't work. The correct answer is from David Nguyen.

– dhaag23
Sep 2 '14 at 21:01

add a comment |

For me it doesn't work. It says "expected: 1, actual: 0".

– Vic
Aug 23 '12 at 14:44

1

Agreed that this doesn't work. The correct answer is from David Nguyen.

– dhaag23
Sep 2 '14 at 21:01

For me it doesn't work. It says "expected: 1, actual: 0".

– Vic
Aug 23 '12 at 14:44

Agreed that this doesn't work. The correct answer is from David Nguyen.

– dhaag23
Sep 2 '14 at 21:01

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Ndtyjky