Using Mockito to mock classes with generic parameters

One other way around this is to use @Mock annotation instead. Doesn't work in all cases, but looks much sexier :)

Here's an example:

@RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) public class FooTests { @Mock public Foo<Bar> fooMock; @Test public void testFoo() { when(fooMock.getValue()).thenReturn(new Bar()); } } 

The MockitoJUnitRunner initializes the fields annotated with @Mock.

You could always create an intermediate class/interface that would satisfy the generic type that you are wanting to specify. For example, if Foo was an interface, you could create the following interface in your test class.

private interface FooBar extends Foo<Bar> { } 

In situations where Foo is a non-final class, you could just extend the class with the following code and do the same thing:

public class FooBar extends Foo<Bar> { } 

Then you could consume either of the above examples with the following code:

Foo<Bar> mockFoo = mock(FooBar.class); when(mockFoo.getValue()).thenReturn(new Bar()); 

Create a test utility method. Specially useful if you need it for more than once.

@Test public void testMyTest() { // ... Foo<Bar> mockFooBar = mockFoo(); when(mockFooBar.getValue).thenReturn(new Bar()); Foo<Baz> mockFooBaz = mockFoo(); when(mockFooBaz.getValue).thenReturn(new Baz()); Foo<Qux> mockFooQux = mockFoo(); when(mockFooQux.getValue).thenReturn(new Qux()); // ... } @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") // still needed :( but just once :) private <T> Foo<T> mockFoo() { return mock(Foo.class); } 

I agree that one shouldn't suppress warnings in classes or methods as one could overlook other, accidentally suppressed warnings. But IMHO it's absolutely reasonable to suppress a warning that affects only a single line of code.

@SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Foo<Bar> mockFoo = mock(Foo.class); 

With JUnit5 I think the best way is to @ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class) with @Mock in the method parameter or the field.

The following example demonstrates that with Hamcrest matchers.

package com.vogella.junit5; import static org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat; import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.hasItem; import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify; import java.util.Arrays; import java.util.List; import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test; import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ExtendWith; import org.mockito.ArgumentCaptor; import org.mockito.Captor; import org.mockito.Mock; import org.mockito.junit.jupiter.MockitoExtension; @ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class) public class MockitoArgumentCaptureTest { @Captor private ArgumentCaptor<List<String>> captor; @Test public final void shouldContainCertainListItem(@Mock List<String> mockedList) { var asList = Arrays.asList("someElement_test", "someElement"); mockedList.addAll(asList); verify(mockedList).addAll(captor.capture()); List<String> capturedArgument = captor.getValue(); assertThat(capturedArgument, hasItem("someElement")); } } 

See https://www.vogella.com/tutorials/Mockito/article.html for the required Maven/Gradle dependencies.

As the other answers mentioned, there's not a great way to use the mock() & spy() methods directly without unsafe generics access and/or suppressing generics warnings.

There is currently an open issue in the Mockito project (#1531) to add support for using the mock() & spy() methods without generics warnings. The issue was opened in November 2018, but there aren't any indications that it will be prioritized. Per one of the Mockito contributor's comments on the issue:

Given that .class does not play well with generics, I don't think there is any solution we can do in Mockito. You can already do @Mock (the JUnit5 extension also allows method parameter @Mocks) and that should be a suitable alternative. Therefore, we can keep this issue open, but it is unlikely ever to be fixed, given that @Mock is a better API.

So you have this:

Foo mockFoo = mock(Foo.class); 

Ways to fix it, starting from my least favourite to most:

1. Use @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") annotation. Doesn't really fix it, but you'll stop getting the warnings.

@SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Foo mockFoo = mock(Foo.class); when(mockFoo.getValue).thenReturn(new Bar()); 

2. Cast it. Though it still gives warnings, unfortunately. So you need to use the annotation here as well:

@SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Foo<Bar> mockFoo = (Foo<Bar>) mock(Foo.class); when(mockFoo.getValue).thenReturn(new Bar()); 

3. Use @Mock annotation. There will be no warnings. Here, when can be added in actual tests.

@Mock public Foo<Bar> fooMock; 

4. Use @MockBean annotation. This will create a mocked bean directly. No warnings.

@MockBean public Foo<Bar> fooMock; 

JUnit5: use @ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class) on the test class then add this field:

@Mock Foo<Bar> barMock; 

The (in my opinion) most easiest and most readable approach is to use method level injection.

This will result in having all test data within the test method. This will keep your test classes clean as there are no 'floating' mock's.

@ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class) public class SomeClassTest { @Test void someTestMethod(@Mock Foo<Bar> fooMock) { // do something with your mock } } 

Here is an interesting case: method receieves generic collection and returns generic collection of same base type. For example:

Collection<? extends Assertion> map(Collection<? extends Assertion> assertions); 

This method can be mocked with combination of Mockito anyCollectionOf matcher and the Answer.

when(mockedObject.map(anyCollectionOf(Assertion.class))).thenAnswer( new Answer<Collection<Assertion>>() { @Override public Collection<Assertion> answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable { return new ArrayList<Assertion>(); } }); 

why not using spy

var mock = spy(new Foo<Bar>()); when(mockFoo.getValue()).thenReturn(new Bar());