We Keep Coding

How to verify in Mockito if the entity class setter is not called [duplicate]

I know that one way to do it would be:
#Test
public void foo() {
try {
// execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
} catch(Exception e) {
fail("Should not have thrown any exception");
}
}
Is there any cleaner way of doing this? (Probably using Junit's #Rule?)

You're approaching this the wrong way. Just test your functionality: if an exception is thrown the test will automatically fail. If no exception is thrown, your tests will all turn up green.
I have noticed this question garners interest from time to time so I'll expand a little.
Background to unit testing
When you're unit testing it's important to define to yourself what you consider a unit of work. Basically: an extraction of your codebase that may or may not include multiple methods or classes that represents a single piece of functionality.
Or, as defined in The art of Unit Testing, 2nd Edition by Roy Osherove, page 11:
A unit test is an automated piece of code that invokes the unit of work being tested, and then checks some assumptions about a single end result of that unit. A unit test is almost always written using a unit testing framework. It can be written easily and runs quickly. It's trustworthy, readable, and maintainable. It's consistent in its results as long as production code hasn't changed.
What is important to realize is that one unit of work usually isn't just one method but at the very basic level it is one method and after that it is encapsulated by other unit of works.
Ideally you should have a test method for each separate unit of work so you can always immediately view where things are going wrong. In this example there is a basic method called getUserById() which will return a user and there is a total of 3 unit of works.
The first unit of work should test whether or not a valid user is being returned in the case of valid and invalid input.
Any exceptions that are being thrown by the datasource have to be handled here: if no user is present there should be a test that demonstrates that an exception is thrown when the user can't be found. A sample of this could be the IllegalArgumentException which is caught with the #Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class) annotation.
Once you have handled all your usecases for this basic unit of work, you move up a level. Here you do exactly the same, but you only handle the exceptions that come from the level right below the current one. This keeps your testing code well structured and allows you to quickly run through the architecture to find where things go wrong, instead of having to hop all over the place.
Handling a tests' valid and faulty input
At this point it should be clear how we're going to handle these exceptions. There are 2 types of input: valid input and faulty input (the input is valid in the strict sense, but it's not correct).
When you work with valid input you're setting the implicit expectancy that whatever test you write, will work.
Such a method call can look like this: existingUserById_ShouldReturn_UserObject. If this method fails (e.g.: an exception is thrown) then you know something went wrong and you can start digging.
By adding another test (nonExistingUserById_ShouldThrow_IllegalArgumentException) that uses the faulty input and expects an exception you can see whether your method does what it is supposed to do with wrong input.
TL;DR
You were trying to do two things in your test: check for valid and faulty input. By splitting this into two method that each do one thing, you will have much clearer tests and a much better overview of where things go wrong.
By keeping the layered unit of works in mind you can also reduce the amount of tests you need for a layer that is higher in the hierarchy because you don't have to account for every thing that might have gone wrong in the lower layers: the layers below the current one are a virtual guarantee that your dependencies work and if something goes wrong, it's in your current layer (assuming the lower layers don't throw any errors themselves).

JUnit 5 (Jupiter) provides three functions to check exception absence/presence:
● assertAll​()
  Asserts that all supplied executables
  do not throw exceptions.
● assertDoesNotThrow​()
  Asserts that execution of the
  supplied executable/supplier
  does not throw any kind of exception.
  This function is available
  since JUnit 5.2.0 (29 April 2018).
● assertThrows​()
  Asserts that execution of the supplied executable
  throws an exception of the expectedType
  and returns the exception.
Example
package test.mycompany.myapp.mymodule;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
class MyClassTest {
#Test
void when_string_has_been_constructed_then_myFunction_does_not_throw() {
String myString = "this string has been constructed";
assertAll(() -> MyClass.myFunction(myString));
}
#Test
void when_string_has_been_constructed_then_myFunction_does_not_throw__junit_v520() {
String myString = "this string has been constructed";
assertDoesNotThrow(() -> MyClass.myFunction(myString));
}
#Test
void when_string_is_null_then_myFunction_throws_IllegalArgumentException() {
String myString = null;
assertThrows(
IllegalArgumentException.class,
() -> MyClass.myFunction(myString));
}
}

I stumbled upon this because of SonarQube's rule "squid:S2699": "Add at least one assertion to this test case."
I had a simple test whose only goal was to go through without throwing exceptions.
Consider this simple code:
public class Printer {
public static void printLine(final String line) {
System.out.println(line);
}
}
What kind of assertion can be added to test this method?
Sure, you can make a try-catch around it, but that is only code bloat.
The solution comes from JUnit itself.
In case no exception is thrown and you want to explicitly illustrate this behaviour, simply add expected as in the following example:
#Test(expected = Test.None.class /* no exception expected */)
public void test_printLine() {
Printer.printLine("line");
}
Test.None.class is the default for the expected value.
If you import org.junit.Test.None, you can then write:
#Test(expected = None.class)
which you might find more readable.

For JUnit versions before 5:
With AssertJ fluent assertions 3.7.0:
Assertions.assertThatCode(() -> toTest.method())
.doesNotThrowAnyException();
Update:
JUnit 5 introduced assertDoesNotThrow() assertion, so I'd prefer to use it instead of adding an additional dependency to your project. See this answer for details.

Java 8 makes this a lot easier, and Kotlin/Scala doubly so.
We can write a little utility class
class MyAssertions{
public static void assertDoesNotThrow(FailingRunnable action){
try{
action.run()
}
catch(Exception ex){
throw new Error("expected action not to throw, but it did!", ex)
}
}
}
#FunctionalInterface interface FailingRunnable { void run() throws Exception }
and then your code becomes simply:
#Test
public void foo(){
MyAssertions.assertDoesNotThrow(() -> {
//execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
}
}
If you dont have access to Java-8, I would use a painfully old java facility: aribitrary code blocks and a simple comment
//setup
Component component = new Component();
//act
configure(component);
//assert
/*assert does not throw*/{
component.doSomething();
}
And finally, with kotlin, a language I've recently fallen in love with:
fun (() -> Any?).shouldNotThrow()
= try { invoke() } catch (ex : Exception){ throw Error("expected not to throw!", ex) }
#Test fun `when foo happens should not throw`(){
//...
{ /*code that shouldn't throw*/ }.shouldNotThrow()
}
Though there is a lot of room to fiddle with exactly how you want to express this, I was always a fan of fluent assertions.
Regarding
You're approaching this the wrong way. Just test your functionality: if an exception is thrown the test will automatically fail. If no exception is thrown, your tests will all turn up green.
This is correct in principle but incorrect in conclusion.
Java allows exceptions for flow of control. This is done by the JRE runtime itself in APIs like Double.parseDouble via a NumberFormatException and Paths.get via a InvalidPathException.
Given you've written a component that validates Number strings for Double.ParseDouble, maybe using a Regex, maybe a hand-written parser, or perhaps something that embeds some other domain rules that restricts the range of a double to something specific, how best to test this component? I think an obvious test would be to assert that, when the resulting string is parsed, no exception is thrown. I would write that test using either the above assertDoesNotThrow or /*comment*/{code} block. Something like
#Test public void given_validator_accepts_string_result_should_be_interpretable_by_doubleParseDouble(){
//setup
String input = "12.34E+26" //a string double with domain significance
//act
boolean isValid = component.validate(input)
//assert -- using the library 'assertJ', my personal favourite
assertThat(isValid).describedAs(input + " was considered valid by component").isTrue();
assertDoesNotThrow(() -> Double.parseDouble(input));
}
I would also encourage you to parameterize this test on input using Theories or Parameterized so that you can more easily re-use this test for other inputs. Alternatively, if you want to go exotic, you could go for a test-generation tool (and this). TestNG has better support for parameterized tests.
What I find particularly disagreeable is the recommendation of using #Test(expectedException=IllegalArgumentException.class), this exception is dangerously broad. If your code changes such that the component under test's constructor has if(constructorArgument <= 0) throw IllegalArgumentException(), and your test was supplying 0 for that argument because it was convenient --and this is very common, because good generating test data is a surprisingly hard problem--, then your test will be green-bar even though it tests nothing. Such a test is worse than useless.

If you are unlucky enough to catch all errors in your code.
You can stupidly do
class DumpTest {
Exception ex;
#Test
public void testWhatEver() {
try {
thisShouldThrowError();
} catch (Exception e) {
ex = e;
}
assertEquals(null,ex);
}
}

Although this post is 6 years old now, however, a lot has changed in the Junit world. With Junit5, you can now use
org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertDoesNotThrow()
Ex:
public void thisMethodDoesNotThrowException(){
System.out.println("Hello There");
}
#Test
public void test_thisMethodDoesNotThrowException(){
org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertDoesNotThrow(
()-> thisMethodDoesNotThrowException()
);
}
Hope it will help people who are using newer version of Junit5

JUnit5 adds the assertAll() method for this exact purpose.
assertAll( () -> foo() )
source: JUnit 5 API

To test a scenario with a void method like
void testMeWell() throws SomeException {..}
to not throw an exception:
Junit5
assertDoesNotThrow(() -> {
testMeWell();
});

If you want to test that whether your test target consumes the exception. Just leave the test as (mock collaborator using jMock2):
#Test
public void consumesAndLogsExceptions() throws Exception {
context.checking(new Expectations() {
{
oneOf(collaborator).doSth();
will(throwException(new NullPointerException()));
}
});
target.doSth();
}
The test would pass if your target does consume the exception thrown, otherwise the test would fail.
If you want to test your exception consumption logic, things get more complex. I suggest delegating the consumption to a collaborator which could be mocked. Therefore the test could be:
#Test
public void consumesAndLogsExceptions() throws Exception {
Exception e = new NullPointerException();
context.checking(new Expectations() {
{
allowing(collaborator).doSth();
will(throwException(e));
oneOf(consumer).consume(e);
}
});
target.doSth();
}
But sometimes it's over-designed if you just want to log it. In this case, this article(http://java.dzone.com/articles/monitoring-declarative-transac, http://blog.novoj.net/2008/09/20/testing-aspect-pointcuts-is-there-an-easy-way/) may help if you insist tdd in this case.

Use assertNull(...)
#Test
public void foo() {
try {
//execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
} catch (Exception e){
assertNull(e);
}
}

This may not be the best way but it definitely makes sure that exception is not thrown from the code block that is being tested.
import org.assertj.core.api.Assertions;
import org.junit.Test;
public class AssertionExample {
#Test
public void testNoException(){
assertNoException();
}
private void assertException(){
Assertions.assertThatThrownBy(this::doNotThrowException).isInstanceOf(Exception.class);
}
private void assertNoException(){
Assertions.assertThatThrownBy(() -> assertException()).isInstanceOf(AssertionError.class);
}
private void doNotThrowException(){
//This method will never throw exception
}
}

I faced the same situation, I needed to check that exception is thrown when it should, and only when it should.
Ended up using the exception handler to my benefit with the following code:
try {
functionThatMightThrowException()
}catch (Exception e){
Assert.fail("should not throw exception");
}
RestOfAssertions();
The main benefit for me was that it is quite straight forward and to check the other way of the "if and only if" is really easy in this same structure

I end up doing like this
#Test
fun `Should not throw`() {
whenever(authService.isAdmin()).thenReturn(true)
assertDoesNotThrow {
service.throwIfNotAllowed("client")
}
}

You can expect that exception is not thrown by creating a rule.
#Rule
public ExpectedException expectedException = ExpectedException.none();

You can do it by using a #Rule and then call method reportMissingExceptionWithMessage as shown below:
This is Scala code.

Stumbled over this issue since I created some generic methods like
#Test
void testSomething() {
checkGeneric(anComplexObect)
}
In https://newbedev.com/sonarqube-issue-add-at-least-one-assertion-to-this-test-case-for-unit-test-with-assertions some annotation stuff is proposed.
The solution is much more simple. It's enough to rename the "checkGeneric" method to "assertGeneric".
#Test
void testSomething() {
assertGeneric(anComplexObect)
}

You can create any kind of your own assertions based on assertions from junit, because these are especially designed for creating user defined asserts intendet to work exactly like junit ones:
static void assertDoesNotThrow(Executable executable) {
assertDoesNotThrow(executable, "must not throw");
}
static void assertDoesNotThrow(Executable executable, String message) {
try {
executable.execute();
} catch (Throwable err) {
fail(message);
}
}
Now testing the so called scenario methodMustNotThrow and log all failures in a junit style:
//test and log with default and custom messages
//the following will succeed
assertDoesNotThrow(()->methodMustNotThrow(1));
assertDoesNotThrow(()->methodMustNotThrow(1), "custom facepalm");
//the following will fail
assertDoesNotThrow(()->methodMustNotThrow(2));
assertDoesNotThrow(()-> {throw new Exception("Hello world");}, "message");
//See implementation of methodMustNotThrow below
Generally speaking there is possibility to instantly fail anything the test in any scenarios, in any place where it makes sense by calling fail(someMessage), which is designed exactly for this purpose. For instance use it in a try/catch block to fail if anything is thrown in the test case:
try{methodMustNotThrow(1);}catch(Throwable e){fail("must not throw");}
try{methodMustNotThrow(1);}catch(Throwable e){Assertions.fail("must not throw");}
This is the sample of the method we test, supposing we have such a method that must not fail under specific circumstances, but it can fail:
void methodMustNotThrow(int x) throws Exception {
if (x == 1) return;
throw new Exception();
}
The above method is a simple sample. But this works for complex situations, where the failure is not so obvious.
There are the imports:
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.function.Executable;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*;

AssertJ can handle this scenario:
assertThatNoException().isThrownBy(() -> System.out.println("OK"));
Check the doc for more information https://assertj.github.io/doc/#assertj-core-exception-assertions-no-exception

The following fails the test for all exceptions, checked or unchecked:
#Test
public void testMyCode() {
try {
runMyTestCode();
} catch (Throwable t) {
throw new Error("fail!");
}
}

SonarQube issue "Add at least one assertion to this test case" for unit test with assertions?

I'm having issues with SonarQube raising issues with several of my unit tests, prompting the following issue:
Add at least one assertion to this test case.
Each test case resembles this format (where a number of assertions are delegated to a method with common assertions, to avoid duplication):
#Test
public void companyNameOneTooLong() throws Exception {
AddressFormBean formBean = getValidBean();
formBean.setCompanyNameOne("123456789012345678901234567890123456");
assertViolation(validator.validate(formBean), "companyNameOne", "length must be between 0 and 35");
}
private void assertViolation(Set<ConstraintViolation<AddressFormBean>> violations, String fieldname, String message) {
assertThat(violations, hasSize(1));
assertEquals(fieldname, violations.iterator().next().getPropertyPath().iterator().next().getName());
assertEquals(message, violations.iterator().next().getMessage());
}
Now, obviously I could just pull the three assertions out of the private method and put them in the test method - but I'm performing the same checks (on different fields) multiple times.
So, I thought I'd try to emulate the behaviour of the assertion methods, by (re) throwing an AssertionError:
private void assertViolation(Set<ConstraintViolation<AddressFormBean>> violations, String fieldname, String message) throws AssertionError {
try {
assertThat(violations, hasSize(1));
assertEquals(fieldname, violations.iterator().next().getPropertyPath().iterator().next().getName());
assertEquals(message, violations.iterator().next().getMessage());
} catch (AssertionError e) {
throw e;
}
}
Unfortunately, this approach does not work either.
What's special about the JUnit assert methods / what is SonarQube looking for specifically to check that an assertion has been made for each test?
Alternatively - are there other approaches to achieve the same end result (avoiding duplicating the shared assertion code over and over)?

The rule S2699 (Tests should include assertions) from the SonarQube Java Analyzer does not perform cross-procedural analysis and only explore body of methods being identified as test method (usually annotated with #Test).
Consequently, if the only assertions which will be called when executing the test method are done by a dedicated method (to avoid duplication), then the rule will raise an issue. This is a known limitation of the rule and we will deal with it only when we will be able to efficiently perform cross-procedural analysis.
Regarding the issues raised by SonarQube on such cases, you can safely mark them as Won't Fix.
Regarding the detected assertions, the rule consider as assertions the usual assert/fail/verify/expect methods from the following (unit test) frameworks :
JUnit
Fest (1.x & 2.x)
AssertJ
Hamcrest
Mockito
Spring
EasyMock

If you don't expect any exception to be throw from your test, this can be a workaround:
#Test(expected = Test.None.class /* no exception expected */)
Alternatively, you can suppress the warning for the test method/test class:
#SuppressWarnings("squid:S2699")

One thing I have done in the past is to have the helper method return true, and assert on that:
#Test
public void testSomeThings() {
Thing expected = // . . .
Thing actual = service.methodReturningThing(42);
assertTrue(assertViolation(expected, actual));
}
private boolean assertViolation(Thing expected, Thing actual) {
assertEquals(expected.getName(), actual.getName());
assertEquals(expected.getQuest(), actual.getQuest());
assertEquals(expected.getFavoriteColor(), actual.getFavoriteColor());
return true;
}
I hate this, but I hate duplicated code even more.
The other thing we've done at times, is to simply mark any such objections from SonarQube as Won't Fix, but I hate that, too.

Sometimes you don't need to have any code or assertation, for example, the test of load the context of spring boot successfully. In this case, to prevent Sonar issue when you don't expect any exception to be throw from your test, you can use this part of the code:
#Test
void contextLoads() {
Assertions.assertDoesNotThrow(this::doNotThrowException);
}
private void doNotThrowException(){
//This method will never throw exception
}

Why does Sun prefer NoSuchMethodError + NullPointerException instead of Class inspection?

I did a small debug session and stumbled over the following code snippet in Sun/Oracle's code:
try {
XmlSchema s = null;
s.location();
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
// as epxected
} catch (NoSuchMethodError e) {
// this is not a 2.1 API. Where is it being loaded from?
...
}
I think this has several flaws by first of all expecting a NullPointerException, using ((XmlSchema)null).location(); and expecting a NoSuchMethodError. If I would do the code review I would flag this as unappropriated code by triggering an exception as a regular event.
In my opinion using XmlSchema.getClass().getMethod("location", new Object[0]) would be a some what better idea.
Since this code is used in the official API implementation I wonder if there are edge cases, I am not aware of which prevent class inspection being a good solution and one has to use this code snippet as a fall back.
UPDATE:
This question is related to "Strange NullPointerException CATCH in OpenJDK JAXB but it is not answering my question about the why do they do it. It is just an explaination what it does not about why they do it.
UPDATE2:
Using the test code:
#Test
public void test() throws NoSuchMethodException, SecurityException {
Method method = ArrayList.class.getMethod("size");
if(method == null)
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
and
#Test
#SuppressWarnings("null")
public void test2() {
ArrayList<?> list = null;
try {
list.size();
}
catch(NullPointerException e) {
}
catch(NoSuchMethodError e) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
I found that TestNG reports 0s for both tests (after you warm up). Since the code is executed within a static method of a class this code is executed at most once.
So the timing is not the reason. Another problem is that a modern compiler detects the attempt to execute the location method on a null reference and therefore one need to suppress the execution.
So the timing is not the reason (anymore?) for preferring this hack instead of a proper class inspection.
Does anyone know more answers to this?

If you use a catch for handling the NoSuchMethodError, the slow code is used exceptionally. If instead you use reflection for checking the existence of the method, then the slow code is always used.

It appears that the code fragment is now referred to as old legacy code that was never maintained in the meantime. Especially if one notice that any modern IDE flags this code snippet as a accessing a NULL reference.
The reason for using this might have been the problems with reflections (slow) 15 years ago but at least today do not make sense anymore.
Also generating a NullPointerException everytime within the normal application flow and therefore generate such an important exception and unnecessarily interfere with a debug session this can be considered a defect.
So final conlusion: Do not use this code snippet to verify a compatible class version, use reflection instead.

How to do unit test for Exceptions?

As you know, exception is thrown at the condition of abnormal scenarios. So how to analog these exceptions? I feel it is challenge. For such code snippets:
public String getServerName() {
try {
InetAddress addr = InetAddress.getLocalHost();
String hostname = addr.getHostName();
return hostname;
}
catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return "";
}
}
Does anybody have good ideas?

You can tell junit that the correct behavior is to get an exception.
In JUnit 4, it goes something like:
#Test(expected = MyExceptionClass.class)
public void functionUnderTest() {
…
}

Other answers have addressed the general problem of how to write a unit test that checks that an exception is thrown. But I think your question is really asking about how to get the code to throw the exception in the first place.
Take your code as an example. It would be very hard to cause your getServerName() to internally throw an exception in the context of a simple unit test. The problem is that in order for the exception to happen, the code (typically) needs to be run on a machine whose networking is broken. Arranging for that to happen in a unit test is probably impossible ... you'd need to deliberately misconfigure the machine before running the test.
So what is the answer?
In some cases, the simple answer is just to take the pragmatic decision and not go for total test coverage. Your method is a good example. It should be clear from code inspection what the method actually does. Testing it is not going to prove anything (except see below **). All you are doing is improve your test counts and test coverage numbers, neither of which should be project goals.
In other cases, it may be sensible to separate out the low-level code where the exception is being generated and make it a separate class. Then, to test the higher level code's handling of the exception, you can replace the class with a mock class that will throw the desired exceptions.
Here is your example given this "treatment". (This is a bit contrived ... )
public interface ILocalDetails {
InetAddress getLocalHost() throws UnknownHostException;
...
}
public class LocalDetails implements ILocalDetails {
public InetAddress getLocalHost() throws UnknownHostException {
return InetAddress.getLocalHost();
}
}
public class SomeClass {
private ILocalDetails local = new LocalDetails(); // or something ...
...
public String getServerName() {
try {
InetAddress addr = local.getLocalHost();
return addr.getHostName();
}
catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return "";
}
}
}
Now to unit test this, you create a "mock" implementation of the ILocalDetails interface whose getLocalHost() method throws the exception you want under the appropriate conditions. Then you create a unit text for SomeClass.getServerName(), arranging that the instance of SomeClass uses an instance of your "mock" class instead of the normal one. (The last bit could be done using a mocking framework, by exposing a setter for the local attribute or by using the reflection APIs.)
Obviously, you would need to modify your code to make it testable like this. And there are limits to what you can do ... for example, you now cannot create a unit test to make the real LocalDetails.getLocalHost() method to throw an exception. You need to make a case-by-case judgement as to whether it is worth the effort of doing this; i.e. does the benefit of the unit test outweigh the work (and extra code complexity) of making the class testable in this way. (The fact that there is a static method at the bottom of this is a large part of the problem.)
** There is a hypothetical point to this kind of testing. In your example, the fact that the original code catches an exception and returns an empty string could be a bug ... depending on how the method's API is specified ... and a hypothetical unit test would pick it up. However, in this case, the bug is so blatant that you would spot it while writing the unit test! And assuming that you fix bugs as you find them, the unit test becomes somewhat redundant. (You wouldn't expect someone to re-instate this particular bug ...)

Okay there are a few possible answers here.
Testing for an exception itself is easy
import static org.hamcrest.core.Is.is;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertThat;
#Test
public void TestForException() {
try {
doSomething();
fail();
} catch (Exception e) {
assertThat(e.getMessage(), is("Something bad happened"));
}
}
Alternately, you can use the Exception Annotation to note that you expect an exception to come out.
Now, as to you specific example, Testing that something you are creating inside your method, either via new or statically as you did, when you have no way to interact with the object is tricky. You normally need to encapsulate that particular generator and then use some mocking to be able to override the behavior to generate the exception you expect.

Since this question is in community wiki I'll add a new one for completeness:
You can use ExpectedException in JUnit 4
#Rule
public ExpectedException thrown= ExpectedException.none();
#Test
public void TestForException(){
thrown.expect(SomeException.class);
DoSomething();
}
The ExpectedException makes the thrown exception available to all test methods.
Is is also possible to test for a specific error message:
thrown.expectMessage("Error string");
or use matchers
thrown.expectMessage(startsWith("Specific start"));
This is shorter and more convenient than
public void TestForException(){
try{
DoSomething();
Fail();
}catch(Exception e) {
Assert.That(e.msg, Is("Bad thing happened"))
}
}
because if you forget the fail, the test can result in a false negative.

Many unit testing frameworks allow your tests to expect exceptions as part of the test. JUnit, for example, allows for this.
#Test (expected=IndexOutOfBoundsException.class) public void elementAt() {
int[] intArray = new int[10];
int i = intArray[20]; // Should throw IndexOutOfBoundsException
}

Javolution test patterns, dos and don'ts

What are the patterns and dos and don'ts when one is writing tests for Javolution tests? In particular I was wondering:
TestCase.execute() does not allow throwing of exceptions. How to deal with them? Rethrow as RuntimeException or store in a variable and assert in TestCase.validate() or something?
Are there any graphical runners that show you the tests that fail, i.e. in Eclipse? Perhaps someone wrote a JUnit-Wrapper such that I could use the Eclipse JUnit Runner?

The javadoc and javolution sources give some examples and design rationale.
See also an article on serverside.
Javolution tests contain exactly one test, and the exercising of the tested code is separated from the validation into different methods execute() and validate(). Thus the same testclass can be used both for regression tests and speed tests (where the call to validate() is omitted). Also the execution of many tests is trivially parallelizable.
A disadvantages of this separation is: you will get more memory consumption, since the results of the execution of the exercised code needs to be saved until calling validate(). (Freeing those results in tearDown is probably a good idea.)
And if validate comes from a different class than exercise then it might be difficult to debug a failure.

You can get some kind of graphical testrunner by using the following JUnit adapter and running it in eclipse. You can start / debug the failed tests separately. Unfortunately the graphical representation does not include anything about the actual test - it just shows the numbers [0], [1], etc.
#RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class JavolutionJUnit4Adapter {
protected final javolution.testing.TestCase test;
public JavolutionJUnit4Adapter(javolution.testing.TestCase testcase) {
this.test = testcase;
}
#org.junit.Test
public void executeTest() throws Exception {
enter(REGRESSION);
try {
new javolution.testing.TestSuite() {
#Override
public void run() {
test(test);
}
}.run();
} finally {
exit();
}
}
#Parameters
public static Collection<javolution.testing.TestCase[]> data() {
javolution.testing.TestSuite fp = new WhateverSuiteYouWantToRun();
List<javolution.testing.TestCase> tests = fp.getTestCases();
Collection<javolution.testing.TestCase[]> res = new ArrayList<javolution.testing.TestCase[]>();
for (javolution.testing.TestCase t : tests) {
res.add(new javolution.testing.TestCase[] { t });
}
return res;
}
}