Resolve 35 mismatch stubbings in ServletResourceProviderCreateTest.java

[ARMS2025]

We are researchers and analyzed the test doubles (mocks) in the test code of the project. In our analysis of the project, we observed that

• In the testCreateMethodsDefault test, 1 stubbing for the getProperty method is stubbed with the argument "service.id", but in actual execution, it is called with the argument "sling.servlet.paths". Additionally, the getProperty method is called with "sling.servlet.selectors", "sling.servlet.extensions", "sling.servlet.methods", "sling.servlet.prefix", and "sling.servlet.resourceSuperType", none of which were stubbed, resulting in mismatch stubbings.

• In the testCreateMethodsSingle test, 1 stubbing for the getProperty method is stubbed with the argument "service.id", but in actual execution, it is called with the argument "sling.servlet.paths". Additionally, the getProperty method is called with "sling.servlet.selectors", "sling.servlet.extensions", "sling.servlet.prefix", and "sling.servlet.resourceSuperType", none of which were stubbed, resulting in mismatch stubbings.

• In the testCreateMethodsMultiple test, 1 stubbing for the getProperty method is stubbed with the argument "service.id", but in actual execution, it is called with the argument "sling.servlet.paths". Additionally, the getProperty method is called with "sling.servlet.selectors", "sling.servlet.extensions", "sling.servlet.prefix", and "sling.servlet.resourceSuperType", none of which were stubbed, resulting in mismatch stubbings.

• In the testCreateMethodsAll test, 1 stubbing for the getProperty method is stubbed with the argument "service.id", but in actual execution, it is called with the argument "sling.servlet.paths". Additionally, the getProperty method is called with "sling.servlet.selectors", "sling.servlet.extensions", "sling.servlet.prefix", and "sling.servlet.resourceSuperType", none of which were stubbed, resulting in mismatch stubbings.

• In the testCreateSelectorsExtensions test, 1 stubbing for the getProperty method is stubbed with the argument "service.id", but in actual execution, it is called with the argument "sling.servlet.paths". Additionally, the getProperty method is called with "sling.servlet.prefix" and "sling.servlet.resourceSuperType", none of which were stubbed, resulting in mismatch stubbings.

• In the testCreateMethodsExtensions test, 1 stubbing for the getProperty method is stubbed with the argument "service.id", but in actual execution, it is called with the argument "sling.servlet.paths". Additionally, the getProperty method is called with "sling.servlet.selectors", "sling.servlet.prefix", and "sling.servlet.resourceSuperType", none of which were stubbed, resulting in mismatch stubbings.

• In the testCreateWithResourceSuperType test, 1 stubbing for the getProperty method is stubbed with the argument "service.id", but in actual execution, it is called with the argument "sling.servlet.paths". Additionally, the getProperty method is called with "sling.servlet.selectors", "sling.servlet.methods", and "sling.servlet.prefix", none of which were stubbed, resulting in mismatch stubbings.

• In the testCreateWithDefaultResourceSuperType test, 1 stubbing for the getProperty method is stubbed with the argument "service.id", but in actual execution, it is called with the argument "sling.servlet.paths". Additionally, the getProperty method is called with "sling.servlet.methods" and "sling.servlet.prefix", none of which were stubbed, resulting in mismatch stubbings.

In this pull request, we propose a solution to resolve the mismatch stubbing.

Mismatched stubbing occurs when a mocked method is stubbed with specific arguments in a test but later invoked with different arguments in the code, potentially causing unexpected behavior. Mockito recommends addressing these issues, (https://www.javadoc.io/doc/org.mockito/mockito-core/latest/org/mockito/exceptions/misusing/PotentialStubbingProblem.html).

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
1 New issue
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud