Subject: helps slowest metabolism

From: Oprah dropped 4 dress sizes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:47:19 -0700

The Doctors TV: May 14 Episode Recap
The Doctors helping RESCUE people from weight-Gain

Posted - 
Oprah and Other Celebrities Lose 4 lbs / Week of Belly Fat With 
This Secret That Our Readers Can Try Now!

This Shocking Video Shows has The Doctors are showing you how to loose 1 lb a day.
- w/out working out & w/out starving 

View Video Clip: http://www.nuschoir.com/daddygo/update-Oprahs-journal/156781/

- The Doctors Show

Follow The Doctors on Facebook | Twitter | Pintrest | 
http://www.nuschoir.com/daddygo/update-Oprahs-journal/156781/

message settings - Alert System Notifications
1107 Valeria Dr. - Marion - TX - 78124
http://www.nuschoir.com/unsub/thyr/5192014

would like to inject a Mockito mock object into a Spring (3+) bean for the purposes of unit testing with JUnit. My bean dependencies are currently injected by using the @Autowired annotation on private member fields.

I have considered using ReflectionTestUtils.setField but the bean instance that I wish to inject is actually a proxy and hence does not declare the private member fields of the target class. I do not wish to create a public setter to the dependency as I will then be modifying my interface purely for the purposes of testing.

I have followed some advice given by the Spring community but the mock does not get created and the auto-wiring fails:

<bean id="dao" class="org.mockito.Mockito" factory-method="mock">
    <constructor-arg value="com.package.Dao" />
</bean>
The error I currently encounter is as follows:
Caused by: NoSuchBeanDefinitionException:
    No matching bean of type [com.package.Dao] found for dependency:
    expected at least 1 bean which qualifies as autowire candidate for this dependency.
    Dependency annotations: {
        Autowired(required=true),
        Qualifier(value=dao)
at bleBeanFactory.raiseNoSuchBeanDefinitionException(D...y.java:901)
at istableBeanFactory.doResolveDependency(D...y.java:770)
If I set the Is there a reason you would choose implementing the interface over specifying an init-method in the XML?   Mark Jul 6 '09 at 21:00
Thats a matter of taste. The interface is part of the Spring component model and serves that and only that purpose while for a custom named method it might not really be obvious that it has to be called to complete component lifecycle. So this serves communication mainly. Of course with the drawback of the introduced dependency to the Spring framework. A nice way in between is the usage of @PostConstruct, as it has clear semantics but does not introduce the dependency...   Oliver Gierke Jul 7 '09 at 17:57
Oliver gives me some nice excuses, but really I'd just forgotten about the init-method :) One other reason is that the type itself knows that it needs to be "finished" after all the properties have been set - it isn't fundamentally something which should be in the configurationWhats the difference between having to change a line of code and a line of XML? The effort and maintenance hell is exactly the same, or even worse, since the external xml files arguably adds complexity? Sorry but I just dont get it, I dont see any benefit at all. Please fill me in if Im missing something.   fred Dec 30 '11 at 5:57
@fred - defining all injection in XML indeed makes little sense. It's a massive overhead to maintain. Therefor EJB introduced the concept of annotations for injection points. Those are much simpler and a default instance will be injected (for unit tests this can be changed once). This worked so well that Spring has now copied this approach. Note that if needed (but only if really needed) annotations can still be overriden by XML in EJB.   Mike Braun Jan 12 '12 at 18:45
1	  	
@fred Also, in the real world it would be changing one line of XML vs. a bunch of lines of code.   victor hugo May 24 '12 at 0:10