Jmockit Expectations with no times or result should be transformed to Mockito verify statement

[shivanisky]

Currently Jmockit Expectation statements when they do not have a times or result, when migrated to mockito disappear. However, when migrated to mockito, it should have a corresponding verify statement as per following documentation:

1. https://www.baeldung.com/jmockit-expectations section 2.4 "Then we used the default behavior (if no repetition constraint is given minTimes = 1; is used) to define that at least one invocation will be done to methodForTimes2()"
2. https://jmockit.github.io/tutorial/Mocking.html section 6.2

From my experience, when people specify this in the Expectation, it almost always corresponds to a mockito verify with no explicit times, basically saying that this statement occurs exactly once.
In mockito usually times is used to specify the exact number of invocations and this gives more finegrained verification, whereas the JMockit Expectation the developer typically intends "exactly once" when specifying no times even though it really means at least once.

If we prefer to use at least once, I can modify it as such, but a simple verify with no times is usually what the original author of the JMockit Expectation intends.

Checklist below done

• I've added unit tests to cover both positive and negative cases
• I've read and applied the recipe conventions and best practices
• I've used the IntelliJ IDEA auto-formatter on affected files

[timtebeek]

/cc @tinder-dthomson since he originally created the JMockit migration recipes; figured you'd enjoy seeing this addition.

[timtebeek]

Changes look great to me already; indeed seems better not to complete drop Expectations without adding a corresponding verify that the method is at least invoked. Even makes me slightly worry for replacements done previously(!). I don't have prior exposure to JMockit though, so I appreciate the links to attached to the description.

We'll give @tinder-dthomson a little while to chime in, and if no response is received than I'd say we can merge this as is. Thanks a lot!

[tinder-dthomson]

Hey folks! Thanks for introducing this change.

This behavior was not an oversight but rather a conscious decision on my part. My thought was that if a test wants to verify an invocation for a method without results, it belongs in the Verifications block. However as @shivanisky points out, Expectations block can be used for the same purpose. We should not remove these verifications.