zjk/googletest
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'master' into wrong-version-reported

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Gennadiy Civil
2017-08-21 13:11:58 -04:00
committed by GitHub
parent b74070cfd9 675686a139
commit 96f7ba83cb
118 changed files with 1518 additions and 27409 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
googlemock/CHANGES
+1 -1
View File
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Google Test):
* New feature: --gmock_catch_leaked_mocks for detecting leaked mocks.
* New feature: ACTION_TEMPLATE for defining templatized actions.
* New feature: the .After() clause for specifying expectation order.
* New feature: the .With() clause for for specifying inter-argument
* New feature: the .With() clause for specifying inter-argument
constraints.
* New feature: actions ReturnArg<k>(), ReturnNew<T>(...), and
DeleteArg<k>().
googlemock/CMakeLists.txt
+26 -5
View File
@@ -37,7 +37,12 @@ endif()
# as ${gmock_SOURCE_DIR} and to the root binary directory as
# ${gmock_BINARY_DIR}.
# Language "C" is required for find_package(Threads).
project(gmock CXX C)
if (CMAKE_VERSION VERSION_LESS 3.0)
project(gmock CXX C)
else()
cmake_policy(SET CMP0048 NEW)
project(gmock VERSION 1.9.0 LANGUAGES CXX C)
endif()
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.6.4)
if (COMMAND set_up_hermetic_build)
@@ -103,10 +108,26 @@ endif()
########################################################################
#
# Install rules
install(TARGETS gmock gmock_main
DESTINATION lib)
install(DIRECTORY ${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}/include/gmock
DESTINATION include)
if(INSTALL_GMOCK)
install(TARGETS gmock gmock_main
RUNTIME DESTINATION ${CMAKE_INSTALL_BINDIR}
LIBRARY DESTINATION ${CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR}
ARCHIVE DESTINATION ${CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR})
install(DIRECTORY ${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}/include/gmock
DESTINATION ${CMAKE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR})
# configure and install pkgconfig files
configure_file(
cmake/gmock.pc.in
"${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/gmock.pc"
@ONLY)
configure_file(
cmake/gmock_main.pc.in
"${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/gmock_main.pc"
@ONLY)
install(FILES "${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/gmock.pc" "${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/gmock_main.pc"
DESTINATION "${CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR}/pkgconfig")
endif()
########################################################################
#
googlemock/README.md
+41 -8
View File
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ We hope you find it useful!
* Does automatic verification of expectations (no record-and-replay needed).
* Allows arbitrary (partial) ordering constraints on
function calls to be expressed,.
* Lets a user extend it by defining new matchers and actions.
* Lets an user extend it by defining new matchers and actions.
* Does not use exceptions.
* Is easy to learn and use.
@@ -53,18 +53,18 @@ the Apache License, which is different from Google Mock's license.
If you are new to the project, we suggest that you read the user
documentation in the following order:
* Learn the [basics](../../tree/master/googletest/docs/Primer.md) of
* Learn the [basics](../../master/googletest/docs/Primer.md) of
Google Test, if you choose to use Google Mock with it (recommended).
* Read [Google Mock for Dummies](../../tree/master/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md).
* Read [Google Mock for Dummies](../../master/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md).
* Read the instructions below on how to build Google Mock.
You can also watch Zhanyong's [talk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYpCyLI47rM) on Google Mock's usage and implementation.
Once you understand the basics, check out the rest of the docs:
* [CheatSheet](../../tree/master/googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md) - all the commonly used stuff
* [CheatSheet](../../master/googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md) - all the commonly used stuff
at a glance.
* [CookBook](../../tree/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md) - recipes for getting things done,
* [CookBook](../../master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md) - recipes for getting things done,
including advanced techniques.
If you need help, please check the
@@ -125,13 +125,46 @@ build Google Mock and its tests, which has further requirements:
### Building Google Mock ###
#### Using CMake ####
If you have CMake available, it is recommended that you follow the
[build instructions][gtest_cmakebuild]
as described for Google Test. If are using Google Mock with an
as described for Google Test.
If are using Google Mock with an
existing CMake project, the section
[Incorporating Into An Existing CMake Project][gtest_incorpcmake]
may be of particular interest. Otherwise, the following sections
detail how to build Google Mock without CMake.
may be of particular interest.
To make it work for Google Mock you will need to change
target_link_libraries(example gtest_main)
to
target_link_libraries(example gmock_main)
This works because `gmock_main` library is compiled with Google Test.
However, it does not automatically add Google Test includes.
Therefore you will also have to change
if (CMAKE_VERSION VERSION_LESS 2.8.11)
include_directories("${gtest_SOURCE_DIR}/include")
endif()
to
if (CMAKE_VERSION VERSION_LESS 2.8.11)
include_directories(BEFORE SYSTEM
"${gtest_SOURCE_DIR}/include" "${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}/include")
else()
target_include_directories(gmock_main SYSTEM BEFORE INTERFACE
"${gtest_SOURCE_DIR}/include" "${gmock_SOURCE_DIR}/include")
endif()
This will addtionally mark Google Mock includes as system, which will
silence compiler warnings when compiling your tests using clang with
`-Wpedantic -Wall -Wextra -Wconversion`.
#### Preparing to Build (Unix only) ####
googlemock/cmake/gmock.pc.in
+9
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
libdir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_FULL_LIBDIR@
includedir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_FULL_INCLUDEDIR@
Name: gmock
Description: GoogleMock (without main() function)
Version: @PROJECT_VERSION@
URL: https://github.com/google/googletest
Libs: -L${libdir} -lgmock @CMAKE_THREAD_LIBS_INIT@
Cflags: -I${includedir} @GTEST_HAS_PTHREAD_MACRO@ @CMAKE_THREAD_LIBS_INIT@
googlemock/cmake/gmock_main.pc.in
+9
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
libdir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_FULL_LIBDIR@
includedir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_FULL_INCLUDEDIR@
Name: gmock_main
Description: GoogleMock (with main() function)
Version: @PROJECT_VERSION@
URL: https://github.com/google/googletest
Libs: -L${libdir} -lgmock_main @CMAKE_THREAD_LIBS_INIT@
Cflags: -I${includedir} @GTEST_HAS_PTHREAD_MACRO@ @CMAKE_THREAD_LIBS_INIT@
googlemock/configure.ac
+1 -1
View File
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ AS_IF([test "x${HAVE_BUILT_GTEST}" = "xyes"],
GTEST_LIBS=`${GTEST_CONFIG} --libs`
GTEST_VERSION=`${GTEST_CONFIG} --version`],
[AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS([../googletest])
# GTEST_CONFIG needs to be executable both in a Makefile environmont and
# GTEST_CONFIG needs to be executable both in a Makefile environment and
# in a shell script environment, so resolve an absolute path for it here.
GTEST_CONFIG="`pwd -P`/../googletest/scripts/gtest-config"
GTEST_CPPFLAGS='-I$(top_srcdir)/../googletest/include'
googlemock/docs/CookBook.md
+18 -14
View File
@@ -18,8 +18,9 @@ You must always put a mock method definition (`MOCK_METHOD*`) in a
`public:` section of the mock class, regardless of the method being
mocked being `public`, `protected`, or `private` in the base class.
This allows `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` to reference the mock function
from outside of the mock class. (Yes, C++ allows a subclass to change
the access level of a virtual function in the base class.) Example:
from outside of the mock class. (Yes, C++ allows a subclass to specify
a different access level than the base class on a virtual function.)
Example:
```
class Foo {
@@ -294,7 +295,7 @@ There are some caveats though (I don't like them just as much as the
next guy, but sadly they are side effects of C++'s limitations):
1. `NiceMock<MockFoo>` and `StrictMock<MockFoo>` only work for mock methods defined using the `MOCK_METHOD*` family of macros **directly** in the `MockFoo` class. If a mock method is defined in a **base class** of `MockFoo`, the "nice" or "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. In particular, nesting `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` (e.g. `NiceMock<StrictMock<MockFoo> >`) is **not** supported.
1. The constructors of the base mock (`MockFoo`) cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which happens to be banned by the [Google C++ style guide](http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml).
1. The constructors of the base mock (`MockFoo`) cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which happens to be banned by the [Google C++ style guide](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html).
1. During the constructor or destructor of `MockFoo`, the mock object is _not_ nice or strict. This may cause surprises if the constructor or destructor calls a mock method on `this` object. (This behavior, however, is consistent with C++'s general rule: if a constructor or destructor calls a virtual method of `this` object, that method is treated as non-virtual. In other words, to the base class's constructor or destructor, `this` object behaves like an instance of the base class, not the derived class. This rule is required for safety. Otherwise a base constructor may use members of a derived class before they are initialized, or a base destructor may use members of a derived class after they have been destroyed.)
Finally, you should be **very cautious** about when to use naggy or strict mocks, as they tend to make tests more brittle and harder to maintain. When you refactor your code without changing its externally visible behavior, ideally you should't need to update any tests. If your code interacts with a naggy mock, however, you may start to get spammed with warnings as the result of your change. Worse, if your code interacts with a strict mock, your tests may start to fail and you'll be forced to fix them. Our general recommendation is to use nice mocks (not yet the default) most of the time, use naggy mocks (the current default) when developing or debugging tests, and use strict mocks only as the last resort.
@@ -1029,9 +1030,10 @@ a value that satisfies matcher `m`.
For example:
> | `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`. |
| Expression | Description |
|:-----------------------------|:-----------------------------------|
> | `Property(&Foo::name, StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with `"John "`. |
| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`. |
| `Property(&Foo::name, StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with `"John "`. |
Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no
argument and be declared as `const`.
@@ -1680,7 +1682,7 @@ This also works when the argument is an output iterator:
```
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::SeArrayArgument;
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
public:
@@ -1919,9 +1921,9 @@ using ::testing::_;
// second argument DoThis() receives.
```
Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but C++ has no
lambda (yet), so you have to define your own action. :-( Or do you
really?
Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but your version
of C++ has no lambdas, so you have to define your own action. :-(
Or do you really?
Well, Google Mock has an action to solve _exactly_ this problem:
@@ -2365,7 +2367,7 @@ Now there’s one topic we haven’t covered: how do you set expectations on `Sh
// When one calls ShareBuzz() on the MockBuzzer like this, the call is
// forwarded to DoShareBuzz(), which is mocked. Therefore this statement
// will trigger the above EXPECT_CALL.
mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique&lt;Buzz&gt;(AccessLevel::kInternal),
mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal),
::base::Now());
```
@@ -2404,7 +2406,7 @@ Now, the mock `DoShareBuzz()` method is free to save the buzz argument for later
```
std::unique_ptr<Buzz> intercepted_buzz;
EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _))
.WillOnce(Invoke([&amp;intercepted_buzz](Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp) {
.WillOnce(Invoke([&intercepted_buzz](Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp) {
// Save buzz in intercepted_buzz for analysis later.
intercepted_buzz.reset(buzz);
return false;
@@ -2482,12 +2484,12 @@ MockFoo::~MockFoo() {}
## Forcing a Verification ##
When it's being destoyed, your friendly mock object will automatically
When it's being destroyed, your friendly mock object will automatically
verify that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will
generate [Google Test](../../googletest/) failures
if not. This is convenient as it leaves you with one less thing to
worry about. That is, unless you are not sure if your mock object will
be destoyed.
be destroyed.
How could it be that your mock object won't eventually be destroyed?
Well, it might be created on the heap and owned by the code you are
@@ -3347,6 +3349,7 @@ For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
```
we have:
| **Pre-defined Symbol** | **Is Bound To** |
|:-----------------------|:----------------|
| `arg0` | the value of `flag` |
@@ -3508,6 +3511,7 @@ is asked to infer the type of `x`?
If you are writing a function that returns an `ACTION` object, you'll
need to know its type. The type depends on the macro used to define
the action and the parameter types. The rule is relatively simple:
| **Given Definition** | **Expression** | **Has Type** |
|:---------------------|:---------------|:-------------|
| `ACTION(Foo)` | `Foo()` | `FooAction` |
@@ -3515,7 +3519,7 @@ the action and the parameter types. The rule is relatively simple:
| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP<int>` |
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))` | `Bar<t1, ..., t_m>(int_value)` | `FooActionP<t1, ..., t_m, int>` |
| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2<bool, int>` |
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` | `Baz<t1, ..., t_m>(bool_value, int_value)` | `FooActionP2<t1, ..., t_m, bool, int>` |
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))`| `Baz<t1, ..., t_m>(bool_value, int_value)` | `FooActionP2<t1, ..., t_m, bool, int>` |
| ... | ... | ... |
Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`,
googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
+1 -1
View File
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ instructions for how to sign and return it.
To keep the source consistent, readable, diffable and easy to merge,
we use a fairly rigid coding style, as defined by the [google-styleguide](https://github.com/google/styleguide) project. All patches will be expected
to conform to the style outlined [here](https://github.com/google/styleguide/blob/gh-pages/cppguide.xml).
to conform to the style outlined [here](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html).
## Submitting Patches ##
googlemock/docs/Documentation.md
+6 -3
View File
@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **(the SVN trunk version)**
- **if you use a released version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.**
This page lists all documentation markdown files for Google Mock **(the
current git version)**
-- **if you use a former version of Google Mock, please read the
documentation for that specific version instead (e.g. by checking out
the respective git branch/tag).**
* [ForDummies](ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock.
* [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference.
@@ -9,4 +12,4 @@ This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **(the SVN trunk ve
To contribute code to Google Mock, read:
* [DevGuide](DevGuide.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch.
* [Pump Manual](../googletest/docs/PumpManual.md) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files.
* [Pump Manual](../../googletest/docs/PumpManual.md) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files.
googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md
+3 -3
View File
@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ Using Google Mock involves three basic steps:
# Why Google Mock? #
While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_:
* Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it.
* The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions.
* Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distances to avoid it.
* The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad-hoc restrictions.
* The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next.
In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference.
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are pu
In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error.
(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](CookBook#Expecting_Partially_Ordered_Calls.md).)
(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](CookBook.md#expecting-partially-ordered-calls).)
## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ##
Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)?
googlemock/docs/v1_5/CheatSheet.md
-525
View File
@@ -1,525 +0,0 @@
# Defining a Mock Class #
## Mocking a Normal Class ##
Given
```
class Foo {
...
virtual ~Foo();
virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0;
virtual string Describe(int type) = 0;
virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0;
};
```
(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as
```
#include <gmock/gmock.h>
class MockFoo : public Foo {
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetSize, int());
MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(const char* name));
MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(int type));
MOCK_METHOD2(Process, bool(Bar elem, int count));
};
```
To create a "nice" mock object which ignores all uninteresting calls,
or a "strict" mock object, which treats them as failures:
```
NiceMock<MockFoo> nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
StrictMock<MockFoo> strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
```
## Mocking a Class Template ##
To mock
```
template <typename Elem>
class StackInterface {
public:
...
virtual ~StackInterface();
virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0;
};
```
(note that `~StackInterface()` **must** be virtual) just append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros:
```
template <typename Elem>
class MockStack : public StackInterface<Elem> {
public:
...
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int());
MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x));
};
```
## Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions ##
If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you
can specify it by appending `_WITH_CALLTYPE` to any of the macros
described in the previous two sections and supplying the calling
convention as the first argument to the macro. For example,
```
MOCK_METHOD_1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int n));
MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Bar, int(double x, double y));
```
where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `<objbase.h>` on Windows.
# Using Mocks in Tests #
The typical flow is:
1. Import the Google Mock names you need to use. All Google Mock names are in the `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted.
1. Create the mock objects.
1. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects.
1. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What wil they do?).
1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result using [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions.
1. When a mock objects is destructed, Google Mock automatically verifies that all expectations on it have been satisfied.
Here is an example:
```
using ::testing::Return; // #1
TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) {
MockFoo foo; // #2
ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3
.WillByDefault(Return(1));
// ... other default actions ...
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4
.Times(3)
.WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5"));
// ... other expectations ...
EXPECT_EQ("good", MyProductionFunction(&foo)); // #5
} // #6
```
# Setting Default Actions #
Google Mock has a **built-in default action** for any function that
returns `void`, `bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer.
To customize the default action for functions with return type `T` globally:
```
using ::testing::DefaultValue;
DefaultValue<T>::Set(value); // Sets the default value to be returned.
// ... use the mocks ...
DefaultValue<T>::Clear(); // Resets the default value.
```
To customize the default action for a particular method, use `ON_CALL()`:
```
ON_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.With(multi_argument_matcher) ?
.WillByDefault(action);
```
# Setting Expectations #
`EXPECT_CALL()` sets **expectations** on a mock method (How will it be
called? What will it do?):
```
EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.With(multi_argument_matcher) ?
.Times(cardinality) ?
.InSequence(sequences) *
.After(expectations) *
.WillOnce(action) *
.WillRepeatedly(action) ?
.RetiresOnSaturation(); ?
```
If `Times()` is omitted, the cardinality is assumed to be:
* `Times(1)` when there is neither `WillOnce()` nor `WillRepeatedly()`;
* `Times(n)` when there are `n WillOnce()`s but no `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1; or
* `Times(AtLeast(n))` when there are `n WillOnce()`s and a `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0.
A method with no `EXPECT_CALL()` is free to be invoked _any number of times_, and the default action will be taken each time.
# Matchers #
A **matcher** matches a _single_ argument. You can use it inside
`ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value
directly:
| `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` | Asserts that `value` matches `matcher`. |
|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------------|
| `ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. |
Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument) are
divided into several categories:
## Wildcard ##
|`_`|`argument` can be any value of the correct type.|
|:--|:-----------------------------------------------|
|`A<type>()` or `An<type>()`|`argument` can be any value of type `type`. |
## Generic Comparison ##
|`Eq(value)` or `value`|`argument == value`|
|:---------------------|:------------------|
|`Ge(value)` |`argument >= value`|
|`Gt(value)` |`argument > value` |
|`Le(value)` |`argument <= value`|
|`Lt(value)` |`argument < value` |
|`Ne(value)` |`argument != value`|
|`IsNull()` |`argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart).|
|`NotNull()` |`argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart).|
|`Ref(variable)` |`argument` is a reference to `variable`.|
|`TypedEq<type>(value)`|`argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded.|
Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a _copy_ of `value` in case it's
modified or destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value`
doesn't have a public copy constructor, try wrap it in `ByRef()`,
e.g. `Eq(ByRef(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure
`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your
matcher will be changed.
## Floating-Point Matchers ##
|`DoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal.|
|:-------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`FloatEq(a_float)` |`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. |
|`NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. |
|`NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)`|`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. |
The above matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in
[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/)). They
automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute
value of the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to
the IEEE standard, which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to
return false. The `NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as
equal, which is often what a user wants.
## String Matchers ##
The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object:
|`ContainsRegex(string)`|`argument` matches the given regular expression.|
|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------|
|`EndsWith(suffix)` |`argument` ends with string `suffix`. |
|`HasSubstr(string)` |`argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. |
|`MatchesRegex(string)` |`argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character.|
|`StartsWith(prefix)` |`argument` starts with string `prefix`. |
|`StrCaseEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. |
|`StrCaseNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case.|
|`StrEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`. |
|`StrNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`. |
`StrCaseEq()`, `StrCaseNe()`, `StrEq()`, and `StrNe()` work for wide
strings as well.
## Container Matchers ##
Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use
`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a
container exactly. If you want to write the elements in-line,
match them more flexibly, or get more informative messages, you can use:
| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. |
|:--------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)`|`argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the i-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed.|
|`ElementsAreArray(array)` or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)`|The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from a C-style array.|
| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. |
These matchers can also match:
1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), and
1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#Multiargument_Matchers.md)).
where the array may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be arrays).
## Member Matchers ##
|`Field(&class::field, m)`|`argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.|
|:------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Key(e)` |`argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`.|
|`Pair(m1, m2)` |`argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. |
|`Property(&class::property, m)`|`argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.|
## Matching the Result of a Function or Functor ##
|`ResultOf(f, m)`|`f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor.|
|:---------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|
## Pointer Matchers ##
|`Pointee(m)`|`argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`.|
|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
## Multiargument Matchers ##
These are matchers on tuple types. They can be used in
`.With()`. The following can be used on functions with <i>two<br>
arguments</i> `x` and `y`:
|`Eq()`|`x == y`|
|:-----|:-------|
|`Ge()`|`x >= y`|
|`Gt()`|`x > y` |
|`Le()`|`x <= y`|
|`Lt()`|`x < y` |
|`Ne()`|`x != y`|
You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments
(or reorder them) to participate in the matching:
|`AllArgs(m)`|Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`.|
|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Args<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(m)`|The `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments match `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Contains(5))`.|
## Composite Matchers ##
You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers:
|`AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.|
|:-----------------------|:---------------------------------------------------|
|`AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.|
|`Not(m)` |`argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. |
## Adapters for Matchers ##
|`MatcherCast<T>(m)`|casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`.|
|:------------------|:--------------------------------------|
|`SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)`| [safely casts](V1_5_CookBook#Casting_Matchers.md) matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`. |
|`Truly(predicate)` |`predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor.|
## Matchers as Predicates ##
|`Matches(m)`|a unary functor that returns `true` if the argument matches `m`.|
|:-----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------|
|`ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)`|returns `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`.|
|`Value(x, m)`|returns `true` if the value of `x` matches `m`. |
## Defining Matchers ##
| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. |
|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------|
| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a macher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. |
| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, "is between %(a)s and %(b)s") { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. |
**Notes:**
1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class.
1. The matcher body must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters).
1. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a string.
## Matchers as Test Assertions ##
|`ASSERT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a [fatal failure](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/GoogleTestPrimer#Assertions) if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`.|
|:---------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`EXPECT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a non-fatal failure if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`. |
# Actions #
**Actions** specify what a mock function should do when invoked.
## Returning a Value ##
|`Return()`|Return from a `void` mock function.|
|:---------|:----------------------------------|
|`Return(value)`|Return `value`. |
|`ReturnArg<N>()`|Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument.|
|`ReturnNew<T>(a1, ..., ak)`|Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time.|
|`ReturnNull()`|Return a null pointer. |
|`ReturnRef(variable)`|Return a reference to `variable`. |
## Side Effects ##
|`Assign(&variable, value)`|Assign `value` to variable.|
|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|
| `DeleteArg<N>()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. |
| `SaveArg<N>(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. |
| `SetArgReferee<N>(value)` | Assign value to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. |
|`SetArgumentPointee<N>(value)`|Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument.|
|`SetArrayArgument<N>(first, last)`|Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range.|
|`SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)`|Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`.|
|`Throw(exception)` |Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0.|
## Using a Function or a Functor as an Action ##
|`Invoke(f)`|Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor.|
|:----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the {method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. |
|`InvokeWithoutArgs(f)`|Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. |
|`InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. |
|`InvokeArgument<N>(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)`|Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments.|
The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value
of the action.
When defining a function or functor to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused parameters as `Unused`:
```
double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); }
...
EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance));
```
In `InvokeArgument<N>(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference, wrap it inside `ByRef()`. For example,
```
InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), ByRef(foo))
```
calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by value, and `foo` by reference.
## Default Action ##
|`DoDefault()`|Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one).|
|:------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error.
## Composite Actions ##
|`DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)`|Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void. |
|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`IgnoreResult(a)` |Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. |
|`WithArg<N>(a)` |Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. |
|`WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(a)`|Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. |
|`WithoutArgs(a)` |Perform action `a` without any arguments. |
## Defining Actions ##
| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. |
|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. |
| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. |
The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class.
# Cardinalities #
These are used in `Times()` to specify how many times a mock function will be called:
|`AnyNumber()`|The function can be called any number of times.|
|:------------|:----------------------------------------------|
|`AtLeast(n)` |The call is expected at least `n` times. |
|`AtMost(n)` |The call is expected at most `n` times. |
|`Between(m, n)`|The call is expected between `m` and `n` (inclusive) times.|
|`Exactly(n) or n`|The call is expected exactly `n` times. In particular, the call should never happen when `n` is 0.|
# Expectation Order #
By default, the expectations can be matched in _any_ order. If some
or all expectations must be matched in a given order, there are two
ways to specify it. They can be used either independently or
together.
## The After Clause ##
```
using ::testing::Expectation;
...
Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitX());
Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitY());
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.After(init_x, init_y);
```
says that `Bar()` can be called only after both `InitX()` and
`InitY()` have been called.
If you don't know how many pre-requisites an expectation has when you
write it, you can use an `ExpectationSet` to collect them:
```
using ::testing::ExpectationSet;
...
ExpectationSet all_inits;
for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) {
all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitElement(i));
}
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.After(all_inits);
```
says that `Bar()` can be called only after all elements have been
initialized (but we don't care about which elements get initialized
before the others).
Modifying an `ExpectationSet` after using it in an `.After()` doesn't
affect the meaning of the `.After()`.
## Sequences ##
When you have a long chain of sequential expectations, it's easier to
specify the order using **sequences**, which don't require you to given
each expectation in the chain a different name. <i>All expected<br>
calls</i> in the same sequence must occur in the order they are
specified.
```
using ::testing::Sequence;
Sequence s1, s2;
...
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Reset())
.InSequence(s1, s2)
.WillOnce(Return(true));
EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetSize())
.InSequence(s1)
.WillOnce(Return(1));
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(A<const char*>()))
.InSequence(s2)
.WillOnce(Return("dummy"));
```
says that `Reset()` must be called before _both_ `GetSize()` _and_
`Describe()`, and the latter two can occur in any order.
To put many expectations in a sequence conveniently:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;
{
InSequence dummy;
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
...
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
}
```
says that all expected calls in the scope of `dummy` must occur in
strict order. The name `dummy` is irrelevant.)
# Verifying and Resetting a Mock #
Google Mock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or you can do it earlier:
```
using ::testing::Mock;
...
// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj;
// returns true iff successful.
Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj);
...
// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj;
// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL();
// returns true iff successful.
Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj);
```
You can also tell Google Mock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't
need to be verified:
```
Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj);
```
# Mock Classes #
Google Mock defines a convenient mock class template
```
class MockFunction<R(A1, ..., An)> {
public:
MOCK_METHODn(Call, R(A1, ..., An));
};
```
See this [recipe](V1_5_CookBook#Using_Check_Points.md) for one application of it.
# Flags #
| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. |
|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|
| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. |
googlemock/docs/v1_5/CookBook.md
-3250
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff
googlemock/docs/v1_5/Documentation.md
-11
View File
@@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **version 1.5.0** -- **if you use a different version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.**
* [ForDummies](V1_5_ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock.
* [CheatSheet](V1_5_CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference.
* [CookBook](V1_5_CookBook.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock.
* [FrequentlyAskedQuestions](V1_5_FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) -- check here before asking a question on the mailing list.
To contribute code to Google Mock, read:
* DevGuide -- read this _before_ writing your first patch.
* [Pump Manual](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/PumpManual) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files.
googlemock/docs/v1_5/ForDummies.md
-439
View File
@@ -1,439 +0,0 @@
(**Note:** If you get compiler errors that you don't understand, be sure to consult [Google Mock Doctor](V1_5_FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md).)
# What Is Google C++ Mocking Framework? #
When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc).
**Note:** It is easy to confuse the term _fake objects_ with mock objects. Fakes and mocks actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD) community:
* **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of a fake.
* **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with _expectations_, which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing to remember is that a mock allows you to check the _interaction_ between itself and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks will become much clearer once you start to use mocks.
**Google C++ Mocking Framework** (or **Google Mock** for short) is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/) do to Java.
Using Google Mock involves three basic steps:
1. Use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class;
1. Create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax;
1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects. Google Mock will catch any violation of the expectations as soon as it arises.
# Why Google Mock? #
While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_:
* Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it.
* The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions.
* The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next.
In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference.
Google Mock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/), but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the following problems is bothering you:
* You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means "rapid".
* Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive resources (e.g. a database).
* Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the network).
* You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum error), but it's not easy to cause one.
* You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to observing the side effects at the end of the action, which is awkward at best.
* You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those hand-written mocks.
We encourage you to use Google Mock as:
* a _design_ tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early and often. More iterations lead to better designs!
* a _testing_ tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the interaction between your module and its collaborators.
# Getting Started #
Using Google Mock is easy! Inside your C++ source file, just `#include` `<gtest/gtest.h>` and `<gmock/gmock.h>`, and you are ready to go.
# A Case for Mock Turtles #
Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that relies on a LOGO-like API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are like this. Fortunately, you learned about Dependency Injection and know the right thing to do: instead of having your application talk to the drawing API directly, wrap the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface:
```
class Turtle {
...
virtual ~Turtle() {}
virtual void PenUp() = 0;
virtual void PenDown() = 0;
virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0;
virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0;
virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0;
virtual int GetX() const = 0;
virtual int GetY() const = 0;
};
```
(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for **all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.)
You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()` and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and `GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the turtle.
Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary images), and run _much, much faster_.
# Writing the Mock Class #
If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock class, relax - Google Mock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.)
## How to Define It ##
Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to follow:
1. Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`.
1. Take a virtual function of `Turtle`. Count how many arguments it has.
1. In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHODn();` (or `MOCK_CONST_METHODn();` if you are mocking a `const` method), where `n` is the number of the arguments; if you counted wrong, shame on you, and a compiler error will tell you so.
1. Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste the _function name_ as the _first_ argument to the macro, and leave what's left as the _second_ argument (in case you're curious, this is the _type of the function_).
1. Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done.
After the process, you should have something like:
```
#include <gmock/gmock.h> // Brings in Google Mock.
class MockTurtle : public Turtle {
public:
...
MOCK_METHOD0(PenUp, void());
MOCK_METHOD0(PenDown, void());
MOCK_METHOD1(Forward, void(int distance));
MOCK_METHOD1(Turn, void(int degrees));
MOCK_METHOD2(GoTo, void(int x, int y));
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetX, int());
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetY, int());
};
```
You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD*` macros will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple! Once you get the hang of it, you can pump out mock classes faster than your source-control system can handle your check-ins.
**Tip:** If even this is too much work for you, you'll find the
`gmock_gen.py` tool in Google Mock's `scripts/generator/` directory (courtesy of the [cppclean](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) project) useful. This command-line
tool requires that you have Python 2.4 installed. You give it a C++ file and the name of an abstract class defined in it,
and it will print the definition of the mock class for you. Due to the
complexity of the C++ language, this script may not always work, but
it can be quite handy when it does. For more details, read the [user documentation](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/generator/README).
## Where to Put It ##
When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition. Some people put it in a `*_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked (say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of `Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?)
So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others, define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), and put it in a `mock_foo.h`. Then everyone can reference `mock_foo.h` from their tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed.
Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of `Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your specific domain much better than `Foo` does.
# Using Mocks in Tests #
Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is:
1. Import the Google Mock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file. Remember that namespaces are a good idea and good for your health.).
1. Create some mock objects.
1. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called? With what arguments? What should it do? etc.).
1. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using Google Test assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately.
1. When a mock is destructed, Google Mock will automatically check whether all expectations on it have been satisfied.
Here's an example:
```
#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h"
#include <gmock/gmock.h>
#include <gtest/gtest.h>
using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1
TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) {
MockTurtle turtle; // #2
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3
.Times(AtLeast(1));
Painter painter(&turtle); // #4
EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10));
} // #5
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
// The following line must be executed to initialize Google Mock
// (and Google Test) before running the tests.
::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv);
return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
}
```
As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with a message like this:
```
path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure
Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation:
Actually: never called;
Expected: called at least once.
```
**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `<Enter>` on the line number displayed in the error message to jump right to the failed expectation.
**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't happen. Therefore it's a good idea to use a heap leak checker in your tests when you allocate mocks on the heap.
**Important note:** Google Mock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. In particular, you mustn't interleave `EXPECT_CALL()`s and calls to the mock functions.
This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur _in the future_, not that a call has occurred. Why does Google Mock work like that? Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows Google Mock to report a violation as soon as it arises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available. This makes debugging much easier.
Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve the same effect without using Google Mock. However, as we shall reveal soon, Google Mock allows you to do _much more_ with the mocks.
## Using Google Mock with Any Testing Framework ##
If you want to use something other than Google Test (e.g. [CppUnit](http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/cppunit/index.php?title=Main_Page) or
[CxxTest](http://cxxtest.tigris.org/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to:
```
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
// The following line causes Google Mock to throw an exception on failure,
// which will be interpreted by your testing framework as a test failure.
::testing::GTEST_FLAG(throw_on_failure) = true;
::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv);
... whatever your testing framework requires ...
}
```
This approach has a catch: it makes Google Mock throw an exception
from a mock object's destructor sometimes. With some compilers, this
sometimes causes the test program to crash. You'll still be able to
notice that the test has failed, but it's not a graceful failure.
A better solution is to use Google Test's
[event listener API](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/GoogleTestAdvancedGuide#Extending_Google_Test_by_Handling_Test_Events)
to report a test failure to your testing framework properly. You'll need to
implement the `OnTestPartResult()` method of the event listener interface, but it
should be straightforward.
If this turns out to be too much work, we suggest that you stick with
Google Test, which works with Google Mock seamlessly (in fact, it is
technically part of Google Mock.). If there is a reason that you
cannot use Google Test, please let us know.
# Setting Expectations #
The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the _right expectations_ on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you intend it to catch. Google Mock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just right."
## General Syntax ##
In Google Mock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock method. The general syntax is:
```
EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.Times(cardinality)
.WillOnce(action)
.WillRepeatedly(action);
```
The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`). (Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.)
The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in the coming sections.
This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.Times(5)
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(150))
.WillRepeatedly(Return(200));
```
says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time. Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL).
**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? It serves two purposes: first it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human reader), and second it allows Google Mock to include the source file location of a failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier.
## Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? ##
When a mock function takes arguments, we must specify what arguments we are expecting; for example:
```
// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units.
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
```
Sometimes you may not want to be too specific (Remember that talk about tests being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary - no more, no less.). If you care to check that `Forward()` will be called but aren't interested in its actual argument, write `_` as the argument, which means "anything goes":
```
using ::testing::_;
...
// Expects the turtle to move forward.
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_));
```
`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected.
A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](V1_5_CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher:
```
using ::testing::Ge;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100)));
```
This checks that the turtle will be told to go forward by at least 100 units.
## Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called? ##
The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells _how many times_ the call should occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly.
An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and Google Mock will report a Google Test failure whenever the function is (wrongfully) called.
We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see the [CheatSheet](V1_5_CheatSheet.md).
The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, Google Mock will infer the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember:
* If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`.
* If there are `n WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`.
* If there are `n WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`.
**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be called twice but actually called four times?
## Actions: What Should It Do? ##
Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in Google Mock.
First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a `bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). If you don't say anything, this behavior will be used.
Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example,
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(200))
.WillOnce(Return(300));
```
This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively.
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(200))
.WillRepeatedly(Return(300));
```
says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called _at least twice_ (Google Mock knows this as we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no explicit `Times()`), will return 100 the first time, 200 the second time, and 300 from the third time on.
Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, Google Mock will not try to infer the cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are `WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, Google Mock will do the _default_ action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a `WillRepeatedly()`.).
What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a reference using `ReturnRef(variable)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among [others](V1_5_CheatSheet#Actions.md).
**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want:
```
int n = 100;
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.Times(4)
.WillOnce(Return(n++));
```
Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](V1_5_CookBook.md).
Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means?
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
.Times(4)
.WillOnce(Return(100));
```
Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()` clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions.
## Using Multiple Expectations ##
So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More realistically, you're going to specify expectations on multiple mock methods, which may be from multiple mock objects.
By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example:
```
using ::testing::_;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2
.Times(2);
```
If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however, the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK, as now #1 will be the matching expectation.
**Side note:** Why does Google Mock search for a match in the _reverse_ order of the expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it.
## Ordered vs Unordered Calls ##
By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the order the expectations are specified.
Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;...
TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) {
...
{
InSequence dummy;
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown());
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp());
}
Foo();
}
```
By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are put into a _sequence_ and have to occur _sequentially_. Since we are just relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work, its name is really irrelevant.
In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error.
(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](V1_5_CookBook.md).)
## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ##
Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)?
After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!):
```
using ::testing::_;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1
.Times(AnyNumber());
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2
.Times(2);
```
Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, Google Mock will see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two such calls, Google Mock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've told you in the "Using Multiple Expectations" section above.
This example shows that **expectations in Google Mock are "sticky" by default**, in the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases easier to express and understand.).
Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code say?
```
using ::testing::Return;
...
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i));
}
```
If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called, the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately lead to an "upper bound exceeded" error - this piece of code is not very useful!
One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is to explicitly say that the expectations are _not_ sticky. In other words, they should _retire_ as soon as they are saturated:
```
using ::testing::Return;
...
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
```
And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;
...
{
InSequence s;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
}
```
By the way, the other situation where an expectation may _not_ be sticky is when it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to match any call).
## Uninteresting Calls ##
A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting. For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and `GetY()` get called.
In Google Mock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output, but it won't be a failure.
# What Now? #
Congratulations! You've learned enough about Google Mock to start using it. Now, you might want to join the [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion group and actually write some tests using Google Mock - it will be fun. Hey, it may even be addictive - you've been warned.
Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](V1_5_CookBook.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss.
googlemock/docs/v1_5/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md
-624
View File
@@ -1,624 +0,0 @@
Please send your questions to the
[googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion
group. If you need help with compiler errors, make sure you have
tried [Google Mock Doctor](#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md) first.
## I wrote some matchers. After I upgraded to a new version of Google Mock, they no longer compile. What's going on? ##
After version 1.4.0 of Google Mock was released, we had an idea on how
to make it easier to write matchers that can generate informative
messages efficiently. We experimented with this idea and liked what
we saw. Therefore we decided to implement it.
Unfortunately, this means that if you have defined your own matchers
by implementing `MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`,
your definitions will no longer compile. Matchers defined using the
`MATCHER*` family of macros are not affected.
Sorry for the hassle if your matchers are affected. We believe it's
in everyone's long-term interest to make this change sooner than
later. Fortunately, it's usually not hard to migrate an existing
matcher to the new API. Here's what you need to do:
If you wrote your matcher like this:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
you'll need to change it to:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
(i.e. rename `Matches()` to `MatchAndExplain()` and give it a second
argument of type `MatchResultListener*`.)
If you were also using `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to improve the matcher
message:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the lastest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
virtual void ExplainMatchResultTo(MyType value,
::std::ostream* os) const {
// Prints some helpful information to os to help
// a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match).
*os << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo();
}
...
};
```
you should move the logic of `ExplainMatchResultTo()` into
`MatchAndExplain()`, using the `MatchResultListener` argument where
the `::std::ostream` was used:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
*listener << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo();
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
If your matcher is defined using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
you should rename the `Matches()` method to `MatchAndExplain()` and
add a `MatchResultListener*` argument (the same as what you need to do
for matchers defined by implementing `MatcherInterface`):
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
If your polymorphic matcher uses `ExplainMatchResultTo()` for better
failure messages:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
void ExplainMatchResultTo(const MyGreatMatcher& matcher,
MyType value,
::std::ostream* os) {
// Prints some helpful information to os to help
// a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match).
*os << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar();
}
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
you'll need to move the logic inside `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to
`MatchAndExplain()`:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
*listener << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar();
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
For more information, you can read these
[two](V1_5_CookBook#Writing_New_Monomorphic_Matchers.md)
[recipes](V1_5_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Matchers.md)
from the cookbook. As always, you
are welcome to post questions on `googlemock@googlegroups.com` if you
need any help.
## When using Google Mock, do I have to use Google Test as the testing framework? I have my favorite testing framework and don't want to switch. ##
Google Mock works out of the box with Google Test. However, it's easy
to configure it to work with any testing framework of your choice.
[Here](V1_5_ForDummies#Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework.md) is how.
## How am I supposed to make sense of these horrible template errors? ##
If you are confused by the compiler errors gcc threw at you,
try consulting the _Google Mock Doctor_ tool first. What it does is to
scan stdin for gcc error messages, and spit out diagnoses on the
problems (we call them diseases) your code has.
To "install", run command:
```
alias gmd='<path to googlemock>/scripts/gmock_doctor.py'
```
To use it, do:
```
<your-favorite-build-command> <your-test> 2>&1 | gmd
```
For example:
```
make my_test 2>&1 | gmd
```
Or you can run `gmd` and copy-n-paste gcc's error messages to it.
## Can I mock a variadic function? ##
You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis
(`...`) arguments) directly in Google Mock.
The problem is that in general, there is _no way_ for a mock object to
know how many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what
the arguments' types are. Only the _author of the base class_ knows
the protocol, and we cannot look into his head.
Therefore, to mock such a function, the _user_ must teach the mock
object how to figure out the number of arguments and their types. One
way to do it is to provide overloaded versions of the function.
Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature.
They are unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have
constructors or destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in
C++ as much as possible.
## MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why? ##
If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1:
```
class Foo {
...
virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0;
};
class MockFoo : public Foo {
...
MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, void(const int i));
};
```
You may get the following warning:
```
warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier
```
This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc ,for
example. If you use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning:
```
warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers
```
In C++, if you _declare_ a function with a `const` parameter, the
`const` modifier is _ignored_. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above
is equivalent to:
```
class Foo {
...
virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference.
};
```
In fact, you can _declare_ Bar() with an `int` parameter, and _define_
it with a `const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them
up.
Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method
_declaration_, we recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`.
That should workaround the VC bug.
Note that we are talking about the _top-level_ `const` modifier here.
If the function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring
the _pointee_ or _referee_ as `const` is still meaningful. For
example, the following two declarations are _not_ equivalent:
```
void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const.
void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is.
```
## I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do? ##
We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++
uses 5~6 times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest
to avoid `/clr` when compiling native C++ mocks.
## I can't figure out why Google Mock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do? ##
You might want to run your test with
`--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets Google Mock print a trace
of every mock function call it receives. By studying the trace,
you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met.
## How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? ##
```
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.Times(0);
```
## I have a failed test where Google Mock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant? ##
When Google Mock detects a failure, it prints relevant information
(the mock function arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and
etc) to help the user debug. If another failure is detected, Google
Mock will do the same, including printing the state of relevant
expectations.
Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures,
and you'll see the same description of the state twice. They are
however _not_ redundant, as they refer to _different points in time_.
The fact they are the same _is_ interesting information.
## I get a heap check failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong? ##
Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a
virtual destructor?
Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is
virtual. Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following
code:
```
class Base {
public:
// Not virtual, but should be.
~Base() { ... }
...
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
...
private:
std::string value_;
};
...
Base* p = new Derived;
...
delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not
// - value_ is leaked.
```
By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly
called when `delete p` is executed, and the heap checker
will be happy.
## The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does Google Mock do that? ##
When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the
// reverse order. This sucks big time!!!
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
```
The problem is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's
intent.
By default, expectations don't have to be matched in _any_ particular
order. If you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be
explicit. This is Google Mock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's
easy to accidentally over-specify your tests, and we want to make it
harder to do so.
There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either
put the expectations in sequence:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations
// in their natural order.
{
InSequence s;
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
```
or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time.
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
```
Back to the original questions: why does Google Mock search the
expectations (and `ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this
allows a user to set up a mock's behavior for the common case early
(e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase)
and customize it with more specific rules later. If Google Mock
searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be
possible.
## Google Mock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT\_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON\_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case? ##
When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the
latter. So the answer is that we think it's better to show the
warning.
Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's
constructor or `SetUp()`, as the default behavior rarely changes from
test to test. Then in the test body they set the expectations, which
are often different for each test. Having an `ON_CALL` in the set-up
part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected. If there's
no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If
we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs
may creep in unnoticed.
If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write
```
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.WillRepeatedly(...);
```
instead of
```
ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.WillByDefault(...);
```
This tells Google Mock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be
printed.
Also, you can control the verbosity using the `--gmock_verbose` flag.
If you find the output too noisy when debugging, just choose a less
verbose level.
## How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action? ##
If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not
supported by Google Mock directly, remember that you can define your own
actions using
[MakeAction()](V1_5_CookBook#Writing_New_Actions.md) or
[MakePolymorphicAction()](V1_5_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Actions.md),
or you can write a stub function and invoke it using
[Invoke()](V1_5_CookBook#Using_Functions_Methods_Functors.md).
## MOCK\_METHODn()'s second argument looks funny. Why don't you use the MOCK\_METHODn(Method, return\_type, arg\_1, ..., arg\_n) syntax? ##
What?! I think it's beautiful. :-)
While which syntax looks more natural is a subjective matter to some
extent, Google Mock's syntax was chosen for several practical advantages it
has.
Try to mock a function that takes a map as an argument:
```
virtual int GetSize(const map<int, std::string>& m);
```
Using the proposed syntax, it would be:
```
MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int, const map<int, std::string>& m);
```
Guess what? You'll get a compiler error as the compiler thinks that
`const map<int, std::string>& m` are **two**, not one, arguments. To work
around this you can use `typedef` to give the map type a name, but
that gets in the way of your work. Google Mock's syntax avoids this
problem as the function's argument types are protected inside a pair
of parentheses:
```
// This compiles fine.
MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int(const map<int, std::string>& m));
```
You still need a `typedef` if the return type contains an unprotected
comma, but that's much rarer.
Other advantages include:
1. `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, int, bool)` can leave a reader wonder whether the method returns `int` or `bool`, while there won't be such confusion using Google Mock's syntax.
1. The way Google Mock describes a function type is nothing new, although many people may not be familiar with it. The same syntax was used in C, and the `function` library in `tr1` uses this syntax extensively. Since `tr1` will become a part of the new version of STL, we feel very comfortable to be consistent with it.
1. The function type syntax is also used in other parts of Google Mock's API (e.g. the action interface) in order to make the implementation tractable. A user needs to learn it anyway in order to utilize Google Mock's more advanced features. We'd as well stick to the same syntax in `MOCK_METHOD*`!
## My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it? ##
You can, but you need to make some changes.
In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function,
it's a sign that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less
flexible, less reusable, less testable, etc). You are probably better
off defining a small interface and call the function through that
interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's a bit of work
initially, but usually pays for itself quickly.
This Google Testing Blog
[post](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html)
says it excellently. Check it out.
## My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. Google Mock sucks! ##
I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-)
With Google Mock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be
tempted to use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and
sometimes you may find them, well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in
the latter case?
When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and
assert that it returns the correct value or that the system is in an
expected state. This is sometimes called "state-based testing".
Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing:
instead of checking the system state at the very end, mock objects
verify that they are invoked the right way and report an error as soon
as it arises, giving you a handle on the precise context in which the
error was triggered. This is often more effective and economical to
do than state-based testing.
If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to
simulate the real object, you are probably better off using a fake.
Using a mock in this case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for
mocks to perform complex actions. If you experience this and think
that mocks suck, you are just not using the right tool for your
problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the wrong problem. :-)
## I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic? ##
By all means, NO! It's just an FYI.
What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any
expectations on it (by Google Mock's rule this means that you are not
interested in calls to this function and therefore it can be called
any number of times), and it is called. That's OK - you didn't say
it's not OK to call the function!
What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but
forgot to write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While
one can argue that it's the user's fault, Google Mock tries to be nice and
prints you a note.
So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any
uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make
your life easier, Google Mock prints the function name and arguments
when an uninteresting call is encountered.
## I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the action interface? ##
Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient
for your circumstance.
Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it
using `Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in
functions of different types (e.g. if you are defining
`Return(value)`), `MakePolymorphicAction()` is
easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what types of
functions the action can be used in, and implementing
`ActionInterface` is the way to go here. See the implementation of
`Return()` in `include/gmock/gmock-actions.h` for an example.
## I'm using the set-argument-pointee action, and the compiler complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean? ##
You got this error as Google Mock has no idea what value it should return
when the mock method is called. `SetArgumentPointee()` says what the
side effect is, but doesn't say what the return value should be. You
need `DoAll()` to chain a `SetArgumentPointee()` with a `Return()`.
See this [recipe](V1_5_CookBook#Mocking_Side_Effects.md) for more details and an example.
## My question is not in your FAQ! ##
If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are
some other resources you can use:
1. read other [wiki pages](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/w/list),
1. search the mailing list [archive](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock/topics),
1. ask it on [googlemock@googlegroups.com](mailto:googlemock@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) before you can post.).
Please note that creating an issue in the
[issue tracker](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/issues/list) is _not_
a good way to get your answer, as it is monitored infrequently by a
very small number of people.
When asking a question, it's helpful to provide as much of the
following information as possible (people cannot help you if there's
not enough information in your question):
* the version (or the revision number if you check out from SVN directly) of Google Mock you use (Google Mock is under active development, so it's possible that your problem has been solved in a later version),
* your operating system,
* the name and version of your compiler,
* the complete command line flags you give to your compiler,
* the complete compiler error messages (if the question is about compilation),
* the _actual_ code (ideally, a minimal but complete program) that has the problem you encounter.
googlemock/docs/v1_6/CheatSheet.md
-534
View File
@@ -1,534 +0,0 @@
# Defining a Mock Class #
## Mocking a Normal Class ##
Given
```
class Foo {
...
virtual ~Foo();
virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0;
virtual string Describe(int type) = 0;
virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0;
};
```
(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as
```
#include "gmock/gmock.h"
class MockFoo : public Foo {
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetSize, int());
MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(const char* name));
MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(int type));
MOCK_METHOD2(Process, bool(Bar elem, int count));
};
```
To create a "nice" mock object which ignores all uninteresting calls,
or a "strict" mock object, which treats them as failures:
```
NiceMock<MockFoo> nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
StrictMock<MockFoo> strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
```
## Mocking a Class Template ##
To mock
```
template <typename Elem>
class StackInterface {
public:
...
virtual ~StackInterface();
virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0;
};
```
(note that `~StackInterface()` **must** be virtual) just append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros:
```
template <typename Elem>
class MockStack : public StackInterface<Elem> {
public:
...
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int());
MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x));
};
```
## Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions ##
If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you
can specify it by appending `_WITH_CALLTYPE` to any of the macros
described in the previous two sections and supplying the calling
convention as the first argument to the macro. For example,
```
MOCK_METHOD_1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int n));
MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Bar, int(double x, double y));
```
where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `<objbase.h>` on Windows.
# Using Mocks in Tests #
The typical flow is:
1. Import the Google Mock names you need to use. All Google Mock names are in the `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted.
1. Create the mock objects.
1. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects.
1. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What wil they do?).
1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result using [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions.
1. When a mock objects is destructed, Google Mock automatically verifies that all expectations on it have been satisfied.
Here is an example:
```
using ::testing::Return; // #1
TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) {
MockFoo foo; // #2
ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3
.WillByDefault(Return(1));
// ... other default actions ...
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4
.Times(3)
.WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5"));
// ... other expectations ...
EXPECT_EQ("good", MyProductionFunction(&foo)); // #5
} // #6
```
# Setting Default Actions #
Google Mock has a **built-in default action** for any function that
returns `void`, `bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer.
To customize the default action for functions with return type `T` globally:
```
using ::testing::DefaultValue;
DefaultValue<T>::Set(value); // Sets the default value to be returned.
// ... use the mocks ...
DefaultValue<T>::Clear(); // Resets the default value.
```
To customize the default action for a particular method, use `ON_CALL()`:
```
ON_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.With(multi_argument_matcher) ?
.WillByDefault(action);
```
# Setting Expectations #
`EXPECT_CALL()` sets **expectations** on a mock method (How will it be
called? What will it do?):
```
EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.With(multi_argument_matcher) ?
.Times(cardinality) ?
.InSequence(sequences) *
.After(expectations) *
.WillOnce(action) *
.WillRepeatedly(action) ?
.RetiresOnSaturation(); ?
```
If `Times()` is omitted, the cardinality is assumed to be:
* `Times(1)` when there is neither `WillOnce()` nor `WillRepeatedly()`;
* `Times(n)` when there are `n WillOnce()`s but no `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1; or
* `Times(AtLeast(n))` when there are `n WillOnce()`s and a `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0.
A method with no `EXPECT_CALL()` is free to be invoked _any number of times_, and the default action will be taken each time.
# Matchers #
A **matcher** matches a _single_ argument. You can use it inside
`ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value
directly:
| `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` | Asserts that `value` matches `matcher`. |
|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------------|
| `ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. |
Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument) are
divided into several categories:
## Wildcard ##
|`_`|`argument` can be any value of the correct type.|
|:--|:-----------------------------------------------|
|`A<type>()` or `An<type>()`|`argument` can be any value of type `type`. |
## Generic Comparison ##
|`Eq(value)` or `value`|`argument == value`|
|:---------------------|:------------------|
|`Ge(value)` |`argument >= value`|
|`Gt(value)` |`argument > value` |
|`Le(value)` |`argument <= value`|
|`Lt(value)` |`argument < value` |
|`Ne(value)` |`argument != value`|
|`IsNull()` |`argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart).|
|`NotNull()` |`argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart).|
|`Ref(variable)` |`argument` is a reference to `variable`.|
|`TypedEq<type>(value)`|`argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded.|
Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a _copy_ of `value` in case it's
modified or destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value`
doesn't have a public copy constructor, try wrap it in `ByRef()`,
e.g. `Eq(ByRef(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure
`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your
matcher will be changed.
## Floating-Point Matchers ##
|`DoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal.|
|:-------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`FloatEq(a_float)` |`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. |
|`NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. |
|`NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)`|`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. |
These matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in
[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/)). They
automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute
value of the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to
the IEEE standard, which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to
return false. The `NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as
equal, which is often what a user wants.
## String Matchers ##
The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object:
|`ContainsRegex(string)`|`argument` matches the given regular expression.|
|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------|
|`EndsWith(suffix)` |`argument` ends with string `suffix`. |
|`HasSubstr(string)` |`argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. |
|`MatchesRegex(string)` |`argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character.|
|`StartsWith(prefix)` |`argument` starts with string `prefix`. |
|`StrCaseEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. |
|`StrCaseNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case.|
|`StrEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`. |
|`StrNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`. |
`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` use the regular expression
syntax defined
[here](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_AdvancedGuide#Regular_Expression_Syntax).
`StrCaseEq()`, `StrCaseNe()`, `StrEq()`, and `StrNe()` work for wide
strings as well.
## Container Matchers ##
Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use
`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a
container exactly. If you want to write the elements in-line,
match them more flexibly, or get more informative messages, you can use:
| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. |
|:--------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| `Each(e)` | `argument` is a container where _every_ element matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. |
| `ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the i-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed. |
| `ElementsAreArray(array)` or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from a C-style array. |
| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. |
| `Pointwise(m, container)` | `argument` contains the same number of elements as in `container`, and for all i, (the i-th element in `argument`, the i-th element in `container`) match `m`, which is a matcher on 2-tuples. E.g. `Pointwise(Le(), upper_bounds)` verifies that each element in `argument` doesn't exceed the corresponding element in `upper_bounds`. |
These matchers can also match:
1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), and
1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#Multiargument_Matchers.md)).
where the array may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be arrays).
## Member Matchers ##
|`Field(&class::field, m)`|`argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.|
|:------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Key(e)` |`argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`.|
|`Pair(m1, m2)` |`argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. |
|`Property(&class::property, m)`|`argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.|
## Matching the Result of a Function or Functor ##
|`ResultOf(f, m)`|`f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor.|
|:---------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|
## Pointer Matchers ##
|`Pointee(m)`|`argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`.|
|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
## Multiargument Matchers ##
Technically, all matchers match a _single_ value. A "multi-argument"
matcher is just one that matches a _tuple_. The following matchers can
be used to match a tuple `(x, y)`:
|`Eq()`|`x == y`|
|:-----|:-------|
|`Ge()`|`x >= y`|
|`Gt()`|`x > y` |
|`Le()`|`x <= y`|
|`Lt()`|`x < y` |
|`Ne()`|`x != y`|
You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments
(or reorder them) to participate in the matching:
|`AllArgs(m)`|Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`.|
|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Args<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(m)`|The tuple of the `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments matches `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Eq())`.|
## Composite Matchers ##
You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers:
|`AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.|
|:-----------------------|:---------------------------------------------------|
|`AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.|
|`Not(m)` |`argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. |
## Adapters for Matchers ##
|`MatcherCast<T>(m)`|casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`.|
|:------------------|:--------------------------------------|
|`SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)`| [safely casts](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Casting_Matchers) matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`. |
|`Truly(predicate)` |`predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor.|
## Matchers as Predicates ##
|`Matches(m)(value)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. You can use `Matches(m)` alone as a unary functor.|
|:------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`. |
|`Value(value, m)` |evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. |
## Defining Matchers ##
| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. |
|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------|
| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a macher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. |
| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " between " + PrintToString(a) + " and " + PrintToString(b)) { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. |
**Notes:**
1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class.
1. The matcher body must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters).
1. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a string.
## Matchers as Test Assertions ##
|`ASSERT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a [fatal failure](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_Primer#Assertions) if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`.|
|:---------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`EXPECT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a non-fatal failure if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`. |
# Actions #
**Actions** specify what a mock function should do when invoked.
## Returning a Value ##
|`Return()`|Return from a `void` mock function.|
|:---------|:----------------------------------|
|`Return(value)`|Return `value`. If the type of `value` is different to the mock function's return type, `value` is converted to the latter type <i>at the time the expectation is set</i>, not when the action is executed.|
|`ReturnArg<N>()`|Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument.|
|`ReturnNew<T>(a1, ..., ak)`|Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time.|
|`ReturnNull()`|Return a null pointer. |
|`ReturnPointee(ptr)`|Return the value pointed to by `ptr`.|
|`ReturnRef(variable)`|Return a reference to `variable`. |
|`ReturnRefOfCopy(value)`|Return a reference to a copy of `value`; the copy lives as long as the action.|
## Side Effects ##
|`Assign(&variable, value)`|Assign `value` to variable.|
|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|
| `DeleteArg<N>()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. |
| `SaveArg<N>(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. |
| `SaveArgPointee<N>(pointer)` | Save the value pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. |
| `SetArgReferee<N>(value)` | Assign value to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. |
|`SetArgPointee<N>(value)` |Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument.|
|`SetArgumentPointee<N>(value)`|Same as `SetArgPointee<N>(value)`. Deprecated. Will be removed in v1.7.0.|
|`SetArrayArgument<N>(first, last)`|Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range.|
|`SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)`|Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`.|
|`Throw(exception)` |Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0.|
## Using a Function or a Functor as an Action ##
|`Invoke(f)`|Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor.|
|:----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the {method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. |
|`InvokeWithoutArgs(f)`|Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. |
|`InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. |
|`InvokeArgument<N>(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)`|Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments.|
The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value
of the action.
When defining a function or functor to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused parameters as `Unused`:
```
double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); }
...
EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance));
```
In `InvokeArgument<N>(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference, wrap it inside `ByRef()`. For example,
```
InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), ByRef(foo))
```
calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by value, and `foo` by reference.
## Default Action ##
|`DoDefault()`|Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one).|
|:------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error.
## Composite Actions ##
|`DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)`|Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void. |
|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`IgnoreResult(a)` |Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. |
|`WithArg<N>(a)` |Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. |
|`WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(a)`|Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. |
|`WithoutArgs(a)` |Perform action `a` without any arguments. |
## Defining Actions ##
| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. |
|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. |
| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. |
The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class.
# Cardinalities #
These are used in `Times()` to specify how many times a mock function will be called:
|`AnyNumber()`|The function can be called any number of times.|
|:------------|:----------------------------------------------|
|`AtLeast(n)` |The call is expected at least `n` times. |
|`AtMost(n)` |The call is expected at most `n` times. |
|`Between(m, n)`|The call is expected between `m` and `n` (inclusive) times.|
|`Exactly(n) or n`|The call is expected exactly `n` times. In particular, the call should never happen when `n` is 0.|
# Expectation Order #
By default, the expectations can be matched in _any_ order. If some
or all expectations must be matched in a given order, there are two
ways to specify it. They can be used either independently or
together.
## The After Clause ##
```
using ::testing::Expectation;
...
Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitX());
Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitY());
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.After(init_x, init_y);
```
says that `Bar()` can be called only after both `InitX()` and
`InitY()` have been called.
If you don't know how many pre-requisites an expectation has when you
write it, you can use an `ExpectationSet` to collect them:
```
using ::testing::ExpectationSet;
...
ExpectationSet all_inits;
for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) {
all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitElement(i));
}
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.After(all_inits);
```
says that `Bar()` can be called only after all elements have been
initialized (but we don't care about which elements get initialized
before the others).
Modifying an `ExpectationSet` after using it in an `.After()` doesn't
affect the meaning of the `.After()`.
## Sequences ##
When you have a long chain of sequential expectations, it's easier to
specify the order using **sequences**, which don't require you to given
each expectation in the chain a different name. <i>All expected<br>
calls</i> in the same sequence must occur in the order they are
specified.
```
using ::testing::Sequence;
Sequence s1, s2;
...
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Reset())
.InSequence(s1, s2)
.WillOnce(Return(true));
EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetSize())
.InSequence(s1)
.WillOnce(Return(1));
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(A<const char*>()))
.InSequence(s2)
.WillOnce(Return("dummy"));
```
says that `Reset()` must be called before _both_ `GetSize()` _and_
`Describe()`, and the latter two can occur in any order.
To put many expectations in a sequence conveniently:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;
{
InSequence dummy;
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
...
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
}
```
says that all expected calls in the scope of `dummy` must occur in
strict order. The name `dummy` is irrelevant.)
# Verifying and Resetting a Mock #
Google Mock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or you can do it earlier:
```
using ::testing::Mock;
...
// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj;
// returns true iff successful.
Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj);
...
// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj;
// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL();
// returns true iff successful.
Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj);
```
You can also tell Google Mock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't
need to be verified:
```
Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj);
```
# Mock Classes #
Google Mock defines a convenient mock class template
```
class MockFunction<R(A1, ..., An)> {
public:
MOCK_METHODn(Call, R(A1, ..., An));
};
```
See this [recipe](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Using_Check_Points) for one application of it.
# Flags #
| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. |
|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|
| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. |
googlemock/docs/v1_6/CookBook.md
-3342
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff
googlemock/docs/v1_6/Documentation.md
-12
View File
@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **1.6**
- **if you use a released version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.**
* [ForDummies](V1_6_ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock.
* [CheatSheet](V1_6_CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference.
* [CookBook](V1_6_CookBook.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock.
* [FrequentlyAskedQuestions](V1_6_FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) -- check here before asking a question on the mailing list.
To contribute code to Google Mock, read:
* [DevGuide](DevGuide.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch.
* [Pump Manual](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_PumpManual) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files.
googlemock/docs/v1_6/ForDummies.md
-439
View File
@@ -1,439 +0,0 @@
(**Note:** If you get compiler errors that you don't understand, be sure to consult [Google Mock Doctor](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error).)
# What Is Google C++ Mocking Framework? #
When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc).
**Note:** It is easy to confuse the term _fake objects_ with mock objects. Fakes and mocks actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD) community:
* **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of a fake.
* **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with _expectations_, which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing to remember is that a mock allows you to check the _interaction_ between itself and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks will become much clearer once you start to use mocks.
**Google C++ Mocking Framework** (or **Google Mock** for short) is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/) do to Java.
Using Google Mock involves three basic steps:
1. Use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class;
1. Create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax;
1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects. Google Mock will catch any violation of the expectations as soon as it arises.
# Why Google Mock? #
While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_:
* Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it.
* The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions.
* The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next.
In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference.
Google Mock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/), but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the following problems is bothering you:
* You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means "rapid".
* Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive resources (e.g. a database).
* Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the network).
* You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum error), but it's not easy to cause one.
* You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to observing the side effects at the end of the action, which is awkward at best.
* You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those hand-written mocks.
We encourage you to use Google Mock as:
* a _design_ tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early and often. More iterations lead to better designs!
* a _testing_ tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the interaction between your module and its collaborators.
# Getting Started #
Using Google Mock is easy! Inside your C++ source file, just `#include` `"gtest/gtest.h"` and `"gmock/gmock.h"`, and you are ready to go.
# A Case for Mock Turtles #
Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that relies on a LOGO-like API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are like this. Fortunately, you learned about Dependency Injection and know the right thing to do: instead of having your application talk to the drawing API directly, wrap the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface:
```
class Turtle {
...
virtual ~Turtle() {}
virtual void PenUp() = 0;
virtual void PenDown() = 0;
virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0;
virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0;
virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0;
virtual int GetX() const = 0;
virtual int GetY() const = 0;
};
```
(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for **all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.)
You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()` and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and `GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the turtle.
Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary images), and run _much, much faster_.
# Writing the Mock Class #
If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock class, relax - Google Mock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.)
## How to Define It ##
Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to follow:
1. Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`.
1. Take a _virtual_ function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to [mock non-virtual methods using templates](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods), it's much more involved). Count how many arguments it has.
1. In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHODn();` (or `MOCK_CONST_METHODn();` if you are mocking a `const` method), where `n` is the number of the arguments; if you counted wrong, shame on you, and a compiler error will tell you so.
1. Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste the _function name_ as the _first_ argument to the macro, and leave what's left as the _second_ argument (in case you're curious, this is the _type of the function_).
1. Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done.
After the process, you should have something like:
```
#include "gmock/gmock.h" // Brings in Google Mock.
class MockTurtle : public Turtle {
public:
...
MOCK_METHOD0(PenUp, void());
MOCK_METHOD0(PenDown, void());
MOCK_METHOD1(Forward, void(int distance));
MOCK_METHOD1(Turn, void(int degrees));
MOCK_METHOD2(GoTo, void(int x, int y));
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetX, int());
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetY, int());
};
```
You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD*` macros will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple! Once you get the hang of it, you can pump out mock classes faster than your source-control system can handle your check-ins.
**Tip:** If even this is too much work for you, you'll find the
`gmock_gen.py` tool in Google Mock's `scripts/generator/` directory (courtesy of the [cppclean](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) project) useful. This command-line
tool requires that you have Python 2.4 installed. You give it a C++ file and the name of an abstract class defined in it,
and it will print the definition of the mock class for you. Due to the
complexity of the C++ language, this script may not always work, but
it can be quite handy when it does. For more details, read the [user documentation](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/generator/README).
## Where to Put It ##
When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition. Some people put it in a `*_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked (say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of `Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?)
So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others, define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), and put it in a `mock_foo.h`. Then everyone can reference `mock_foo.h` from their tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed.
Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of `Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your specific domain much better than `Foo` does.
# Using Mocks in Tests #
Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is:
1. Import the Google Mock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file. Remember that namespaces are a good idea and good for your health.).
1. Create some mock objects.
1. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called? With what arguments? What should it do? etc.).
1. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using Google Test assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately.
1. When a mock is destructed, Google Mock will automatically check whether all expectations on it have been satisfied.
Here's an example:
```
#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h"
#include "gmock/gmock.h"
#include "gtest/gtest.h"
using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1
TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) {
MockTurtle turtle; // #2
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3
.Times(AtLeast(1));
Painter painter(&turtle); // #4
EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10));
} // #5
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
// The following line must be executed to initialize Google Mock
// (and Google Test) before running the tests.
::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv);
return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
}
```
As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with a message like this:
```
path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure
Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation:
Actually: never called;
Expected: called at least once.
```
**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `<Enter>` on the line number displayed in the error message to jump right to the failed expectation.
**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't happen. Therefore it's a good idea to use a heap leak checker in your tests when you allocate mocks on the heap.
**Important note:** Google Mock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. In particular, you mustn't interleave `EXPECT_CALL()`s and calls to the mock functions.
This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur _in the future_, not that a call has occurred. Why does Google Mock work like that? Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows Google Mock to report a violation as soon as it arises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available. This makes debugging much easier.
Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve the same effect without using Google Mock. However, as we shall reveal soon, Google Mock allows you to do _much more_ with the mocks.
## Using Google Mock with Any Testing Framework ##
If you want to use something other than Google Test (e.g. [CppUnit](http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/cppunit/index.php?title=Main_Page) or
[CxxTest](http://cxxtest.tigris.org/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to:
```
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
// The following line causes Google Mock to throw an exception on failure,
// which will be interpreted by your testing framework as a test failure.
::testing::GTEST_FLAG(throw_on_failure) = true;
::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv);
... whatever your testing framework requires ...
}
```
This approach has a catch: it makes Google Mock throw an exception
from a mock object's destructor sometimes. With some compilers, this
sometimes causes the test program to crash. You'll still be able to
notice that the test has failed, but it's not a graceful failure.
A better solution is to use Google Test's
[event listener API](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/V1_6_AdvancedGuide#Extending_Google_Test_by_Handling_Test_Events)
to report a test failure to your testing framework properly. You'll need to
implement the `OnTestPartResult()` method of the event listener interface, but it
should be straightforward.
If this turns out to be too much work, we suggest that you stick with
Google Test, which works with Google Mock seamlessly (in fact, it is
technically part of Google Mock.). If there is a reason that you
cannot use Google Test, please let us know.
# Setting Expectations #
The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the _right expectations_ on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you intend it to catch. Google Mock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just right."
## General Syntax ##
In Google Mock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock method. The general syntax is:
```
EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.Times(cardinality)
.WillOnce(action)
.WillRepeatedly(action);
```
The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`). (Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.)
The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in the coming sections.
This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.Times(5)
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(150))
.WillRepeatedly(Return(200));
```
says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time. Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL).
**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? It serves two purposes: first it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human reader), and second it allows Google Mock to include the source file location of a failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier.
## Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? ##
When a mock function takes arguments, we must specify what arguments we are expecting; for example:
```
// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units.
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
```
Sometimes you may not want to be too specific (Remember that talk about tests being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary - no more, no less.). If you care to check that `Forward()` will be called but aren't interested in its actual argument, write `_` as the argument, which means "anything goes":
```
using ::testing::_;
...
// Expects the turtle to move forward.
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_));
```
`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected.
A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](V1_6_CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher:
```
using ::testing::Ge;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100)));
```
This checks that the turtle will be told to go forward by at least 100 units.
## Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called? ##
The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells _how many times_ the call should occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly.
An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and Google Mock will report a Google Test failure whenever the function is (wrongfully) called.
We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see the [CheatSheet](V1_6_CheatSheet.md).
The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, Google Mock will infer the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember:
* If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`.
* If there are `n WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`.
* If there are `n WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`.
**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be called twice but actually called four times?
## Actions: What Should It Do? ##
Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in Google Mock.
First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a `bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). If you don't say anything, this behavior will be used.
Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example,
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(200))
.WillOnce(Return(300));
```
This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively.
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(200))
.WillRepeatedly(Return(300));
```
says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called _at least twice_ (Google Mock knows this as we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no explicit `Times()`), will return 100 the first time, 200 the second time, and 300 from the third time on.
Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, Google Mock will not try to infer the cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are `WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, Google Mock will do the _default_ action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a `WillRepeatedly()`.).
What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a reference using `ReturnRef(variable)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among [others](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CheatSheet#Actions).
**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want:
```
int n = 100;
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.Times(4)
.WillRepeatedly(Return(n++));
```
Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](V1_6_CookBook.md).
Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means?
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
.Times(4)
.WillOnce(Return(100));
```
Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()` clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions.
## Using Multiple Expectations ##
So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More realistically, you're going to specify expectations on multiple mock methods, which may be from multiple mock objects.
By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example:
```
using ::testing::_;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2
.Times(2);
```
If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however, the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK, as now #1 will be the matching expectation.
**Side note:** Why does Google Mock search for a match in the _reverse_ order of the expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it.
## Ordered vs Unordered Calls ##
By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the order the expectations are specified.
Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;...
TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) {
...
{
InSequence dummy;
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown());
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp());
}
Foo();
}
```
By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are put into a _sequence_ and have to occur _sequentially_. Since we are just relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work, its name is really irrelevant.
In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error.
(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](V1_6_CookBook.md).)
## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ##
Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)?
After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!):
```
using ::testing::_;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1
.Times(AnyNumber());
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2
.Times(2);
```
Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, Google Mock will see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two such calls, Google Mock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've told you in the "Using Multiple Expectations" section above.
This example shows that **expectations in Google Mock are "sticky" by default**, in the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases easier to express and understand.).
Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code say?
```
using ::testing::Return;
...
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i));
}
```
If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called, the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately lead to an "upper bound exceeded" error - this piece of code is not very useful!
One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is to explicitly say that the expectations are _not_ sticky. In other words, they should _retire_ as soon as they are saturated:
```
using ::testing::Return;
...
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
```
And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;
...
{
InSequence s;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
}
```
By the way, the other situation where an expectation may _not_ be sticky is when it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to match any call).
## Uninteresting Calls ##
A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting. For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and `GetY()` get called.
In Google Mock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output, but it won't be a failure.
# What Now? #
Congratulations! You've learned enough about Google Mock to start using it. Now, you might want to join the [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion group and actually write some tests using Google Mock - it will be fun. Hey, it may even be addictive - you've been warned.
Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](V1_6_CookBook.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss.
googlemock/docs/v1_6/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md
-628
View File
@@ -1,628 +0,0 @@
Please send your questions to the
[googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion
group. If you need help with compiler errors, make sure you have
tried [Google Mock Doctor](#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md) first.
## When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead. What's the problem? ##
In order for a method to be mocked, it must be _virtual_, unless you use the [high-perf dependency injection technique](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods).
## I wrote some matchers. After I upgraded to a new version of Google Mock, they no longer compile. What's going on? ##
After version 1.4.0 of Google Mock was released, we had an idea on how
to make it easier to write matchers that can generate informative
messages efficiently. We experimented with this idea and liked what
we saw. Therefore we decided to implement it.
Unfortunately, this means that if you have defined your own matchers
by implementing `MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`,
your definitions will no longer compile. Matchers defined using the
`MATCHER*` family of macros are not affected.
Sorry for the hassle if your matchers are affected. We believe it's
in everyone's long-term interest to make this change sooner than
later. Fortunately, it's usually not hard to migrate an existing
matcher to the new API. Here's what you need to do:
If you wrote your matcher like this:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
you'll need to change it to:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
(i.e. rename `Matches()` to `MatchAndExplain()` and give it a second
argument of type `MatchResultListener*`.)
If you were also using `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to improve the matcher
message:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the lastest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
virtual void ExplainMatchResultTo(MyType value,
::std::ostream* os) const {
// Prints some helpful information to os to help
// a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match).
*os << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo();
}
...
};
```
you should move the logic of `ExplainMatchResultTo()` into
`MatchAndExplain()`, using the `MatchResultListener` argument where
the `::std::ostream` was used:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
*listener << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo();
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
If your matcher is defined using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
you should rename the `Matches()` method to `MatchAndExplain()` and
add a `MatchResultListener*` argument (the same as what you need to do
for matchers defined by implementing `MatcherInterface`):
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
If your polymorphic matcher uses `ExplainMatchResultTo()` for better
failure messages:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
void ExplainMatchResultTo(const MyGreatMatcher& matcher,
MyType value,
::std::ostream* os) {
// Prints some helpful information to os to help
// a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match).
*os << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar();
}
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
you'll need to move the logic inside `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to
`MatchAndExplain()`:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
*listener << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar();
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
For more information, you can read these
[two](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Writing_New_Monomorphic_Matchers)
[recipes](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Matchers)
from the cookbook. As always, you
are welcome to post questions on `googlemock@googlegroups.com` if you
need any help.
## When using Google Mock, do I have to use Google Test as the testing framework? I have my favorite testing framework and don't want to switch. ##
Google Mock works out of the box with Google Test. However, it's easy
to configure it to work with any testing framework of your choice.
[Here](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_ForDummies#Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework) is how.
## How am I supposed to make sense of these horrible template errors? ##
If you are confused by the compiler errors gcc threw at you,
try consulting the _Google Mock Doctor_ tool first. What it does is to
scan stdin for gcc error messages, and spit out diagnoses on the
problems (we call them diseases) your code has.
To "install", run command:
```
alias gmd='<path to googlemock>/scripts/gmock_doctor.py'
```
To use it, do:
```
<your-favorite-build-command> <your-test> 2>&1 | gmd
```
For example:
```
make my_test 2>&1 | gmd
```
Or you can run `gmd` and copy-n-paste gcc's error messages to it.
## Can I mock a variadic function? ##
You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis
(`...`) arguments) directly in Google Mock.
The problem is that in general, there is _no way_ for a mock object to
know how many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what
the arguments' types are. Only the _author of the base class_ knows
the protocol, and we cannot look into his head.
Therefore, to mock such a function, the _user_ must teach the mock
object how to figure out the number of arguments and their types. One
way to do it is to provide overloaded versions of the function.
Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature.
They are unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have
constructors or destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in
C++ as much as possible.
## MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why? ##
If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1:
```
class Foo {
...
virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0;
};
class MockFoo : public Foo {
...
MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, void(const int i));
};
```
You may get the following warning:
```
warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier
```
This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc ,for
example. If you use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning:
```
warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers
```
In C++, if you _declare_ a function with a `const` parameter, the
`const` modifier is _ignored_. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above
is equivalent to:
```
class Foo {
...
virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference.
};
```
In fact, you can _declare_ Bar() with an `int` parameter, and _define_
it with a `const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them
up.
Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method
_declaration_, we recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`.
That should workaround the VC bug.
Note that we are talking about the _top-level_ `const` modifier here.
If the function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring
the _pointee_ or _referee_ as `const` is still meaningful. For
example, the following two declarations are _not_ equivalent:
```
void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const.
void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is.
```
## I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do? ##
We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++
uses 5~6 times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest
to avoid `/clr` when compiling native C++ mocks.
## I can't figure out why Google Mock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do? ##
You might want to run your test with
`--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets Google Mock print a trace
of every mock function call it receives. By studying the trace,
you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met.
## How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? ##
```
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.Times(0);
```
## I have a failed test where Google Mock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant? ##
When Google Mock detects a failure, it prints relevant information
(the mock function arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and
etc) to help the user debug. If another failure is detected, Google
Mock will do the same, including printing the state of relevant
expectations.
Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures,
and you'll see the same description of the state twice. They are
however _not_ redundant, as they refer to _different points in time_.
The fact they are the same _is_ interesting information.
## I get a heap check failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong? ##
Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a
virtual destructor?
Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is
virtual. Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following
code:
```
class Base {
public:
// Not virtual, but should be.
~Base() { ... }
...
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
...
private:
std::string value_;
};
...
Base* p = new Derived;
...
delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not
// - value_ is leaked.
```
By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly
called when `delete p` is executed, and the heap checker
will be happy.
## The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does Google Mock do that? ##
When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the
// reverse order. This sucks big time!!!
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
```
The problem is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's
intent.
By default, expectations don't have to be matched in _any_ particular
order. If you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be
explicit. This is Google Mock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's
easy to accidentally over-specify your tests, and we want to make it
harder to do so.
There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either
put the expectations in sequence:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations
// in their natural order.
{
InSequence s;
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
```
or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time.
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
```
Back to the original questions: why does Google Mock search the
expectations (and `ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this
allows a user to set up a mock's behavior for the common case early
(e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase)
and customize it with more specific rules later. If Google Mock
searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be
possible.
## Google Mock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT\_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON\_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case? ##
When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the
latter. So the answer is that we think it's better to show the
warning.
Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's
constructor or `SetUp()`, as the default behavior rarely changes from
test to test. Then in the test body they set the expectations, which
are often different for each test. Having an `ON_CALL` in the set-up
part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected. If there's
no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If
we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs
may creep in unnoticed.
If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write
```
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.WillRepeatedly(...);
```
instead of
```
ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.WillByDefault(...);
```
This tells Google Mock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be
printed.
Also, you can control the verbosity using the `--gmock_verbose` flag.
If you find the output too noisy when debugging, just choose a less
verbose level.
## How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action? ##
If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not
supported by Google Mock directly, remember that you can define your own
actions using
[MakeAction()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Writing_New_Actions) or
[MakePolymorphicAction()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Actions),
or you can write a stub function and invoke it using
[Invoke()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Using_Functions_Methods_Functors).
## MOCK\_METHODn()'s second argument looks funny. Why don't you use the MOCK\_METHODn(Method, return\_type, arg\_1, ..., arg\_n) syntax? ##
What?! I think it's beautiful. :-)
While which syntax looks more natural is a subjective matter to some
extent, Google Mock's syntax was chosen for several practical advantages it
has.
Try to mock a function that takes a map as an argument:
```
virtual int GetSize(const map<int, std::string>& m);
```
Using the proposed syntax, it would be:
```
MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int, const map<int, std::string>& m);
```
Guess what? You'll get a compiler error as the compiler thinks that
`const map<int, std::string>& m` are **two**, not one, arguments. To work
around this you can use `typedef` to give the map type a name, but
that gets in the way of your work. Google Mock's syntax avoids this
problem as the function's argument types are protected inside a pair
of parentheses:
```
// This compiles fine.
MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int(const map<int, std::string>& m));
```
You still need a `typedef` if the return type contains an unprotected
comma, but that's much rarer.
Other advantages include:
1. `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, int, bool)` can leave a reader wonder whether the method returns `int` or `bool`, while there won't be such confusion using Google Mock's syntax.
1. The way Google Mock describes a function type is nothing new, although many people may not be familiar with it. The same syntax was used in C, and the `function` library in `tr1` uses this syntax extensively. Since `tr1` will become a part of the new version of STL, we feel very comfortable to be consistent with it.
1. The function type syntax is also used in other parts of Google Mock's API (e.g. the action interface) in order to make the implementation tractable. A user needs to learn it anyway in order to utilize Google Mock's more advanced features. We'd as well stick to the same syntax in `MOCK_METHOD*`!
## My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it? ##
You can, but you need to make some changes.
In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function,
it's a sign that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less
flexible, less reusable, less testable, etc). You are probably better
off defining a small interface and call the function through that
interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's a bit of work
initially, but usually pays for itself quickly.
This Google Testing Blog
[post](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html)
says it excellently. Check it out.
## My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. Google Mock sucks! ##
I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-)
With Google Mock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be
tempted to use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and
sometimes you may find them, well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in
the latter case?
When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and
assert that it returns the correct value or that the system is in an
expected state. This is sometimes called "state-based testing".
Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing:
instead of checking the system state at the very end, mock objects
verify that they are invoked the right way and report an error as soon
as it arises, giving you a handle on the precise context in which the
error was triggered. This is often more effective and economical to
do than state-based testing.
If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to
simulate the real object, you are probably better off using a fake.
Using a mock in this case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for
mocks to perform complex actions. If you experience this and think
that mocks suck, you are just not using the right tool for your
problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the wrong problem. :-)
## I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic? ##
By all means, NO! It's just an FYI.
What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any
expectations on it (by Google Mock's rule this means that you are not
interested in calls to this function and therefore it can be called
any number of times), and it is called. That's OK - you didn't say
it's not OK to call the function!
What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but
forgot to write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While
one can argue that it's the user's fault, Google Mock tries to be nice and
prints you a note.
So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any
uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make
your life easier, Google Mock prints the function name and arguments
when an uninteresting call is encountered.
## I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the action interface? ##
Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient
for your circumstance.
Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it
using `Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in
functions of different types (e.g. if you are defining
`Return(value)`), `MakePolymorphicAction()` is
easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what types of
functions the action can be used in, and implementing
`ActionInterface` is the way to go here. See the implementation of
`Return()` in `include/gmock/gmock-actions.h` for an example.
## I'm using the set-argument-pointee action, and the compiler complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean? ##
You got this error as Google Mock has no idea what value it should return
when the mock method is called. `SetArgPointee()` says what the
side effect is, but doesn't say what the return value should be. You
need `DoAll()` to chain a `SetArgPointee()` with a `Return()`.
See this [recipe](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_6_CookBook#Mocking_Side_Effects) for more details and an example.
## My question is not in your FAQ! ##
If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are
some other resources you can use:
1. read other [wiki pages](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/w/list),
1. search the mailing list [archive](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock/topics),
1. ask it on [googlemock@googlegroups.com](mailto:googlemock@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) before you can post.).
Please note that creating an issue in the
[issue tracker](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/issues/list) is _not_
a good way to get your answer, as it is monitored infrequently by a
very small number of people.
When asking a question, it's helpful to provide as much of the
following information as possible (people cannot help you if there's
not enough information in your question):
* the version (or the revision number if you check out from SVN directly) of Google Mock you use (Google Mock is under active development, so it's possible that your problem has been solved in a later version),
* your operating system,
* the name and version of your compiler,
* the complete command line flags you give to your compiler,
* the complete compiler error messages (if the question is about compilation),
* the _actual_ code (ideally, a minimal but complete program) that has the problem you encounter.
googlemock/docs/v1_7/CheatSheet.md
-556
View File
@@ -1,556 +0,0 @@
# Defining a Mock Class #
## Mocking a Normal Class ##
Given
```
class Foo {
...
virtual ~Foo();
virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0;
virtual string Describe(int type) = 0;
virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0;
};
```
(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as
```
#include "gmock/gmock.h"
class MockFoo : public Foo {
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetSize, int());
MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(const char* name));
MOCK_METHOD1(Describe, string(int type));
MOCK_METHOD2(Process, bool(Bar elem, int count));
};
```
To create a "nice" mock object which ignores all uninteresting calls,
or a "strict" mock object, which treats them as failures:
```
NiceMock<MockFoo> nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
StrictMock<MockFoo> strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
```
## Mocking a Class Template ##
To mock
```
template <typename Elem>
class StackInterface {
public:
...
virtual ~StackInterface();
virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0;
};
```
(note that `~StackInterface()` **must** be virtual) just append `_T` to the `MOCK_*` macros:
```
template <typename Elem>
class MockStack : public StackInterface<Elem> {
public:
...
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int());
MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x));
};
```
## Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions ##
If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you
can specify it by appending `_WITH_CALLTYPE` to any of the macros
described in the previous two sections and supplying the calling
convention as the first argument to the macro. For example,
```
MOCK_METHOD_1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int n));
MOCK_CONST_METHOD2_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Bar, int(double x, double y));
```
where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `<objbase.h>` on Windows.
# Using Mocks in Tests #
The typical flow is:
1. Import the Google Mock names you need to use. All Google Mock names are in the `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted.
1. Create the mock objects.
1. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects.
1. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What wil they do?).
1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result using [Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) assertions.
1. When a mock objects is destructed, Google Mock automatically verifies that all expectations on it have been satisfied.
Here is an example:
```
using ::testing::Return; // #1
TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) {
MockFoo foo; // #2
ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3
.WillByDefault(Return(1));
// ... other default actions ...
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4
.Times(3)
.WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5"));
// ... other expectations ...
EXPECT_EQ("good", MyProductionFunction(&foo)); // #5
} // #6
```
# Setting Default Actions #
Google Mock has a **built-in default action** for any function that
returns `void`, `bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer.
To customize the default action for functions with return type `T` globally:
```
using ::testing::DefaultValue;
DefaultValue<T>::Set(value); // Sets the default value to be returned.
// ... use the mocks ...
DefaultValue<T>::Clear(); // Resets the default value.
```
To customize the default action for a particular method, use `ON_CALL()`:
```
ON_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.With(multi_argument_matcher) ?
.WillByDefault(action);
```
# Setting Expectations #
`EXPECT_CALL()` sets **expectations** on a mock method (How will it be
called? What will it do?):
```
EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.With(multi_argument_matcher) ?
.Times(cardinality) ?
.InSequence(sequences) *
.After(expectations) *
.WillOnce(action) *
.WillRepeatedly(action) ?
.RetiresOnSaturation(); ?
```
If `Times()` is omitted, the cardinality is assumed to be:
* `Times(1)` when there is neither `WillOnce()` nor `WillRepeatedly()`;
* `Times(n)` when there are `n WillOnce()`s but no `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1; or
* `Times(AtLeast(n))` when there are `n WillOnce()`s and a `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0.
A method with no `EXPECT_CALL()` is free to be invoked _any number of times_, and the default action will be taken each time.
# Matchers #
A **matcher** matches a _single_ argument. You can use it inside
`ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value
directly:
| `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` | Asserts that `value` matches `matcher`. |
|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------------|
| `ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. |
Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument) are
divided into several categories:
## Wildcard ##
|`_`|`argument` can be any value of the correct type.|
|:--|:-----------------------------------------------|
|`A<type>()` or `An<type>()`|`argument` can be any value of type `type`. |
## Generic Comparison ##
|`Eq(value)` or `value`|`argument == value`|
|:---------------------|:------------------|
|`Ge(value)` |`argument >= value`|
|`Gt(value)` |`argument > value` |
|`Le(value)` |`argument <= value`|
|`Lt(value)` |`argument < value` |
|`Ne(value)` |`argument != value`|
|`IsNull()` |`argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart).|
|`NotNull()` |`argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart).|
|`Ref(variable)` |`argument` is a reference to `variable`.|
|`TypedEq<type>(value)`|`argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded.|
Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a _copy_ of `value` in case it's
modified or destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value`
doesn't have a public copy constructor, try wrap it in `ByRef()`,
e.g. `Eq(ByRef(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure
`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your
matcher will be changed.
## Floating-Point Matchers ##
|`DoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal.|
|:-------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`FloatEq(a_float)` |`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. |
|`NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)`|`argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. |
|`NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)`|`argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. |
The above matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in
[Google Test](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/)). They
automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute
value of the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to
the IEEE standard, which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to
return false. The `NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as
equal, which is often what a user wants.
|`DoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal.|
|:------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`FloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)` |`argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal. |
|`NanSensitiveDoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. |
|`NanSensitiveFloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)`|`argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. |
## String Matchers ##
The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object:
|`ContainsRegex(string)`|`argument` matches the given regular expression.|
|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------|
|`EndsWith(suffix)` |`argument` ends with string `suffix`. |
|`HasSubstr(string)` |`argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. |
|`MatchesRegex(string)` |`argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character.|
|`StartsWith(prefix)` |`argument` starts with string `prefix`. |
|`StrCaseEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. |
|`StrCaseNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case.|
|`StrEq(string)` |`argument` is equal to `string`. |
|`StrNe(string)` |`argument` is not equal to `string`. |
`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` use the regular expression
syntax defined
[here](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/AdvancedGuide#Regular_Expression_Syntax).
`StrCaseEq()`, `StrCaseNe()`, `StrEq()`, and `StrNe()` work for wide
strings as well.
## Container Matchers ##
Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use
`Eq(expected_container)` or simply `expected_container` to match a
container exactly. If you want to write the elements in-line,
match them more flexibly, or get more informative messages, you can use:
| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. |
|:-------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. |
| `Each(e)` | `argument` is a container where _every_ element matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. |
| `ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the i-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed. |
| `ElementsAreArray({ e0, e1, ..., en })`, `ElementsAreArray(array)`, or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, vector, or C-style array. |
| `IsEmpty()` | `argument` is an empty container (`container.empty()`). |
| `Pointwise(m, container)` | `argument` contains the same number of elements as in `container`, and for all i, (the i-th element in `argument`, the i-th element in `container`) match `m`, which is a matcher on 2-tuples. E.g. `Pointwise(Le(), upper_bounds)` verifies that each element in `argument` doesn't exceed the corresponding element in `upper_bounds`. See more detail below. |
| `SizeIs(m)` | `argument` is a container whose size matches `m`. E.g. `SizeIs(2)` or `SizeIs(Lt(2))`. |
| `UnorderedElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, and under some permutation each element matches an `ei` (for a different `i`), which can be a value or a matcher. 0 to 10 arguments are allowed. |
| `UnorderedElementsAreArray({ e0, e1, ..., en })`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array)`, or `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `UnorderedElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, vector, or C-style array. |
| `WhenSorted(m)` | When `argument` is sorted using the `<` operator, it matches container matcher `m`. E.g. `WhenSorted(UnorderedElementsAre(1, 2, 3))` verifies that `argument` contains elements `1`, `2`, and `3`, ignoring order. |
| `WhenSortedBy(comparator, m)` | The same as `WhenSorted(m)`, except that the given comparator instead of `<` is used to sort `argument`. E.g. `WhenSortedBy(std::greater<int>(), ElementsAre(3, 2, 1))`. |
Notes:
* These matchers can also match:
1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), and
1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#Multiargument_Matchers.md)).
* The array being matched may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be arrays).
* `m` in `Pointwise(m, ...)` should be a matcher for `std::tr1::tuple<T, U>` where `T` and `U` are the element type of the actual container and the expected container, respectively. For example, to compare two `Foo` containers where `Foo` doesn't support `operator==` but has an `Equals()` method, one might write:
```
using ::std::tr1::get;
MATCHER(FooEq, "") {
return get<0>(arg).Equals(get<1>(arg));
}
...
EXPECT_THAT(actual_foos, Pointwise(FooEq(), expected_foos));
```
## Member Matchers ##
|`Field(&class::field, m)`|`argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.|
|:------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Key(e)` |`argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`.|
|`Pair(m1, m2)` |`argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. |
|`Property(&class::property, m)`|`argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_.|
## Matching the Result of a Function or Functor ##
|`ResultOf(f, m)`|`f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor.|
|:---------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|
## Pointer Matchers ##
|`Pointee(m)`|`argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`.|
|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
## Multiargument Matchers ##
Technically, all matchers match a _single_ value. A "multi-argument"
matcher is just one that matches a _tuple_. The following matchers can
be used to match a tuple `(x, y)`:
|`Eq()`|`x == y`|
|:-----|:-------|
|`Ge()`|`x >= y`|
|`Gt()`|`x > y` |
|`Le()`|`x <= y`|
|`Lt()`|`x < y` |
|`Ne()`|`x != y`|
You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments
(or reorder them) to participate in the matching:
|`AllArgs(m)`|Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`.|
|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Args<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(m)`|The tuple of the `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments matches `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Eq())`.|
## Composite Matchers ##
You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers:
|`AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.|
|:-----------------------|:---------------------------------------------------|
|`AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)`|`argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`.|
|`Not(m)` |`argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. |
## Adapters for Matchers ##
|`MatcherCast<T>(m)`|casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`.|
|:------------------|:--------------------------------------|
|`SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)`| [safely casts](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Casting_Matchers) matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`. |
|`Truly(predicate)` |`predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor.|
## Matchers as Predicates ##
|`Matches(m)(value)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. You can use `Matches(m)` alone as a unary functor.|
|:------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)`|evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`. |
|`Value(value, m)` |evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. |
## Defining Matchers ##
| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. |
|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------|
| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a macher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. |
| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " between " + PrintToString(a) + " and " + PrintToString(b)) { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. |
**Notes:**
1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class.
1. The matcher body must be _purely functional_ (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters).
1. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a string.
## Matchers as Test Assertions ##
|`ASSERT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a [fatal failure](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/Primer#Assertions) if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`.|
|:---------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`EXPECT_THAT(expression, m)`|Generates a non-fatal failure if the value of `expression` doesn't match matcher `m`. |
# Actions #
**Actions** specify what a mock function should do when invoked.
## Returning a Value ##
|`Return()`|Return from a `void` mock function.|
|:---------|:----------------------------------|
|`Return(value)`|Return `value`. If the type of `value` is different to the mock function's return type, `value` is converted to the latter type <i>at the time the expectation is set</i>, not when the action is executed.|
|`ReturnArg<N>()`|Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument.|
|`ReturnNew<T>(a1, ..., ak)`|Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time.|
|`ReturnNull()`|Return a null pointer. |
|`ReturnPointee(ptr)`|Return the value pointed to by `ptr`.|
|`ReturnRef(variable)`|Return a reference to `variable`. |
|`ReturnRefOfCopy(value)`|Return a reference to a copy of `value`; the copy lives as long as the action.|
## Side Effects ##
|`Assign(&variable, value)`|Assign `value` to variable.|
|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|
| `DeleteArg<N>()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. |
| `SaveArg<N>(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. |
| `SaveArgPointee<N>(pointer)` | Save the value pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. |
| `SetArgReferee<N>(value)` | Assign value to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. |
|`SetArgPointee<N>(value)` |Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument.|
|`SetArgumentPointee<N>(value)`|Same as `SetArgPointee<N>(value)`. Deprecated. Will be removed in v1.7.0.|
|`SetArrayArgument<N>(first, last)`|Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range.|
|`SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)`|Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`.|
|`Throw(exception)` |Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0.|
## Using a Function or a Functor as an Action ##
|`Invoke(f)`|Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor.|
|:----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the {method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. |
|`InvokeWithoutArgs(f)`|Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. |
|`InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)`|Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. |
|`InvokeArgument<N>(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)`|Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments.|
The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value
of the action.
When defining a function or functor to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused parameters as `Unused`:
```
double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); }
...
EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance));
```
In `InvokeArgument<N>(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference, wrap it inside `ByRef()`. For example,
```
InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), ByRef(foo))
```
calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by value, and `foo` by reference.
## Default Action ##
|`DoDefault()`|Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one).|
|:------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error.
## Composite Actions ##
|`DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)`|Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void. |
|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|`IgnoreResult(a)` |Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. |
|`WithArg<N>(a)` |Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. |
|`WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(a)`|Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. |
|`WithoutArgs(a)` |Perform action `a` without any arguments. |
## Defining Actions ##
| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. |
|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. |
| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. |
The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class.
# Cardinalities #
These are used in `Times()` to specify how many times a mock function will be called:
|`AnyNumber()`|The function can be called any number of times.|
|:------------|:----------------------------------------------|
|`AtLeast(n)` |The call is expected at least `n` times. |
|`AtMost(n)` |The call is expected at most `n` times. |
|`Between(m, n)`|The call is expected between `m` and `n` (inclusive) times.|
|`Exactly(n) or n`|The call is expected exactly `n` times. In particular, the call should never happen when `n` is 0.|
# Expectation Order #
By default, the expectations can be matched in _any_ order. If some
or all expectations must be matched in a given order, there are two
ways to specify it. They can be used either independently or
together.
## The After Clause ##
```
using ::testing::Expectation;
...
Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitX());
Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitY());
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.After(init_x, init_y);
```
says that `Bar()` can be called only after both `InitX()` and
`InitY()` have been called.
If you don't know how many pre-requisites an expectation has when you
write it, you can use an `ExpectationSet` to collect them:
```
using ::testing::ExpectationSet;
...
ExpectationSet all_inits;
for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) {
all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitElement(i));
}
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.After(all_inits);
```
says that `Bar()` can be called only after all elements have been
initialized (but we don't care about which elements get initialized
before the others).
Modifying an `ExpectationSet` after using it in an `.After()` doesn't
affect the meaning of the `.After()`.
## Sequences ##
When you have a long chain of sequential expectations, it's easier to
specify the order using **sequences**, which don't require you to given
each expectation in the chain a different name. <i>All expected<br>
calls</i> in the same sequence must occur in the order they are
specified.
```
using ::testing::Sequence;
Sequence s1, s2;
...
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Reset())
.InSequence(s1, s2)
.WillOnce(Return(true));
EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetSize())
.InSequence(s1)
.WillOnce(Return(1));
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(A<const char*>()))
.InSequence(s2)
.WillOnce(Return("dummy"));
```
says that `Reset()` must be called before _both_ `GetSize()` _and_
`Describe()`, and the latter two can occur in any order.
To put many expectations in a sequence conveniently:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;
{
InSequence dummy;
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
...
EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
}
```
says that all expected calls in the scope of `dummy` must occur in
strict order. The name `dummy` is irrelevant.)
# Verifying and Resetting a Mock #
Google Mock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or you can do it earlier:
```
using ::testing::Mock;
...
// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj;
// returns true iff successful.
Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj);
...
// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj;
// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL();
// returns true iff successful.
Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj);
```
You can also tell Google Mock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't
need to be verified:
```
Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj);
```
# Mock Classes #
Google Mock defines a convenient mock class template
```
class MockFunction<R(A1, ..., An)> {
public:
MOCK_METHODn(Call, R(A1, ..., An));
};
```
See this [recipe](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Using_Check_Points) for one application of it.
# Flags #
| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. |
|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|
| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. |
googlemock/docs/v1_7/CookBook.md
-3432
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff
googlemock/docs/v1_7/Documentation.md
-12
View File
@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **(the SVN trunk version)**
- **if you use a released version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.**
* [ForDummies](V1_7_ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock.
* [CheatSheet](V1_7_CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference.
* [CookBook](V1_7_CookBook.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock.
* [FrequentlyAskedQuestions](V1_7_FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) -- check here before asking a question on the mailing list.
To contribute code to Google Mock, read:
* [DevGuide](DevGuide.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch.
* [Pump Manual](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/PumpManual) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files.
googlemock/docs/v1_7/ForDummies.md
-439
View File
@@ -1,439 +0,0 @@
(**Note:** If you get compiler errors that you don't understand, be sure to consult [Google Mock Doctor](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error).)
# What Is Google C++ Mocking Framework? #
When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc).
**Note:** It is easy to confuse the term _fake objects_ with mock objects. Fakes and mocks actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD) community:
* **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of a fake.
* **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with _expectations_, which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing to remember is that a mock allows you to check the _interaction_ between itself and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks will become much clearer once you start to use mocks.
**Google C++ Mocking Framework** (or **Google Mock** for short) is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/) do to Java.
Using Google Mock involves three basic steps:
1. Use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class;
1. Create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax;
1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects. Google Mock will catch any violation of the expectations as soon as it arises.
# Why Google Mock? #
While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_:
* Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it.
* The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions.
* The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next.
In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference.
Google Mock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by [jMock](http://www.jmock.org/) and [EasyMock](http://www.easymock.org/), but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the following problems is bothering you:
* You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means "rapid".
* Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive resources (e.g. a database).
* Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the network).
* You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum error), but it's not easy to cause one.
* You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to observing the side effects at the end of the action, which is awkward at best.
* You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those hand-written mocks.
We encourage you to use Google Mock as:
* a _design_ tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early and often. More iterations lead to better designs!
* a _testing_ tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the interaction between your module and its collaborators.
# Getting Started #
Using Google Mock is easy! Inside your C++ source file, just `#include` `"gtest/gtest.h"` and `"gmock/gmock.h"`, and you are ready to go.
# A Case for Mock Turtles #
Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that relies on a LOGO-like API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are like this. Fortunately, you learned about Dependency Injection and know the right thing to do: instead of having your application talk to the drawing API directly, wrap the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface:
```
class Turtle {
...
virtual ~Turtle() {}
virtual void PenUp() = 0;
virtual void PenDown() = 0;
virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0;
virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0;
virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0;
virtual int GetX() const = 0;
virtual int GetY() const = 0;
};
```
(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for **all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.)
You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()` and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and `GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the turtle.
Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary images), and run _much, much faster_.
# Writing the Mock Class #
If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock class, relax - Google Mock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.)
## How to Define It ##
Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to follow:
1. Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`.
1. Take a _virtual_ function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to [mock non-virtual methods using templates](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods), it's much more involved). Count how many arguments it has.
1. In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHODn();` (or `MOCK_CONST_METHODn();` if you are mocking a `const` method), where `n` is the number of the arguments; if you counted wrong, shame on you, and a compiler error will tell you so.
1. Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste the _function name_ as the _first_ argument to the macro, and leave what's left as the _second_ argument (in case you're curious, this is the _type of the function_).
1. Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done.
After the process, you should have something like:
```
#include "gmock/gmock.h" // Brings in Google Mock.
class MockTurtle : public Turtle {
public:
...
MOCK_METHOD0(PenUp, void());
MOCK_METHOD0(PenDown, void());
MOCK_METHOD1(Forward, void(int distance));
MOCK_METHOD1(Turn, void(int degrees));
MOCK_METHOD2(GoTo, void(int x, int y));
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetX, int());
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetY, int());
};
```
You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD*` macros will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple! Once you get the hang of it, you can pump out mock classes faster than your source-control system can handle your check-ins.
**Tip:** If even this is too much work for you, you'll find the
`gmock_gen.py` tool in Google Mock's `scripts/generator/` directory (courtesy of the [cppclean](http://code.google.com/p/cppclean/) project) useful. This command-line
tool requires that you have Python 2.4 installed. You give it a C++ file and the name of an abstract class defined in it,
and it will print the definition of the mock class for you. Due to the
complexity of the C++ language, this script may not always work, but
it can be quite handy when it does. For more details, read the [user documentation](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/source/browse/trunk/scripts/generator/README).
## Where to Put It ##
When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition. Some people put it in a `*_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked (say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of `Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?)
So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others, define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), and put it in a `mock_foo.h`. Then everyone can reference `mock_foo.h` from their tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed.
Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of `Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your specific domain much better than `Foo` does.
# Using Mocks in Tests #
Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is:
1. Import the Google Mock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file. Remember that namespaces are a good idea and good for your health.).
1. Create some mock objects.
1. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called? With what arguments? What should it do? etc.).
1. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using Google Test assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately.
1. When a mock is destructed, Google Mock will automatically check whether all expectations on it have been satisfied.
Here's an example:
```
#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h"
#include "gmock/gmock.h"
#include "gtest/gtest.h"
using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1
TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) {
MockTurtle turtle; // #2
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3
.Times(AtLeast(1));
Painter painter(&turtle); // #4
EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10));
} // #5
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
// The following line must be executed to initialize Google Mock
// (and Google Test) before running the tests.
::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv);
return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
}
```
As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with a message like this:
```
path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure
Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation:
Actually: never called;
Expected: called at least once.
```
**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `<Enter>` on the line number displayed in the error message to jump right to the failed expectation.
**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't happen. Therefore it's a good idea to use a heap leak checker in your tests when you allocate mocks on the heap.
**Important note:** Google Mock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. In particular, you mustn't interleave `EXPECT_CALL()`s and calls to the mock functions.
This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur _in the future_, not that a call has occurred. Why does Google Mock work like that? Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows Google Mock to report a violation as soon as it arises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available. This makes debugging much easier.
Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve the same effect without using Google Mock. However, as we shall reveal soon, Google Mock allows you to do _much more_ with the mocks.
## Using Google Mock with Any Testing Framework ##
If you want to use something other than Google Test (e.g. [CppUnit](http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/cppunit/index.php?title=Main_Page) or
[CxxTest](http://cxxtest.tigris.org/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to:
```
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
// The following line causes Google Mock to throw an exception on failure,
// which will be interpreted by your testing framework as a test failure.
::testing::GTEST_FLAG(throw_on_failure) = true;
::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv);
... whatever your testing framework requires ...
}
```
This approach has a catch: it makes Google Mock throw an exception
from a mock object's destructor sometimes. With some compilers, this
sometimes causes the test program to crash. You'll still be able to
notice that the test has failed, but it's not a graceful failure.
A better solution is to use Google Test's
[event listener API](http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/AdvancedGuide#Extending_Google_Test_by_Handling_Test_Events)
to report a test failure to your testing framework properly. You'll need to
implement the `OnTestPartResult()` method of the event listener interface, but it
should be straightforward.
If this turns out to be too much work, we suggest that you stick with
Google Test, which works with Google Mock seamlessly (in fact, it is
technically part of Google Mock.). If there is a reason that you
cannot use Google Test, please let us know.
# Setting Expectations #
The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the _right expectations_ on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you intend it to catch. Google Mock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just right."
## General Syntax ##
In Google Mock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock method. The general syntax is:
```
EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
.Times(cardinality)
.WillOnce(action)
.WillRepeatedly(action);
```
The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`). (Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.)
The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in the coming sections.
This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.Times(5)
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(150))
.WillRepeatedly(Return(200));
```
says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time. Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL).
**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? It serves two purposes: first it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human reader), and second it allows Google Mock to include the source file location of a failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier.
## Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? ##
When a mock function takes arguments, we must specify what arguments we are expecting; for example:
```
// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units.
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
```
Sometimes you may not want to be too specific (Remember that talk about tests being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary - no more, no less.). If you care to check that `Forward()` will be called but aren't interested in its actual argument, write `_` as the argument, which means "anything goes":
```
using ::testing::_;
...
// Expects the turtle to move forward.
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_));
```
`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected.
A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](V1_7_CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher:
```
using ::testing::Ge;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100)));
```
This checks that the turtle will be told to go forward by at least 100 units.
## Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called? ##
The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells _how many times_ the call should occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly.
An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and Google Mock will report a Google Test failure whenever the function is (wrongfully) called.
We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see the [CheatSheet](V1_7_CheatSheet.md).
The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, Google Mock will infer the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember:
* If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`.
* If there are `n WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`.
* If there are `n WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`.
**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be called twice but actually called four times?
## Actions: What Should It Do? ##
Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in Google Mock.
First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a `bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). If you don't say anything, this behavior will be used.
Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example,
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(200))
.WillOnce(Return(300));
```
This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively.
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
.WillOnce(Return(100))
.WillOnce(Return(200))
.WillRepeatedly(Return(300));
```
says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called _at least twice_ (Google Mock knows this as we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no explicit `Times()`), will return 100 the first time, 200 the second time, and 300 from the third time on.
Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, Google Mock will not try to infer the cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are `WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, Google Mock will do the _default_ action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a `WillRepeatedly()`.).
What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a reference using `ReturnRef(variable)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among [others](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CheatSheet#Actions).
**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want:
```
int n = 100;
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.Times(4)
.WillRepeatedly(Return(n++));
```
Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](V1_7_CookBook.md).
Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means?
```
using ::testing::Return;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
.Times(4)
.WillOnce(Return(100));
```
Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()` clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions.
## Using Multiple Expectations ##
So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More realistically, you're going to specify expectations on multiple mock methods, which may be from multiple mock objects.
By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example:
```
using ::testing::_;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2
.Times(2);
```
If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however, the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK, as now #1 will be the matching expectation.
**Side note:** Why does Google Mock search for a match in the _reverse_ order of the expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it.
## Ordered vs Unordered Calls ##
By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the order the expectations are specified.
Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;...
TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) {
...
{
InSequence dummy;
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown());
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp());
}
Foo();
}
```
By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are put into a _sequence_ and have to occur _sequentially_. Since we are just relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work, its name is really irrelevant.
In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error.
(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](V1_7_CookBook#Expecting_Partially_Ordered_Calls.md).)
## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ##
Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)?
After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!):
```
using ::testing::_;...
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1
.Times(AnyNumber());
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2
.Times(2);
```
Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, Google Mock will see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two such calls, Google Mock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've told you in the "Using Multiple Expectations" section above.
This example shows that **expectations in Google Mock are "sticky" by default**, in the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases easier to express and understand.).
Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code say?
```
using ::testing::Return;
...
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i));
}
```
If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called, the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately lead to an "upper bound exceeded" error - this piece of code is not very useful!
One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is to explicitly say that the expectations are _not_ sticky. In other words, they should _retire_ as soon as they are saturated:
```
using ::testing::Return;
...
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
```
And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence:
```
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;
...
{
InSequence s;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
.WillOnce(Return(10*i))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
}
```
By the way, the other situation where an expectation may _not_ be sticky is when it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to match any call).
## Uninteresting Calls ##
A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting. For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and `GetY()` get called.
In Google Mock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output, but it won't be a failure.
# What Now? #
Congratulations! You've learned enough about Google Mock to start using it. Now, you might want to join the [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion group and actually write some tests using Google Mock - it will be fun. Hey, it may even be addictive - you've been warned.
Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](V1_7_CookBook.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss.
googlemock/docs/v1_7/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md
-628
View File
@@ -1,628 +0,0 @@
Please send your questions to the
[googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion
group. If you need help with compiler errors, make sure you have
tried [Google Mock Doctor](#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md) first.
## When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead. What's the problem? ##
In order for a method to be mocked, it must be _virtual_, unless you use the [high-perf dependency injection technique](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods).
## I wrote some matchers. After I upgraded to a new version of Google Mock, they no longer compile. What's going on? ##
After version 1.4.0 of Google Mock was released, we had an idea on how
to make it easier to write matchers that can generate informative
messages efficiently. We experimented with this idea and liked what
we saw. Therefore we decided to implement it.
Unfortunately, this means that if you have defined your own matchers
by implementing `MatcherInterface` or using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`,
your definitions will no longer compile. Matchers defined using the
`MATCHER*` family of macros are not affected.
Sorry for the hassle if your matchers are affected. We believe it's
in everyone's long-term interest to make this change sooner than
later. Fortunately, it's usually not hard to migrate an existing
matcher to the new API. Here's what you need to do:
If you wrote your matcher like this:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
you'll need to change it to:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
(i.e. rename `Matches()` to `MatchAndExplain()` and give it a second
argument of type `MatchResultListener*`.)
If you were also using `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to improve the matcher
message:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the lastest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
virtual void ExplainMatchResultTo(MyType value,
::std::ostream* os) const {
// Prints some helpful information to os to help
// a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match).
*os << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo();
}
...
};
```
you should move the logic of `ExplainMatchResultTo()` into
`MatchAndExplain()`, using the `MatchResultListener` argument where
the `::std::ostream` was used:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
public:
...
virtual bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
*listener << "the Foo property is " << value.GetFoo();
return value.GetFoo() > 5;
}
...
};
```
If your matcher is defined using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
you should rename the `Matches()` method to `MatchAndExplain()` and
add a `MatchResultListener*` argument (the same as what you need to do
for matchers defined by implementing `MatcherInterface`):
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
If your polymorphic matcher uses `ExplainMatchResultTo()` for better
failure messages:
```
// Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
// Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool Matches(MyType value) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
void ExplainMatchResultTo(const MyGreatMatcher& matcher,
MyType value,
::std::ostream* os) {
// Prints some helpful information to os to help
// a user understand why value matches (or doesn't match).
*os << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar();
}
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
you'll need to move the logic inside `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to
`MatchAndExplain()`:
```
// New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
...
class MyGreatMatcher {
public:
...
bool MatchAndExplain(MyType value,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
// Returns true if value matches.
*listener << "the Bar property is " << value.GetBar();
return value.GetBar() < 42;
}
...
};
... MakePolymorphicMatcher(MyGreatMatcher()) ...
```
For more information, you can read these
[two](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Writing_New_Monomorphic_Matchers)
[recipes](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Matchers)
from the cookbook. As always, you
are welcome to post questions on `googlemock@googlegroups.com` if you
need any help.
## When using Google Mock, do I have to use Google Test as the testing framework? I have my favorite testing framework and don't want to switch. ##
Google Mock works out of the box with Google Test. However, it's easy
to configure it to work with any testing framework of your choice.
[Here](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_ForDummies#Using_Google_Mock_with_Any_Testing_Framework) is how.
## How am I supposed to make sense of these horrible template errors? ##
If you are confused by the compiler errors gcc threw at you,
try consulting the _Google Mock Doctor_ tool first. What it does is to
scan stdin for gcc error messages, and spit out diagnoses on the
problems (we call them diseases) your code has.
To "install", run command:
```
alias gmd='<path to googlemock>/scripts/gmock_doctor.py'
```
To use it, do:
```
<your-favorite-build-command> <your-test> 2>&1 | gmd
```
For example:
```
make my_test 2>&1 | gmd
```
Or you can run `gmd` and copy-n-paste gcc's error messages to it.
## Can I mock a variadic function? ##
You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis
(`...`) arguments) directly in Google Mock.
The problem is that in general, there is _no way_ for a mock object to
know how many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what
the arguments' types are. Only the _author of the base class_ knows
the protocol, and we cannot look into his head.
Therefore, to mock such a function, the _user_ must teach the mock
object how to figure out the number of arguments and their types. One
way to do it is to provide overloaded versions of the function.
Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature.
They are unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have
constructors or destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in
C++ as much as possible.
## MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why? ##
If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1:
```
class Foo {
...
virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0;
};
class MockFoo : public Foo {
...
MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, void(const int i));
};
```
You may get the following warning:
```
warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier
```
This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc ,for
example. If you use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning:
```
warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers
```
In C++, if you _declare_ a function with a `const` parameter, the
`const` modifier is _ignored_. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above
is equivalent to:
```
class Foo {
...
virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference.
};
```
In fact, you can _declare_ Bar() with an `int` parameter, and _define_
it with a `const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them
up.
Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method
_declaration_, we recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`.
That should workaround the VC bug.
Note that we are talking about the _top-level_ `const` modifier here.
If the function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring
the _pointee_ or _referee_ as `const` is still meaningful. For
example, the following two declarations are _not_ equivalent:
```
void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const.
void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is.
```
## I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do? ##
We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++
uses 5~6 times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest
to avoid `/clr` when compiling native C++ mocks.
## I can't figure out why Google Mock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do? ##
You might want to run your test with
`--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets Google Mock print a trace
of every mock function call it receives. By studying the trace,
you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met.
## How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? ##
```
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.Times(0);
```
## I have a failed test where Google Mock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant? ##
When Google Mock detects a failure, it prints relevant information
(the mock function arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and
etc) to help the user debug. If another failure is detected, Google
Mock will do the same, including printing the state of relevant
expectations.
Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures,
and you'll see the same description of the state twice. They are
however _not_ redundant, as they refer to _different points in time_.
The fact they are the same _is_ interesting information.
## I get a heap check failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong? ##
Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a
virtual destructor?
Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is
virtual. Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following
code:
```
class Base {
public:
// Not virtual, but should be.
~Base() { ... }
...
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
...
private:
std::string value_;
};
...
Base* p = new Derived;
...
delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not
// - value_ is leaked.
```
By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly
called when `delete p` is executed, and the heap checker
will be happy.
## The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does Google Mock do that? ##
When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the
// reverse order. This sucks big time!!!
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
```
The problem is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's
intent.
By default, expectations don't have to be matched in _any_ particular
order. If you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be
explicit. This is Google Mock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's
easy to accidentally over-specify your tests, and we want to make it
harder to do so.
There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either
put the expectations in sequence:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations
// in their natural order.
{
InSequence s;
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
}
```
or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation:
```
// foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
// 2 the second time.
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
.WillOnce(Return(1))
.WillOnce(Return(2))
.RetiresOnSaturation();
```
Back to the original questions: why does Google Mock search the
expectations (and `ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this
allows a user to set up a mock's behavior for the common case early
(e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase)
and customize it with more specific rules later. If Google Mock
searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be
possible.
## Google Mock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT\_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON\_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case? ##
When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the
latter. So the answer is that we think it's better to show the
warning.
Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's
constructor or `SetUp()`, as the default behavior rarely changes from
test to test. Then in the test body they set the expectations, which
are often different for each test. Having an `ON_CALL` in the set-up
part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected. If there's
no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If
we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs
may creep in unnoticed.
If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write
```
EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.WillRepeatedly(...);
```
instead of
```
ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
.WillByDefault(...);
```
This tells Google Mock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be
printed.
Also, you can control the verbosity using the `--gmock_verbose` flag.
If you find the output too noisy when debugging, just choose a less
verbose level.
## How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action? ##
If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not
supported by Google Mock directly, remember that you can define your own
actions using
[MakeAction()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Writing_New_Actions) or
[MakePolymorphicAction()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Writing_New_Polymorphic_Actions),
or you can write a stub function and invoke it using
[Invoke()](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Using_Functions_Methods_Functors).
## MOCK\_METHODn()'s second argument looks funny. Why don't you use the MOCK\_METHODn(Method, return\_type, arg\_1, ..., arg\_n) syntax? ##
What?! I think it's beautiful. :-)
While which syntax looks more natural is a subjective matter to some
extent, Google Mock's syntax was chosen for several practical advantages it
has.
Try to mock a function that takes a map as an argument:
```
virtual int GetSize(const map<int, std::string>& m);
```
Using the proposed syntax, it would be:
```
MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int, const map<int, std::string>& m);
```
Guess what? You'll get a compiler error as the compiler thinks that
`const map<int, std::string>& m` are **two**, not one, arguments. To work
around this you can use `typedef` to give the map type a name, but
that gets in the way of your work. Google Mock's syntax avoids this
problem as the function's argument types are protected inside a pair
of parentheses:
```
// This compiles fine.
MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int(const map<int, std::string>& m));
```
You still need a `typedef` if the return type contains an unprotected
comma, but that's much rarer.
Other advantages include:
1. `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, int, bool)` can leave a reader wonder whether the method returns `int` or `bool`, while there won't be such confusion using Google Mock's syntax.
1. The way Google Mock describes a function type is nothing new, although many people may not be familiar with it. The same syntax was used in C, and the `function` library in `tr1` uses this syntax extensively. Since `tr1` will become a part of the new version of STL, we feel very comfortable to be consistent with it.
1. The function type syntax is also used in other parts of Google Mock's API (e.g. the action interface) in order to make the implementation tractable. A user needs to learn it anyway in order to utilize Google Mock's more advanced features. We'd as well stick to the same syntax in `MOCK_METHOD*`!
## My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it? ##
You can, but you need to make some changes.
In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function,
it's a sign that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less
flexible, less reusable, less testable, etc). You are probably better
off defining a small interface and call the function through that
interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's a bit of work
initially, but usually pays for itself quickly.
This Google Testing Blog
[post](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html)
says it excellently. Check it out.
## My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. Google Mock sucks! ##
I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-)
With Google Mock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be
tempted to use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and
sometimes you may find them, well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in
the latter case?
When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and
assert that it returns the correct value or that the system is in an
expected state. This is sometimes called "state-based testing".
Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing:
instead of checking the system state at the very end, mock objects
verify that they are invoked the right way and report an error as soon
as it arises, giving you a handle on the precise context in which the
error was triggered. This is often more effective and economical to
do than state-based testing.
If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to
simulate the real object, you are probably better off using a fake.
Using a mock in this case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for
mocks to perform complex actions. If you experience this and think
that mocks suck, you are just not using the right tool for your
problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the wrong problem. :-)
## I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic? ##
By all means, NO! It's just an FYI.
What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any
expectations on it (by Google Mock's rule this means that you are not
interested in calls to this function and therefore it can be called
any number of times), and it is called. That's OK - you didn't say
it's not OK to call the function!
What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but
forgot to write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While
one can argue that it's the user's fault, Google Mock tries to be nice and
prints you a note.
So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any
uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make
your life easier, Google Mock prints the function name and arguments
when an uninteresting call is encountered.
## I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the action interface? ##
Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient
for your circumstance.
Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it
using `Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in
functions of different types (e.g. if you are defining
`Return(value)`), `MakePolymorphicAction()` is
easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what types of
functions the action can be used in, and implementing
`ActionInterface` is the way to go here. See the implementation of
`Return()` in `include/gmock/gmock-actions.h` for an example.
## I'm using the set-argument-pointee action, and the compiler complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean? ##
You got this error as Google Mock has no idea what value it should return
when the mock method is called. `SetArgPointee()` says what the
side effect is, but doesn't say what the return value should be. You
need `DoAll()` to chain a `SetArgPointee()` with a `Return()`.
See this [recipe](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/V1_7_CookBook#Mocking_Side_Effects) for more details and an example.
## My question is not in your FAQ! ##
If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are
some other resources you can use:
1. read other [wiki pages](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/w/list),
1. search the mailing list [archive](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock/topics),
1. ask it on [googlemock@googlegroups.com](mailto:googlemock@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) before you can post.).
Please note that creating an issue in the
[issue tracker](http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/issues/list) is _not_
a good way to get your answer, as it is monitored infrequently by a
very small number of people.
When asking a question, it's helpful to provide as much of the
following information as possible (people cannot help you if there's
not enough information in your question):
* the version (or the revision number if you check out from SVN directly) of Google Mock you use (Google Mock is under active development, so it's possible that your problem has been solved in a later version),
* your operating system,
* the name and version of your compiler,
* the complete command line flags you give to your compiler,
* the complete compiler error messages (if the question is about compilation),
* the _actual_ code (ideally, a minimal but complete program) that has the problem you encounter.
googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h
+4 -4
View File
@@ -1029,9 +1029,9 @@ class DoBothAction {
// return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
// }
// ...
// EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
// .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
// EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
// .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
//
// you could write
@@ -1041,8 +1041,8 @@ class DoBothAction {
// return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
// }
// ...
// EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
// EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
// EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
typedef internal::IgnoredValue Unused;
// This constructor allows us to turn an Action<From> object into an
googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-matchers.h
+59 -61
View File
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ class StringMatchResultListener : public MatchResultListener {
StringMatchResultListener() : MatchResultListener(&ss_) {}
// Returns the explanation accumulated so far.
internal::string str() const { return ss_.str(); }
std::string str() const { return ss_.str(); }
// Clears the explanation accumulated so far.
void Clear() { ss_.str(""); }
@@ -646,7 +646,7 @@ class SafeMatcherCastImpl {
// type U.
GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_(
internal::is_reference<T>::value || !internal::is_reference<U>::value,
cannot_convert_non_referentce_arg_to_reference);
cannot_convert_non_reference_arg_to_reference);
// In case both T and U are arithmetic types, enforce that the
// conversion is not lossy.
typedef GTEST_REMOVE_REFERENCE_AND_CONST_(T) RawT;
@@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ Matcher<T> A();
namespace internal {
// If the explanation is not empty, prints it to the ostream.
inline void PrintIfNotEmpty(const internal::string& explanation,
inline void PrintIfNotEmpty(const std::string& explanation,
::std::ostream* os) {
if (explanation != "" && os != NULL) {
*os << ", " << explanation;
@@ -685,11 +685,11 @@ inline void PrintIfNotEmpty(const internal::string& explanation,
// Returns true if the given type name is easy to read by a human.
// This is used to decide whether printing the type of a value might
// be helpful.
inline bool IsReadableTypeName(const string& type_name) {
inline bool IsReadableTypeName(const std::string& type_name) {
// We consider a type name readable if it's short or doesn't contain
// a template or function type.
return (type_name.length() <= 20 ||
type_name.find_first_of("<(") == string::npos);
type_name.find_first_of("<(") == std::string::npos);
}
// Matches the value against the given matcher, prints the value and explains
@@ -711,7 +711,7 @@ bool MatchPrintAndExplain(Value& value, const Matcher<T>& matcher,
UniversalPrint(value, listener->stream());
#if GTEST_HAS_RTTI
const string& type_name = GetTypeName<Value>();
const std::string& type_name = GetTypeName<Value>();
if (IsReadableTypeName(type_name))
*listener->stream() << " (of type " << type_name << ")";
#endif
@@ -1335,17 +1335,17 @@ class MatchesRegexMatcher {
// wchar_t*
template <typename CharType>
bool MatchAndExplain(CharType* s, MatchResultListener* listener) const {
return s != NULL && MatchAndExplain(internal::string(s), listener);
return s != NULL && MatchAndExplain(std::string(s), listener);
}
// Matches anything that can convert to internal::string.
// Matches anything that can convert to std::string.
//
// This is a template, not just a plain function with const internal::string&,
// This is a template, not just a plain function with const std::string&,
// because StringPiece has some interfering non-explicit constructors.
template <class MatcheeStringType>
bool MatchAndExplain(const MatcheeStringType& s,
MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const {
const internal::string& s2(s);
const std::string& s2(s);
return full_match_ ? RE::FullMatch(s2, *regex_) :
RE::PartialMatch(s2, *regex_);
}
@@ -1353,13 +1353,13 @@ class MatchesRegexMatcher {
void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const {
*os << (full_match_ ? "matches" : "contains")
<< " regular expression ";
UniversalPrinter<internal::string>::Print(regex_->pattern(), os);
UniversalPrinter<std::string>::Print(regex_->pattern(), os);
}
void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const {
*os << "doesn't " << (full_match_ ? "match" : "contain")
<< " regular expression ";
UniversalPrinter<internal::string>::Print(regex_->pattern(), os);
UniversalPrinter<std::string>::Print(regex_->pattern(), os);
}
private:
@@ -1526,8 +1526,8 @@ class BothOfMatcherImpl : public MatcherInterface<T> {
}
// Otherwise we need to explain why *both* of them match.
const internal::string s1 = listener1.str();
const internal::string s2 = listener2.str();
const std::string s1 = listener1.str();
const std::string s2 = listener2.str();
if (s1 == "") {
*listener << s2;
@@ -1698,8 +1698,8 @@ class EitherOfMatcherImpl : public MatcherInterface<T> {
}
// Otherwise we need to explain why *both* of them fail.
const internal::string s1 = listener1.str();
const internal::string s2 = listener2.str();
const std::string s1 = listener1.str();
const std::string s2 = listener2.str();
if (s1 == "") {
*listener << s2;
@@ -2123,7 +2123,7 @@ class WhenDynamicCastToMatcherBase {
protected:
const Matcher<To> matcher_;
static string GetToName() {
static std::string GetToName() {
#if GTEST_HAS_RTTI
return GetTypeName<To>();
#else // GTEST_HAS_RTTI
@@ -2953,7 +2953,7 @@ class KeyMatcherImpl : public MatcherInterface<PairType> {
StringMatchResultListener inner_listener;
const bool match = inner_matcher_.MatchAndExplain(key_value.first,
&inner_listener);
const internal::string explanation = inner_listener.str();
const std::string explanation = inner_listener.str();
if (explanation != "") {
*listener << "whose first field is a value " << explanation;
}
@@ -3058,8 +3058,8 @@ class PairMatcherImpl : public MatcherInterface<PairType> {
}
private:
void ExplainSuccess(const internal::string& first_explanation,
const internal::string& second_explanation,
void ExplainSuccess(const std::string& first_explanation,
const std::string& second_explanation,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
*listener << "whose both fields match";
if (first_explanation != "") {
@@ -3166,7 +3166,7 @@ class ElementsAreMatcherImpl : public MatcherInterface<Container> {
const bool listener_interested = listener->IsInterested();
// explanations[i] is the explanation of the element at index i.
::std::vector<internal::string> explanations(count());
::std::vector<std::string> explanations(count());
StlContainerReference stl_container = View::ConstReference(container);
typename StlContainer::const_iterator it = stl_container.begin();
size_t exam_pos = 0;
@@ -3225,7 +3225,7 @@ class ElementsAreMatcherImpl : public MatcherInterface<Container> {
if (listener_interested) {
bool reason_printed = false;
for (size_t i = 0; i != count(); ++i) {
const internal::string& s = explanations[i];
const std::string& s = explanations[i];
if (!s.empty()) {
if (reason_printed) {
*listener << ",\nand ";
@@ -3278,7 +3278,7 @@ class GTEST_API_ MatchMatrix {
void Randomize();
string DebugString() const;
std::string DebugString() const;
private:
size_t SpaceIndex(size_t ilhs, size_t irhs) const {
@@ -3322,9 +3322,8 @@ class GTEST_API_ UnorderedElementsAreMatcherImplBase {
void DescribeNegationToImpl(::std::ostream* os) const;
bool VerifyAllElementsAndMatchersAreMatched(
const ::std::vector<string>& element_printouts,
const MatchMatrix& matrix,
MatchResultListener* listener) const;
const ::std::vector<std::string>& element_printouts,
const MatchMatrix& matrix, MatchResultListener* listener) const;
MatcherDescriberVec& matcher_describers() {
return matcher_describers_;
@@ -3376,7 +3375,7 @@ class UnorderedElementsAreMatcherImpl
virtual bool MatchAndExplain(Container container,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
StlContainerReference stl_container = View::ConstReference(container);
::std::vector<string> element_printouts;
::std::vector<std::string> element_printouts;
MatchMatrix matrix = AnalyzeElements(stl_container.begin(),
stl_container.end(),
&element_printouts,
@@ -3407,7 +3406,7 @@ class UnorderedElementsAreMatcherImpl
template <typename ElementIter>
MatchMatrix AnalyzeElements(ElementIter elem_first, ElementIter elem_last,
::std::vector<string>* element_printouts,
::std::vector<std::string>* element_printouts,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
element_printouts->clear();
::std::vector<char> did_match;
@@ -3619,9 +3618,9 @@ BoundSecondMatcher<Tuple2Matcher, Second> MatcherBindSecond(
// 'negation' is false; otherwise returns the description of the
// negation of the matcher. 'param_values' contains a list of strings
// that are the print-out of the matcher's parameters.
GTEST_API_ string FormatMatcherDescription(bool negation,
const char* matcher_name,
const Strings& param_values);
GTEST_API_ std::string FormatMatcherDescription(bool negation,
const char* matcher_name,
const Strings& param_values);
} // namespace internal
@@ -3951,53 +3950,52 @@ internal::ResultOfMatcher<Callable> ResultOf(
// String matchers.
// Matches a string equal to str.
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StrEqualityMatcher<internal::string> >
StrEq(const internal::string& str) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::StrEqualityMatcher<internal::string>(
str, true, true));
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StrEqualityMatcher<std::string> > StrEq(
const std::string& str) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(
internal::StrEqualityMatcher<std::string>(str, true, true));
}
// Matches a string not equal to str.
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StrEqualityMatcher<internal::string> >
StrNe(const internal::string& str) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::StrEqualityMatcher<internal::string>(
str, false, true));
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StrEqualityMatcher<std::string> > StrNe(
const std::string& str) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(
internal::StrEqualityMatcher<std::string>(str, false, true));
}
// Matches a string equal to str, ignoring case.
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StrEqualityMatcher<internal::string> >
StrCaseEq(const internal::string& str) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::StrEqualityMatcher<internal::string>(
str, true, false));
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StrEqualityMatcher<std::string> > StrCaseEq(
const std::string& str) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(
internal::StrEqualityMatcher<std::string>(str, true, false));
}
// Matches a string not equal to str, ignoring case.
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StrEqualityMatcher<internal::string> >
StrCaseNe(const internal::string& str) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::StrEqualityMatcher<internal::string>(
str, false, false));
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StrEqualityMatcher<std::string> > StrCaseNe(
const std::string& str) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(
internal::StrEqualityMatcher<std::string>(str, false, false));
}
// Creates a matcher that matches any string, std::string, or C string
// that contains the given substring.
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::HasSubstrMatcher<internal::string> >
HasSubstr(const internal::string& substring) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::HasSubstrMatcher<internal::string>(
substring));
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::HasSubstrMatcher<std::string> > HasSubstr(
const std::string& substring) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(
internal::HasSubstrMatcher<std::string>(substring));
}
// Matches a string that starts with 'prefix' (case-sensitive).
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StartsWithMatcher<internal::string> >
StartsWith(const internal::string& prefix) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::StartsWithMatcher<internal::string>(
prefix));
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::StartsWithMatcher<std::string> > StartsWith(
const std::string& prefix) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(
internal::StartsWithMatcher<std::string>(prefix));
}
// Matches a string that ends with 'suffix' (case-sensitive).
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::EndsWithMatcher<internal::string> >
EndsWith(const internal::string& suffix) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::EndsWithMatcher<internal::string>(
suffix));
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::EndsWithMatcher<std::string> > EndsWith(
const std::string& suffix) {
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::EndsWithMatcher<std::string>(suffix));
}
// Matches a string that fully matches regular expression 'regex'.
@@ -4007,7 +4005,7 @@ inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::MatchesRegexMatcher> MatchesRegex(
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::MatchesRegexMatcher(regex, true));
}
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::MatchesRegexMatcher> MatchesRegex(
const internal::string& regex) {
const std::string& regex) {
return MatchesRegex(new internal::RE(regex));
}
@@ -4018,7 +4016,7 @@ inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::MatchesRegexMatcher> ContainsRegex(
return MakePolymorphicMatcher(internal::MatchesRegexMatcher(regex, false));
}
inline PolymorphicMatcher<internal::MatchesRegexMatcher> ContainsRegex(
const internal::string& regex) {
const std::string& regex) {
return ContainsRegex(new internal::RE(regex));
}
googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h
+28 -25
View File
@@ -148,8 +148,7 @@ class GTEST_API_ UntypedFunctionMockerBase {
// action fails.
// L = *
virtual UntypedActionResultHolderBase* UntypedPerformDefaultAction(
const void* untyped_args,
const string& call_description) const = 0;
const void* untyped_args, const std::string& call_description) const = 0;
// Performs the given action with the given arguments and returns
// the action's result.
@@ -263,12 +262,14 @@ class UntypedOnCallSpecBase {
};
// Asserts that the ON_CALL() statement has a certain property.
void AssertSpecProperty(bool property, const string& failure_message) const {
void AssertSpecProperty(bool property,
const std::string& failure_message) const {
Assert(property, file_, line_, failure_message);
}
// Expects that the ON_CALL() statement has a certain property.
void ExpectSpecProperty(bool property, const string& failure_message) const {
void ExpectSpecProperty(bool property,
const std::string& failure_message) const {
Expect(property, file_, line_, failure_message);
}
@@ -690,7 +691,7 @@ GTEST_API_ extern ThreadLocal<Sequence*> g_gmock_implicit_sequence;
class GTEST_API_ ExpectationBase {
public:
// source_text is the EXPECT_CALL(...) source that created this Expectation.
ExpectationBase(const char* file, int line, const string& source_text);
ExpectationBase(const char* file, int line, const std::string& source_text);
virtual ~ExpectationBase();
@@ -738,12 +739,14 @@ class GTEST_API_ ExpectationBase {
virtual Expectation GetHandle() = 0;
// Asserts that the EXPECT_CALL() statement has the given property.
void AssertSpecProperty(bool property, const string& failure_message) const {
void AssertSpecProperty(bool property,
const std::string& failure_message) const {
Assert(property, file_, line_, failure_message);
}
// Expects that the EXPECT_CALL() statement has the given property.
void ExpectSpecProperty(bool property, const string& failure_message) const {
void ExpectSpecProperty(bool property,
const std::string& failure_message) const {
Expect(property, file_, line_, failure_message);
}
@@ -845,7 +848,7 @@ class GTEST_API_ ExpectationBase {
// an EXPECT_CALL() statement finishes.
const char* file_; // The file that contains the expectation.
int line_; // The line number of the expectation.
const string source_text_; // The EXPECT_CALL(...) source text.
const std::string source_text_; // The EXPECT_CALL(...) source text.
// True iff the cardinality is specified explicitly.
bool cardinality_specified_;
Cardinality cardinality_; // The cardinality of the expectation.
@@ -880,8 +883,8 @@ class TypedExpectation : public ExpectationBase {
typedef typename Function<F>::ArgumentMatcherTuple ArgumentMatcherTuple;
typedef typename Function<F>::Result Result;
TypedExpectation(FunctionMockerBase<F>* owner,
const char* a_file, int a_line, const string& a_source_text,
TypedExpectation(FunctionMockerBase<F>* owner, const char* a_file, int a_line,
const std::string& a_source_text,
const ArgumentMatcherTuple& m)
: ExpectationBase(a_file, a_line, a_source_text),
owner_(owner),
@@ -1240,7 +1243,7 @@ class TypedExpectation : public ExpectationBase {
// Logs a message including file and line number information.
GTEST_API_ void LogWithLocation(testing::internal::LogSeverity severity,
const char* file, int line,
const string& message);
const std::string& message);
template <typename F>
class MockSpec {
@@ -1259,7 +1262,7 @@ class MockSpec {
internal::OnCallSpec<F>& InternalDefaultActionSetAt(
const char* file, int line, const char* obj, const char* call) {
LogWithLocation(internal::kInfo, file, line,
string("ON_CALL(") + obj + ", " + call + ") invoked");
std::string("ON_CALL(") + obj + ", " + call + ") invoked");
return function_mocker_->AddNewOnCallSpec(file, line, matchers_);
}
@@ -1267,7 +1270,8 @@ class MockSpec {
// the newly created spec.
internal::TypedExpectation<F>& InternalExpectedAt(
const char* file, int line, const char* obj, const char* call) {
const string source_text(string("EXPECT_CALL(") + obj + ", " + call + ")");
const std::string source_text(std::string("EXPECT_CALL(") + obj + ", " +
call + ")");
LogWithLocation(internal::kInfo, file, line, source_text + " invoked");
return function_mocker_->AddNewExpectation(
file, line, source_text, matchers_);
@@ -1389,7 +1393,7 @@ class ActionResultHolder : public UntypedActionResultHolderBase {
static ActionResultHolder* PerformDefaultAction(
const FunctionMockerBase<F>* func_mocker,
const typename Function<F>::ArgumentTuple& args,
const string& call_description) {
const std::string& call_description) {
return new ActionResultHolder(Wrapper(
func_mocker->PerformDefaultAction(args, call_description)));
}
@@ -1429,7 +1433,7 @@ class ActionResultHolder<void> : public UntypedActionResultHolderBase {
static ActionResultHolder* PerformDefaultAction(
const FunctionMockerBase<F>* func_mocker,
const typename Function<F>::ArgumentTuple& args,
const string& call_description) {
const std::string& call_description) {
func_mocker->PerformDefaultAction(args, call_description);
return new ActionResultHolder;
}
@@ -1496,13 +1500,14 @@ class FunctionMockerBase : public UntypedFunctionMockerBase {
// without locking.
// L = *
Result PerformDefaultAction(const ArgumentTuple& args,
const string& call_description) const {
const std::string& call_description) const {
const OnCallSpec<F>* const spec =
this->FindOnCallSpec(args);
if (spec != NULL) {
return spec->GetAction().Perform(args);
}
const string message = call_description +
const std::string message =
call_description +
"\n The mock function has no default action "
"set, and its return type has no default value set.";
#if GTEST_HAS_EXCEPTIONS
@@ -1522,7 +1527,7 @@ class FunctionMockerBase : public UntypedFunctionMockerBase {
// L = *
virtual UntypedActionResultHolderBase* UntypedPerformDefaultAction(
const void* untyped_args, // must point to an ArgumentTuple
const string& call_description) const {
const std::string& call_description) const {
const ArgumentTuple& args =
*static_cast<const ArgumentTuple*>(untyped_args);
return ResultHolder::PerformDefaultAction(this, args, call_description);
@@ -1598,12 +1603,10 @@ class FunctionMockerBase : public UntypedFunctionMockerBase {
}
// Adds and returns an expectation spec for this mock function.
TypedExpectation<F>& AddNewExpectation(
const char* file,
int line,
const string& source_text,
const ArgumentMatcherTuple& m)
GTEST_LOCK_EXCLUDED_(g_gmock_mutex) {
TypedExpectation<F>& AddNewExpectation(const char* file, int line,
const std::string& source_text,
const ArgumentMatcherTuple& m)
GTEST_LOCK_EXCLUDED_(g_gmock_mutex) {
Mock::RegisterUseByOnCallOrExpectCall(MockObject(), file, line);
TypedExpectation<F>* const expectation =
new TypedExpectation<F>(this, file, line, source_text, m);
@@ -1796,7 +1799,7 @@ class FunctionMockerBase : public UntypedFunctionMockerBase {
// Reports an uninteresting call (whose description is in msg) in the
// manner specified by 'reaction'.
void ReportUninterestingCall(CallReaction reaction, const string& msg);
void ReportUninterestingCall(CallReaction reaction, const std::string& msg);
} // namespace internal
googlemock/include/gmock/internal/gmock-internal-utils.h
+4 -5
View File
@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ class FailureReporterInterface {
// Reports a failure that occurred at the given source file location.
virtual void ReportFailure(FailureType type, const char* file, int line,
const string& message) = 0;
const std::string& message) = 0;
};
// Returns the failure reporter used by Google Mock.
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ GTEST_API_ FailureReporterInterface* GetFailureReporter();
// inline this function to prevent it from showing up in the stack
// trace.
inline void Assert(bool condition, const char* file, int line,
const string& msg) {
const std::string& msg) {
if (!condition) {
GetFailureReporter()->ReportFailure(FailureReporterInterface::kFatal,
file, line, msg);
@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ inline void Assert(bool condition, const char* file, int line) {
// Verifies that condition is true; generates a non-fatal failure if
// condition is false.
inline void Expect(bool condition, const char* file, int line,
const string& msg) {
const std::string& msg) {
if (!condition) {
GetFailureReporter()->ReportFailure(FailureReporterInterface::kNonfatal,
file, line, msg);
@@ -328,8 +328,7 @@ GTEST_API_ bool LogIsVisible(LogSeverity severity);
// stack_frames_to_skip is treated as 0, since we don't know which
// function calls will be inlined by the compiler and need to be
// conservative.
GTEST_API_ void Log(LogSeverity severity,
const string& message,
GTEST_API_ void Log(LogSeverity severity, const std::string& message,
int stack_frames_to_skip);
// TODO(wan@google.com): group all type utilities together.
googlemock/src/gmock-cardinalities.cc
+1 -1
View File
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ class BetweenCardinalityImpl : public CardinalityInterface {
};
// Formats "n times" in a human-friendly way.
inline internal::string FormatTimes(int n) {
inline std::string FormatTimes(int n) {
if (n == 1) {
return "once";
} else if (n == 2) {
googlemock/src/gmock-internal-utils.cc
+2 -3
View File
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ GTEST_API_ string ConvertIdentifierNameToWords(const char* id_name) {
class GoogleTestFailureReporter : public FailureReporterInterface {
public:
virtual void ReportFailure(FailureType type, const char* file, int line,
const string& message) {
const std::string& message) {
AssertHelper(type == kFatal ?
TestPartResult::kFatalFailure :
TestPartResult::kNonFatalFailure,
@@ -128,8 +128,7 @@ GTEST_API_ bool LogIsVisible(LogSeverity severity) {
// stack_frames_to_skip is treated as 0, since we don't know which
// function calls will be inlined by the compiler and need to be
// conservative.
GTEST_API_ void Log(LogSeverity severity,
const string& message,
GTEST_API_ void Log(LogSeverity severity, const std::string& message,
int stack_frames_to_skip) {
if (!LogIsVisible(severity))
return;
googlemock/src/gmock-matchers.cc
+5 -6
View File
@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ class MaxBipartiteMatchState {
// Each element of the left_ vector represents a left hand side node
// (i.e. an element) and each element of right_ is a right hand side
// node (i.e. a matcher). The values in the left_ vector indicate
// outflow from that node to a node on the the right_ side. The values
// outflow from that node to a node on the right_ side. The values
// in the right_ indicate inflow, and specify which left_ node is
// feeding that right_ node, if any. For example, left_[3] == 1 means
// there's a flow from element #3 to matcher #1. Such a flow would also
@@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ void MatchMatrix::Randomize() {
}
}
string MatchMatrix::DebugString() const {
std::string MatchMatrix::DebugString() const {
::std::stringstream ss;
const char *sep = "";
for (size_t i = 0; i < LhsSize(); ++i) {
@@ -441,10 +441,9 @@ void UnorderedElementsAreMatcherImplBase::DescribeNegationToImpl(
// Returns false, writing an explanation to 'listener', if and only
// if the success criteria are not met.
bool UnorderedElementsAreMatcherImplBase::
VerifyAllElementsAndMatchersAreMatched(
const ::std::vector<string>& element_printouts,
const MatchMatrix& matrix,
MatchResultListener* listener) const {
VerifyAllElementsAndMatchersAreMatched(
const ::std::vector<std::string>& element_printouts,
const MatchMatrix& matrix, MatchResultListener* listener) const {
bool result = true;
::std::vector<char> element_matched(matrix.LhsSize(), 0);
::std::vector<char> matcher_matched(matrix.RhsSize(), 0);
googlemock/src/gmock-spec-builders.cc
+5 -6
View File
@@ -58,16 +58,15 @@ GTEST_API_ GTEST_DEFINE_STATIC_MUTEX_(g_gmock_mutex);
// Logs a message including file and line number information.
GTEST_API_ void LogWithLocation(testing::internal::LogSeverity severity,
const char* file, int line,
const string& message) {
const std::string& message) {
::std::ostringstream s;
s << file << ":" << line << ": " << message << ::std::endl;
Log(severity, s.str(), 0);
}
// Constructs an ExpectationBase object.
ExpectationBase::ExpectationBase(const char* a_file,
int a_line,
const string& a_source_text)
ExpectationBase::ExpectationBase(const char* a_file, int a_line,
const std::string& a_source_text)
: file_(a_file),
line_(a_line),
source_text_(a_source_text),
@@ -244,7 +243,7 @@ GTEST_API_ ThreadLocal<Sequence*> g_gmock_implicit_sequence;
// Reports an uninteresting call (whose description is in msg) in the
// manner specified by 'reaction'.
void ReportUninterestingCall(CallReaction reaction, const string& msg) {
void ReportUninterestingCall(CallReaction reaction, const std::string& msg) {
// Include a stack trace only if --gmock_verbose=info is specified.
const int stack_frames_to_skip =
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) == kInfoVerbosity ? 3 : -1;
@@ -365,7 +364,7 @@ UntypedFunctionMockerBase::UntypedInvokeWith(const void* const untyped_args)
if (!need_to_report_uninteresting_call) {
// Perform the action without printing the call information.
return this->UntypedPerformDefaultAction(untyped_args, "");
return this->UntypedPerformDefaultAction(untyped_args, "Function call: " + std::string(Name()));
}
// Warns about the uninteresting call.
googlemock/test/BUILD.bazel
+52
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
# Copyright 2017 Google Inc.
# All Rights Reserved.
#
#
# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
# met:
#
# * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
# copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
# in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
# distribution.
# * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its
# contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
# this software without specific prior written permission.
#
# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
# "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
# LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
# A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
# OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
# SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
# LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
# DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
# THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
# (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
# OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
#
# Author: misterg@google.com (Gennadiy Civil)
#
# Bazel Build for Google C++ Testing Framework(Google Test)-googlemock
""" gmock own tests """
cc_test(
name = "gmock_all_test",
size = "small",
srcs = glob(
include = [
"gmock-*.cc",
],
),
linkopts = select({
"//:win": [],
"//conditions:default": [
"-pthread",
],
}),
deps = ["//:gtest"],
)
googlemock/test/gmock-generated-actions_test.cc
+58 -58
View File
@@ -81,12 +81,12 @@ bool Unary(int x) { return x < 0; }
const char* Plus1(const char* s) { return s + 1; }
bool ByConstRef(const string& s) { return s == "Hi"; }
bool ByConstRef(const std::string& s) { return s == "Hi"; }
const double g_double = 0;
bool ReferencesGlobalDouble(const double& x) { return &x == &g_double; }
string ByNonConstRef(string& s) { return s += "+"; } // NOLINT
std::string ByNonConstRef(std::string& s) { return s += "+"; } // NOLINT
struct UnaryFunctor {
int operator()(bool x) { return x ? 1 : -1; }
@@ -102,9 +102,9 @@ void VoidTernary(int, char, bool) { g_done = true; }
int SumOf4(int a, int b, int c, int d) { return a + b + c + d; }
string Concat4(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4;
std::string Concat4(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4;
}
int SumOf5(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e) { return a + b + c + d + e; }
@@ -115,9 +115,9 @@ struct SumOf5Functor {
}
};
string Concat5(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5;
std::string Concat5(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5;
}
int SumOf6(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f) {
@@ -130,34 +130,34 @@ struct SumOf6Functor {
}
};
string Concat6(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6;
std::string Concat6(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6;
}
string Concat7(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7;
std::string Concat7(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7;
}
string Concat8(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8;
std::string Concat8(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8;
}
string Concat9(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9;
std::string Concat9(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9;
}
string Concat10(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9,
const char* s10) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9 + s10;
std::string Concat10(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9,
const char* s10) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9 + s10;
}
// A helper that turns the type of a C-string literal from const
@@ -208,38 +208,37 @@ TEST(InvokeArgumentTest, Functor6) {
// Tests using InvokeArgument with a 7-ary function.
TEST(InvokeArgumentTest, Function7) {
Action<string(string(*)(const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*))> a =
InvokeArgument<0>("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7");
Action<std::string(std::string(*)(const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*))>
a = InvokeArgument<0>("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7");
EXPECT_EQ("1234567", a.Perform(make_tuple(&Concat7)));
}
// Tests using InvokeArgument with a 8-ary function.
TEST(InvokeArgumentTest, Function8) {
Action<string(string(*)(const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*))> a =
InvokeArgument<0>("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8");
Action<std::string(std::string(*)(const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*))>
a = InvokeArgument<0>("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8");
EXPECT_EQ("12345678", a.Perform(make_tuple(&Concat8)));
}
// Tests using InvokeArgument with a 9-ary function.
TEST(InvokeArgumentTest, Function9) {
Action<string(string(*)(const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*))> a =
InvokeArgument<0>("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9");
Action<std::string(std::string(*)(const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*))>
a = InvokeArgument<0>("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9");
EXPECT_EQ("123456789", a.Perform(make_tuple(&Concat9)));
}
// Tests using InvokeArgument with a 10-ary function.
TEST(InvokeArgumentTest, Function10) {
Action<string(string(*)(const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*))> a =
InvokeArgument<0>("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "0");
Action<std::string(std::string(*)(
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*))>
a = InvokeArgument<0>("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "0");
EXPECT_EQ("1234567890", a.Perform(make_tuple(&Concat10)));
}
@@ -260,8 +259,8 @@ TEST(InvokeArgumentTest, FunctionWithCStringLiteral) {
// Tests using InvokeArgument with a function that takes a const reference.
TEST(InvokeArgumentTest, ByConstReferenceFunction) {
Action<bool(bool(*function)(const string& s))> a = // NOLINT
InvokeArgument<0>(string("Hi"));
Action<bool(bool (*function)(const std::string& s))> a = // NOLINT
InvokeArgument<0>(std::string("Hi"));
// When action 'a' is constructed, it makes a copy of the temporary
// string object passed to it, so it's OK to use 'a' later, when the
// temporary object has already died.
@@ -305,17 +304,18 @@ TEST(WithArgsTest, ThreeArgs) {
// Tests using WithArgs with an action that takes 4 arguments.
TEST(WithArgsTest, FourArgs) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, double, const char*, const char*)> a =
WithArgs<4, 3, 1, 0>(Invoke(Concat4));
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, double, const char*,
const char*)>
a = WithArgs<4, 3, 1, 0>(Invoke(Concat4));
EXPECT_EQ("4310", a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("0"), CharPtr("1"), 2.5,
CharPtr("3"), CharPtr("4"))));
}
// Tests using WithArgs with an action that takes 5 arguments.
TEST(WithArgsTest, FiveArgs) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*)> a =
WithArgs<4, 3, 2, 1, 0>(Invoke(Concat5));
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*)>
a = WithArgs<4, 3, 2, 1, 0>(Invoke(Concat5));
EXPECT_EQ("43210",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("0"), CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"),
CharPtr("3"), CharPtr("4"))));
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ TEST(WithArgsTest, FiveArgs) {
// Tests using WithArgs with an action that takes 6 arguments.
TEST(WithArgsTest, SixArgs) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
WithArgs<0, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0>(Invoke(Concat6));
EXPECT_EQ("012210",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("0"), CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"))));
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ TEST(WithArgsTest, SixArgs) {
// Tests using WithArgs with an action that takes 7 arguments.
TEST(WithArgsTest, SevenArgs) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
WithArgs<0, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0>(Invoke(Concat7));
EXPECT_EQ("0123210",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("0"), CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"),
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ TEST(WithArgsTest, SevenArgs) {
// Tests using WithArgs with an action that takes 8 arguments.
TEST(WithArgsTest, EightArgs) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
WithArgs<0, 1, 2, 3, 0, 1, 2, 3>(Invoke(Concat8));
EXPECT_EQ("01230123",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("0"), CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"),
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ TEST(WithArgsTest, EightArgs) {
// Tests using WithArgs with an action that takes 9 arguments.
TEST(WithArgsTest, NineArgs) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
WithArgs<0, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3>(Invoke(Concat9));
EXPECT_EQ("012312323",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("0"), CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"),
@@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ TEST(WithArgsTest, NineArgs) {
// Tests using WithArgs with an action that takes 10 arguments.
TEST(WithArgsTest, TenArgs) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
WithArgs<0, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3>(Invoke(Concat10));
EXPECT_EQ("0123210123",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("0"), CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"),
@@ -1120,7 +1120,7 @@ TEST(ActionTemplateTest, WorksForIntegralTemplateParams) {
EXPECT_FALSE(b); // Verifies that resetter is deleted.
}
// Tests that ACTION_TEMPLATES works for template template parameters.
// Tests that ACTION_TEMPLATE works for a template with template parameters.
ACTION_TEMPLATE(ReturnSmartPointer,
HAS_1_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(template <typename Pointee> class,
Pointer),
googlemock/test/gmock-generated-function-mockers_test.cc
+20 -18
View File
@@ -57,7 +57,6 @@
namespace testing {
namespace gmock_generated_function_mockers_test {
using testing::internal::string;
using testing::_;
using testing::A;
using testing::An;
@@ -82,11 +81,11 @@ class FooInterface {
virtual bool Unary(int x) = 0;
virtual long Binary(short x, int y) = 0; // NOLINT
virtual int Decimal(bool b, char c, short d, int e, long f, // NOLINT
float g, double h, unsigned i, char* j, const string& k)
= 0;
float g, double h, unsigned i, char* j,
const std::string& k) = 0;
virtual bool TakesNonConstReference(int& n) = 0; // NOLINT
virtual string TakesConstReference(const int& n) = 0;
virtual std::string TakesConstReference(const int& n) = 0;
#ifdef GMOCK_ALLOWS_CONST_PARAM_FUNCTIONS
virtual bool TakesConst(const int x) = 0;
#endif // GMOCK_ALLOWS_CONST_PARAM_FUNCTIONS
@@ -101,13 +100,14 @@ class FooInterface {
virtual char OverloadedOnConstness() const = 0;
virtual int TypeWithHole(int (*func)()) = 0;
virtual int TypeWithComma(const std::map<int, string>& a_map) = 0;
virtual int TypeWithComma(const std::map<int, std::string>& a_map) = 0;
#if GTEST_OS_WINDOWS
STDMETHOD_(int, CTNullary)() = 0;
STDMETHOD_(bool, CTUnary)(int x) = 0;
STDMETHOD_(int, CTDecimal)(bool b, char c, short d, int e, long f, // NOLINT
float g, double h, unsigned i, char* j, const string& k) = 0;
STDMETHOD_(int, CTDecimal)
(bool b, char c, short d, int e, long f, // NOLINT
float g, double h, unsigned i, char* j, const std::string& k) = 0;
STDMETHOD_(char, CTConst)(int x) const = 0;
#endif // GTEST_OS_WINDOWS
};
@@ -133,19 +133,19 @@ class MockFoo : public FooInterface {
MOCK_METHOD1(Unary, bool(int)); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD2(Binary, long(short, int)); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD10(Decimal, int(bool, char, short, int, long, float, // NOLINT
double, unsigned, char*, const string& str));
double, unsigned, char*, const std::string& str));
MOCK_METHOD1(TakesNonConstReference, bool(int&)); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD1(TakesConstReference, string(const int&));
MOCK_METHOD1(TakesConstReference, std::string(const int&));
#ifdef GMOCK_ALLOWS_CONST_PARAM_FUNCTIONS
MOCK_METHOD1(TakesConst, bool(const int)); // NOLINT
#endif
// Tests that the function return type can contain unprotected comma.
MOCK_METHOD0(ReturnTypeWithComma, std::map<int, string>());
MOCK_METHOD0(ReturnTypeWithComma, std::map<int, std::string>());
MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(ReturnTypeWithComma,
std::map<int, string>(int)); // NOLINT
std::map<int, std::string>(int)); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD0(OverloadedOnArgumentNumber, int()); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD1(OverloadedOnArgumentNumber, int(int)); // NOLINT
@@ -157,19 +157,21 @@ class MockFoo : public FooInterface {
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(OverloadedOnConstness, char()); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD1(TypeWithHole, int(int (*)())); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD1(TypeWithComma, int(const std::map<int, string>&)); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD1(TypeWithComma,
int(const std::map<int, std::string>&)); // NOLINT
#if GTEST_OS_WINDOWS
MOCK_METHOD0_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, CTNullary, int());
MOCK_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, CTUnary, bool(int));
MOCK_METHOD10_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, CTDecimal, int(bool b, char c,
short d, int e, long f, float g, double h, unsigned i, char* j,
const string& k));
MOCK_METHOD10_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, CTDecimal,
int(bool b, char c, short d, int e, long f,
float g, double h, unsigned i, char* j,
const std::string& k));
MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, CTConst, char(int));
// Tests that the function return type can contain unprotected comma.
MOCK_METHOD0_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, CTReturnTypeWithComma,
std::map<int, string>());
std::map<int, std::string>());
#endif // GTEST_OS_WINDOWS
private:
@@ -291,7 +293,7 @@ TEST_F(FunctionMockerTest, MocksFunctionsOverloadedOnConstnessOfThis) {
}
TEST_F(FunctionMockerTest, MocksReturnTypeWithComma) {
const std::map<int, string> a_map;
const std::map<int, std::string> a_map;
EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo_, ReturnTypeWithComma())
.WillOnce(Return(a_map));
EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo_, ReturnTypeWithComma(42))
@@ -341,7 +343,7 @@ TEST_F(FunctionMockerTest, MocksFunctionsConstFunctionWithCallType) {
}
TEST_F(FunctionMockerTest, MocksReturnTypeWithCommaAndCallType) {
const std::map<int, string> a_map;
const std::map<int, std::string> a_map;
EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo_, CTReturnTypeWithComma())
.WillOnce(Return(a_map));
googlemock/test/gmock-generated-matchers_test.cc
+36 -36
View File
@@ -79,11 +79,10 @@ using testing::StaticAssertTypeEq;
using testing::StrEq;
using testing::Value;
using testing::internal::ElementsAreArrayMatcher;
using testing::internal::string;
// Returns the description of the given matcher.
template <typename T>
string Describe(const Matcher<T>& m) {
std::string Describe(const Matcher<T>& m) {
stringstream ss;
m.DescribeTo(&ss);
return ss.str();
@@ -91,7 +90,7 @@ string Describe(const Matcher<T>& m) {
// Returns the description of the negation of the given matcher.
template <typename T>
string DescribeNegation(const Matcher<T>& m) {
std::string DescribeNegation(const Matcher<T>& m) {
stringstream ss;
m.DescribeNegationTo(&ss);
return ss.str();
@@ -99,7 +98,7 @@ string DescribeNegation(const Matcher<T>& m) {
// Returns the reason why x matches, or doesn't match, m.
template <typename MatcherType, typename Value>
string Explain(const MatcherType& m, const Value& x) {
std::string Explain(const MatcherType& m, const Value& x) {
stringstream ss;
m.ExplainMatchResultTo(x, &ss);
return ss.str();
@@ -296,7 +295,7 @@ TEST(ElementsAreTest, CanDescribeExpectingOneElement) {
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, CanDescribeExpectingManyElements) {
Matcher<list<string> > m = ElementsAre(StrEq("one"), "two");
Matcher<list<std::string> > m = ElementsAre(StrEq("one"), "two");
EXPECT_EQ("has 2 elements where\n"
"element #0 is equal to \"one\",\n"
"element #1 is equal to \"two\"", Describe(m));
@@ -314,7 +313,7 @@ TEST(ElementsAreTest, CanDescribeNegationOfExpectingOneElment) {
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, CanDescribeNegationOfExpectingManyElements) {
Matcher<const list<string>& > m = ElementsAre("one", "two");
Matcher<const list<std::string>&> m = ElementsAre("one", "two");
EXPECT_EQ("doesn't have 2 elements, or\n"
"element #0 isn't equal to \"one\", or\n"
"element #1 isn't equal to \"two\"", DescribeNegation(m));
@@ -365,21 +364,21 @@ TEST(ElementsAreTest, CanExplainMismatchRightSize) {
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, MatchesOneElementVector) {
vector<string> test_vector;
vector<std::string> test_vector;
test_vector.push_back("test string");
EXPECT_THAT(test_vector, ElementsAre(StrEq("test string")));
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, MatchesOneElementList) {
list<string> test_list;
list<std::string> test_list;
test_list.push_back("test string");
EXPECT_THAT(test_list, ElementsAre("test string"));
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, MatchesThreeElementVector) {
vector<string> test_vector;
vector<std::string> test_vector;
test_vector.push_back("one");
test_vector.push_back("two");
test_vector.push_back("three");
@@ -428,30 +427,30 @@ TEST(ElementsAreTest, MatchesTenElementVector) {
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, DoesNotMatchWrongSize) {
vector<string> test_vector;
vector<std::string> test_vector;
test_vector.push_back("test string");
test_vector.push_back("test string");
Matcher<vector<string> > m = ElementsAre(StrEq("test string"));
Matcher<vector<std::string> > m = ElementsAre(StrEq("test string"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m.Matches(test_vector));
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, DoesNotMatchWrongValue) {
vector<string> test_vector;
vector<std::string> test_vector;
test_vector.push_back("other string");
Matcher<vector<string> > m = ElementsAre(StrEq("test string"));
Matcher<vector<std::string> > m = ElementsAre(StrEq("test string"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m.Matches(test_vector));
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, DoesNotMatchWrongOrder) {
vector<string> test_vector;
vector<std::string> test_vector;
test_vector.push_back("one");
test_vector.push_back("three");
test_vector.push_back("two");
Matcher<vector<string> > m = ElementsAre(
StrEq("one"), StrEq("two"), StrEq("three"));
Matcher<vector<std::string> > m =
ElementsAre(StrEq("one"), StrEq("two"), StrEq("three"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m.Matches(test_vector));
}
@@ -527,7 +526,7 @@ TEST(ElementsAreTest, WorksWithTwoDimensionalNativeArray) {
}
TEST(ElementsAreTest, AcceptsStringLiteral) {
string array[] = { "hi", "one", "two" };
std::string array[] = {"hi", "one", "two"};
EXPECT_THAT(array, ElementsAre("hi", "one", "two"));
EXPECT_THAT(array, Not(ElementsAre("hi", "one", "too")));
}
@@ -546,10 +545,10 @@ TEST(ElementsAreTest, AcceptsArrayWithUnknownSize) {
// The size of kHi is not known in this test, but ElementsAre() should
// still accept it.
string array1[] = { "hi" };
std::string array1[] = {"hi"};
EXPECT_THAT(array1, ElementsAre(kHi));
string array2[] = { "ho" };
std::string array2[] = {"ho"};
EXPECT_THAT(array2, Not(ElementsAre(kHi)));
}
@@ -589,7 +588,7 @@ TEST(ElementsAreArrayTest, CanBeCreatedWithValueArray) {
TEST(ElementsAreArrayTest, CanBeCreatedWithArraySize) {
const char* a[] = { "one", "two", "three" };
vector<string> test_vector(a, a + GTEST_ARRAY_SIZE_(a));
vector<std::string> test_vector(a, a + GTEST_ARRAY_SIZE_(a));
EXPECT_THAT(test_vector, ElementsAreArray(a, GTEST_ARRAY_SIZE_(a)));
const char** p = a;
@@ -600,7 +599,7 @@ TEST(ElementsAreArrayTest, CanBeCreatedWithArraySize) {
TEST(ElementsAreArrayTest, CanBeCreatedWithoutArraySize) {
const char* a[] = { "one", "two", "three" };
vector<string> test_vector(a, a + GTEST_ARRAY_SIZE_(a));
vector<std::string> test_vector(a, a + GTEST_ARRAY_SIZE_(a));
EXPECT_THAT(test_vector, ElementsAreArray(a));
test_vector[0] = "1";
@@ -608,10 +607,10 @@ TEST(ElementsAreArrayTest, CanBeCreatedWithoutArraySize) {
}
TEST(ElementsAreArrayTest, CanBeCreatedWithMatcherArray) {
const Matcher<string> kMatcherArray[] =
{ StrEq("one"), StrEq("two"), StrEq("three") };
const Matcher<std::string> kMatcherArray[] = {StrEq("one"), StrEq("two"),
StrEq("three")};
vector<string> test_vector;
vector<std::string> test_vector;
test_vector.push_back("one");
test_vector.push_back("two");
test_vector.push_back("three");
@@ -640,7 +639,7 @@ TEST(ElementsAreArrayTest, TakesInitializerList) {
}
TEST(ElementsAreArrayTest, TakesInitializerListOfCStrings) {
const string a[5] = { "a", "b", "c", "d", "e" };
const std::string a[5] = {"a", "b", "c", "d", "e"};
EXPECT_THAT(a, ElementsAreArray({ "a", "b", "c", "d", "e" }));
EXPECT_THAT(a, Not(ElementsAreArray({ "a", "b", "c", "e", "d" })));
EXPECT_THAT(a, Not(ElementsAreArray({ "a", "b", "c", "d", "ef" })));
@@ -751,9 +750,9 @@ MATCHER(IsEven2, negation ? "is odd" : "is even") {
// This also tests that the description string can reference matcher
// parameters.
MATCHER_P2(EqSumOf, x, y,
string(negation ? "doesn't equal" : "equals") + " the sum of " +
PrintToString(x) + " and " + PrintToString(y)) {
MATCHER_P2(EqSumOf, x, y, std::string(negation ? "doesn't equal" : "equals") +
" the sum of " + PrintToString(x) + " and " +
PrintToString(y)) {
if (arg == (x + y)) {
*result_listener << "OK";
return true;
@@ -1117,12 +1116,12 @@ TEST(ContainsTest, ListMatchesWhenElementIsInContainer) {
EXPECT_THAT(some_list, Contains(Gt(2.5)));
EXPECT_THAT(some_list, Contains(Eq(2.0f)));
list<string> another_list;
list<std::string> another_list;
another_list.push_back("fee");
another_list.push_back("fie");
another_list.push_back("foe");
another_list.push_back("fum");
EXPECT_THAT(another_list, Contains(string("fee")));
EXPECT_THAT(another_list, Contains(std::string("fee")));
}
TEST(ContainsTest, ListDoesNotMatchWhenElementIsNotInContainer) {
@@ -1146,7 +1145,7 @@ TEST(ContainsTest, SetMatchesWhenElementIsInContainer) {
another_set.insert("fie");
another_set.insert("foe");
another_set.insert("fum");
EXPECT_THAT(another_set, Contains(Eq(string("fum"))));
EXPECT_THAT(another_set, Contains(Eq(std::string("fum"))));
}
TEST(ContainsTest, SetDoesNotMatchWhenElementIsNotInContainer) {
@@ -1157,7 +1156,7 @@ TEST(ContainsTest, SetDoesNotMatchWhenElementIsNotInContainer) {
set<const char*> c_string_set;
c_string_set.insert("hello");
EXPECT_THAT(c_string_set, Not(Contains(string("hello").c_str())));
EXPECT_THAT(c_string_set, Not(Contains(std::string("hello").c_str())));
}
TEST(ContainsTest, ExplainsMatchResultCorrectly) {
@@ -1189,13 +1188,14 @@ TEST(ContainsTest, MapMatchesWhenElementIsInContainer) {
my_map[bar] = 2;
EXPECT_THAT(my_map, Contains(pair<const char* const, int>(bar, 2)));
map<string, int> another_map;
map<std::string, int> another_map;
another_map["fee"] = 1;
another_map["fie"] = 2;
another_map["foe"] = 3;
another_map["fum"] = 4;
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Contains(pair<const string, int>(string("fee"), 1)));
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Contains(pair<const string, int>("fie", 2)));
EXPECT_THAT(another_map,
Contains(pair<const std::string, int>(std::string("fee"), 1)));
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Contains(pair<const std::string, int>("fie", 2)));
}
TEST(ContainsTest, MapDoesNotMatchWhenElementIsNotInContainer) {
@@ -1207,7 +1207,7 @@ TEST(ContainsTest, MapDoesNotMatchWhenElementIsNotInContainer) {
TEST(ContainsTest, ArrayMatchesWhenElementIsInContainer) {
const char* string_array[] = { "fee", "fie", "foe", "fum" };
EXPECT_THAT(string_array, Contains(Eq(string("fum"))));
EXPECT_THAT(string_array, Contains(Eq(std::string("fum"))));
}
TEST(ContainsTest, ArrayDoesNotMatchWhenElementIsNotInContainer) {
googlemock/test/gmock-internal-utils_test.cc
+12 -13
View File
@@ -319,11 +319,10 @@ TEST(TupleMatchesTest, WorksForSize2) {
TEST(TupleMatchesTest, WorksForSize5) {
tuple<Matcher<int>, Matcher<char>, Matcher<bool>, Matcher<long>, // NOLINT
Matcher<string> >
Matcher<std::string> >
matchers(Eq(1), Eq('a'), Eq(true), Eq(2L), Eq("hi"));
tuple<int, char, bool, long, string> // NOLINT
values1(1, 'a', true, 2L, "hi"),
values2(1, 'a', true, 2L, "hello"),
tuple<int, char, bool, long, std::string> // NOLINT
values1(1, 'a', true, 2L, "hi"), values2(1, 'a', true, 2L, "hello"),
values3(2, 'a', true, 2L, "hi");
EXPECT_TRUE(TupleMatches(matchers, values1));
@@ -375,7 +374,7 @@ class LogIsVisibleTest : public ::testing::Test {
virtual void TearDown() { GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = original_verbose_; }
string original_verbose_;
std::string original_verbose_;
};
TEST_F(LogIsVisibleTest, AlwaysReturnsTrueIfVerbosityIsInfo) {
@@ -402,9 +401,9 @@ TEST_F(LogIsVisibleTest, WorksWhenVerbosityIsWarning) {
// Verifies that Log() behaves correctly for the given verbosity level
// and log severity.
void TestLogWithSeverity(const string& verbosity, LogSeverity severity,
void TestLogWithSeverity(const std::string& verbosity, LogSeverity severity,
bool should_print) {
const string old_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string old_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = verbosity;
CaptureStdout();
Log(severity, "Test log.\n", 0);
@@ -423,7 +422,7 @@ void TestLogWithSeverity(const string& verbosity, LogSeverity severity,
// Tests that when the stack_frames_to_skip parameter is negative,
// Log() doesn't include the stack trace in the output.
TEST(LogTest, NoStackTraceWhenStackFramesToSkipIsNegative) {
const string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = kInfoVerbosity;
CaptureStdout();
Log(kInfo, "Test log.\n", -1);
@@ -432,7 +431,7 @@ TEST(LogTest, NoStackTraceWhenStackFramesToSkipIsNegative) {
}
struct MockStackTraceGetter : testing::internal::OsStackTraceGetterInterface {
virtual string CurrentStackTrace(int max_depth, int skip_count) {
virtual std::string CurrentStackTrace(int max_depth, int skip_count) {
return (testing::Message() << max_depth << "::" << skip_count << "\n")
.GetString();
}
@@ -447,11 +446,11 @@ TEST(LogTest, NoSkippingStackFrameInOptMode) {
CaptureStdout();
Log(kWarning, "Test log.\n", 100);
const string log = GetCapturedStdout();
const std::string log = GetCapturedStdout();
string expected_trace =
std::string expected_trace =
(testing::Message() << GTEST_FLAG(stack_trace_depth) << "::").GetString();
string expected_message =
std::string expected_message =
"\nGMOCK WARNING:\n"
"Test log.\n"
"Stack trace:\n" +
@@ -547,7 +546,7 @@ TEST(TypeTraitsTest, remove_reference) {
// Verifies that Log() behaves correctly for the given verbosity level
// and log severity.
std::string GrabOutput(void(*logger)(), const char* verbosity) {
const string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = verbosity;
CaptureStdout();
logger();
googlemock/test/gmock-matchers_test.cc
+84 -78
View File
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ Matcher<int> GreaterThan(int n) {
return MakeMatcher(new GreaterThanMatcher(n));
}
string OfType(const string& type_name) {
std::string OfType(const std::string& type_name) {
#if GTEST_HAS_RTTI
return " (of type " + type_name + ")";
#else
@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ string OfType(const string& type_name) {
// Returns the description of the given matcher.
template <typename T>
string Describe(const Matcher<T>& m) {
std::string Describe(const Matcher<T>& m) {
stringstream ss;
m.DescribeTo(&ss);
return ss.str();
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ string Describe(const Matcher<T>& m) {
// Returns the description of the negation of the given matcher.
template <typename T>
string DescribeNegation(const Matcher<T>& m) {
std::string DescribeNegation(const Matcher<T>& m) {
stringstream ss;
m.DescribeNegationTo(&ss);
return ss.str();
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ string DescribeNegation(const Matcher<T>& m) {
// Returns the reason why x matches, or doesn't match, m.
template <typename MatcherType, typename Value>
string Explain(const MatcherType& m, const Value& x) {
std::string Explain(const MatcherType& m, const Value& x) {
StringMatchResultListener listener;
ExplainMatchResult(m, x, &listener);
return listener.str();
@@ -973,7 +973,7 @@ TEST(LeTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
// Tests that Lt(v) matches anything < v.
TEST(LtTest, ImplementsLessThan) {
Matcher<const string&> m1 = Lt("Hello");
Matcher<const std::string&> m1 = Lt("Hello");
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches("Abc"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m1.Matches("Hello"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m1.Matches("Hello, world!"));
@@ -1125,7 +1125,7 @@ TEST(RefTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
Matcher<int&> m = Ref(n);
stringstream ss;
ss << "references the variable @" << &n << " 5";
EXPECT_EQ(string(ss.str()), Describe(m));
EXPECT_EQ(ss.str(), Describe(m));
}
// Test that Ref(non_const_varialbe) can be used as a matcher for a
@@ -1169,27 +1169,27 @@ TEST(RefTest, ExplainsResult) {
// Tests string comparison matchers.
TEST(StrEqTest, MatchesEqualString) {
Matcher<const char*> m = StrEq(string("Hello"));
Matcher<const char*> m = StrEq(std::string("Hello"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m.Matches("Hello"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m.Matches("hello"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m.Matches(NULL));
Matcher<const string&> m2 = StrEq("Hello");
Matcher<const std::string&> m2 = StrEq("Hello");
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches("Hello"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m2.Matches("Hi"));
}
TEST(StrEqTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
Matcher<string> m = StrEq("Hi-\'\"?\\\a\b\f\n\r\t\v\xD3");
Matcher<std::string> m = StrEq("Hi-\'\"?\\\a\b\f\n\r\t\v\xD3");
EXPECT_EQ("is equal to \"Hi-\'\\\"?\\\\\\a\\b\\f\\n\\r\\t\\v\\xD3\"",
Describe(m));
string str("01204500800");
std::string str("01204500800");
str[3] = '\0';
Matcher<string> m2 = StrEq(str);
Matcher<std::string> m2 = StrEq(str);
EXPECT_EQ("is equal to \"012\\04500800\"", Describe(m2));
str[0] = str[6] = str[7] = str[9] = str[10] = '\0';
Matcher<string> m3 = StrEq(str);
Matcher<std::string> m3 = StrEq(str);
EXPECT_EQ("is equal to \"\\012\\045\\0\\08\\0\\0\"", Describe(m3));
}
@@ -1199,7 +1199,7 @@ TEST(StrNeTest, MatchesUnequalString) {
EXPECT_TRUE(m.Matches(NULL));
EXPECT_FALSE(m.Matches("Hello"));
Matcher<string> m2 = StrNe(string("Hello"));
Matcher<std::string> m2 = StrNe(std::string("Hello"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches("hello"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m2.Matches("Hello"));
}
@@ -1222,32 +1222,32 @@ TEST(StrCaseEqTest, MatchesEqualStringIgnoringCase) {
}
TEST(StrCaseEqTest, MatchesEqualStringWith0IgnoringCase) {
string str1("oabocdooeoo");
string str2("OABOCDOOEOO");
Matcher<const string&> m0 = StrCaseEq(str1);
EXPECT_FALSE(m0.Matches(str2 + string(1, '\0')));
std::string str1("oabocdooeoo");
std::string str2("OABOCDOOEOO");
Matcher<const std::string&> m0 = StrCaseEq(str1);
EXPECT_FALSE(m0.Matches(str2 + std::string(1, '\0')));
str1[3] = str2[3] = '\0';
Matcher<const string&> m1 = StrCaseEq(str1);
Matcher<const std::string&> m1 = StrCaseEq(str1);
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches(str2));
str1[0] = str1[6] = str1[7] = str1[10] = '\0';
str2[0] = str2[6] = str2[7] = str2[10] = '\0';
Matcher<const string&> m2 = StrCaseEq(str1);
Matcher<const std::string&> m2 = StrCaseEq(str1);
str1[9] = str2[9] = '\0';
EXPECT_FALSE(m2.Matches(str2));
Matcher<const string&> m3 = StrCaseEq(str1);
Matcher<const std::string&> m3 = StrCaseEq(str1);
EXPECT_TRUE(m3.Matches(str2));
EXPECT_FALSE(m3.Matches(str2 + "x"));
str2.append(1, '\0');
EXPECT_FALSE(m3.Matches(str2));
EXPECT_FALSE(m3.Matches(string(str2, 0, 9)));
EXPECT_FALSE(m3.Matches(std::string(str2, 0, 9)));
}
TEST(StrCaseEqTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
Matcher<string> m = StrCaseEq("Hi");
Matcher<std::string> m = StrCaseEq("Hi");
EXPECT_EQ("is equal to (ignoring case) \"Hi\"", Describe(m));
}
@@ -1258,7 +1258,7 @@ TEST(StrCaseNeTest, MatchesUnequalStringIgnoringCase) {
EXPECT_FALSE(m.Matches("Hello"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m.Matches("hello"));
Matcher<string> m2 = StrCaseNe(string("Hello"));
Matcher<std::string> m2 = StrCaseNe(std::string("Hello"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches(""));
EXPECT_FALSE(m2.Matches("Hello"));
}
@@ -1270,9 +1270,9 @@ TEST(StrCaseNeTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
// Tests that HasSubstr() works for matching string-typed values.
TEST(HasSubstrTest, WorksForStringClasses) {
const Matcher<string> m1 = HasSubstr("foo");
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches(string("I love food.")));
EXPECT_FALSE(m1.Matches(string("tofo")));
const Matcher<std::string> m1 = HasSubstr("foo");
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches(std::string("I love food.")));
EXPECT_FALSE(m1.Matches(std::string("tofo")));
const Matcher<const std::string&> m2 = HasSubstr("foo");
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches(std::string("I love food.")));
@@ -1294,7 +1294,7 @@ TEST(HasSubstrTest, WorksForCStrings) {
// Tests that HasSubstr(s) describes itself properly.
TEST(HasSubstrTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
Matcher<string> m = HasSubstr("foo\n\"");
Matcher<std::string> m = HasSubstr("foo\n\"");
EXPECT_EQ("has substring \"foo\\n\\\"\"", Describe(m));
}
@@ -1460,12 +1460,12 @@ TEST(PairTest, InsideContainsUsingMap) {
// Tests StartsWith(s).
TEST(StartsWithTest, MatchesStringWithGivenPrefix) {
const Matcher<const char*> m1 = StartsWith(string(""));
const Matcher<const char*> m1 = StartsWith(std::string(""));
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches("Hi"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches(""));
EXPECT_FALSE(m1.Matches(NULL));
const Matcher<const string&> m2 = StartsWith("Hi");
const Matcher<const std::string&> m2 = StartsWith("Hi");
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches("Hi"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches("Hi Hi!"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches("High"));
@@ -1507,14 +1507,14 @@ TEST(MatchesRegexTest, MatchesStringMatchingGivenRegex) {
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches("abcz"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m1.Matches(NULL));
const Matcher<const string&> m2 = MatchesRegex(new RE("a.*z"));
const Matcher<const std::string&> m2 = MatchesRegex(new RE("a.*z"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches("azbz"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m2.Matches("az1"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m2.Matches("1az"));
}
TEST(MatchesRegexTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
Matcher<const std::string> m1 = MatchesRegex(string("Hi.*"));
Matcher<const std::string> m1 = MatchesRegex(std::string("Hi.*"));
EXPECT_EQ("matches regular expression \"Hi.*\"", Describe(m1));
Matcher<const char*> m2 = MatchesRegex(new RE("a.*"));
@@ -1524,12 +1524,12 @@ TEST(MatchesRegexTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
// Tests ContainsRegex().
TEST(ContainsRegexTest, MatchesStringContainingGivenRegex) {
const Matcher<const char*> m1 = ContainsRegex(string("a.*z"));
const Matcher<const char*> m1 = ContainsRegex(std::string("a.*z"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches("az"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m1.Matches("0abcz1"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m1.Matches(NULL));
const Matcher<const string&> m2 = ContainsRegex(new RE("a.*z"));
const Matcher<const std::string&> m2 = ContainsRegex(new RE("a.*z"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches("azbz"));
EXPECT_TRUE(m2.Matches("az1"));
EXPECT_FALSE(m2.Matches("1a"));
@@ -2685,9 +2685,9 @@ TEST(MatcherAssertionTest, WorksForMonomorphicMatcher) {
Matcher<const char*> starts_with_he = StartsWith("he");
ASSERT_THAT("hello", starts_with_he);
Matcher<const string&> ends_with_ok = EndsWith("ok");
Matcher<const std::string&> ends_with_ok = EndsWith("ok");
ASSERT_THAT("book", ends_with_ok);
const string bad = "bad";
const std::string bad = "bad";
EXPECT_NONFATAL_FAILURE(EXPECT_THAT(bad, ends_with_ok),
"Value of: bad\n"
"Expected: ends with \"ok\"\n"
@@ -3099,7 +3099,8 @@ TEST_F(DoubleNearTest, ExplainsResultWhenMatchFails) {
EXPECT_EQ("which is 0.2 from 2", Explain(DoubleNear(2.0, 0.1), 2.2));
EXPECT_EQ("which is -0.3 from 2", Explain(DoubleNear(2.0, 0.1), 1.7));
const string explanation = Explain(DoubleNear(2.1, 1e-10), 2.1 + 1.2e-10);
const std::string explanation =
Explain(DoubleNear(2.1, 1e-10), 2.1 + 1.2e-10);
// Different C++ implementations may print floating-point numbers
// slightly differently.
EXPECT_TRUE(explanation == "which is 1.2e-10 from 2.1" || // GCC
@@ -3337,9 +3338,9 @@ TEST(PointeeTest, CanDescribeSelf) {
}
TEST(PointeeTest, CanExplainMatchResult) {
const Matcher<const string*> m = Pointee(StartsWith("Hi"));
const Matcher<const std::string*> m = Pointee(StartsWith("Hi"));
EXPECT_EQ("", Explain(m, static_cast<const string*>(NULL)));
EXPECT_EQ("", Explain(m, static_cast<const std::string*>(NULL)));
const Matcher<long*> m2 = Pointee(GreaterThan(1)); // NOLINT
long n = 3; // NOLINT
@@ -3585,15 +3586,15 @@ class AClass {
void set_n(int new_n) { n_ = new_n; }
// A getter that returns a reference to const.
const string& s() const { return s_; }
const std::string& s() const { return s_; }
void set_s(const string& new_s) { s_ = new_s; }
void set_s(const std::string& new_s) { s_ = new_s; }
// A getter that returns a reference to non-const.
double& x() const { return x_; }
private:
int n_;
string s_;
std::string s_;
static double x_;
};
@@ -3799,10 +3800,12 @@ TEST(PropertyForPointerTest, CanExplainMatchResult) {
// Tests that ResultOf(f, ...) compiles and works as expected when f is a
// function pointer.
string IntToStringFunction(int input) { return input == 1 ? "foo" : "bar"; }
std::string IntToStringFunction(int input) {
return input == 1 ? "foo" : "bar";
}
TEST(ResultOfTest, WorksForFunctionPointers) {
Matcher<int> matcher = ResultOf(&IntToStringFunction, Eq(string("foo")));
Matcher<int> matcher = ResultOf(&IntToStringFunction, Eq(std::string("foo")));
EXPECT_TRUE(matcher.Matches(1));
EXPECT_FALSE(matcher.Matches(2));
@@ -3868,12 +3871,12 @@ TEST(ResultOfTest, WorksForReferenceToNonConstResults) {
// Tests that ResultOf(f, ...) compiles and works as expected when f(x)
// returns a reference to const.
const string& StringFunction(const string& input) { return input; }
const std::string& StringFunction(const std::string& input) { return input; }
TEST(ResultOfTest, WorksForReferenceToConstResults) {
string s = "foo";
string s2 = s;
Matcher<const string&> matcher = ResultOf(&StringFunction, Ref(s));
std::string s = "foo";
std::string s2 = s;
Matcher<const std::string&> matcher = ResultOf(&StringFunction, Ref(s));
EXPECT_TRUE(matcher.Matches(s));
EXPECT_FALSE(matcher.Matches(s2));
@@ -3893,8 +3896,9 @@ TEST(ResultOfTest, WorksForCompatibleMatcherTypes) {
// a NULL function pointer.
TEST(ResultOfDeathTest, DiesOnNullFunctionPointers) {
EXPECT_DEATH_IF_SUPPORTED(
ResultOf(static_cast<string(*)(int dummy)>(NULL), Eq(string("foo"))),
"NULL function pointer is passed into ResultOf\\(\\)\\.");
ResultOf(static_cast<std::string (*)(int dummy)>(NULL),
Eq(std::string("foo"))),
"NULL function pointer is passed into ResultOf\\(\\)\\.");
}
// Tests that ResultOf(f, ...) compiles and works as expected when f is a
@@ -3907,14 +3911,14 @@ TEST(ResultOfTest, WorksForFunctionReferences) {
// Tests that ResultOf(f, ...) compiles and works as expected when f is a
// function object.
struct Functor : public ::std::unary_function<int, string> {
struct Functor : public ::std::unary_function<int, std::string> {
result_type operator()(argument_type input) const {
return IntToStringFunction(input);
}
};
TEST(ResultOfTest, WorksForFunctors) {
Matcher<int> matcher = ResultOf(Functor(), Eq(string("foo")));
Matcher<int> matcher = ResultOf(Functor(), Eq(std::string("foo")));
EXPECT_TRUE(matcher.Matches(1));
EXPECT_FALSE(matcher.Matches(2));
@@ -4080,11 +4084,11 @@ TEST(IsEmptyTest, ImplementsIsEmpty) {
}
TEST(IsEmptyTest, WorksWithString) {
string text;
std::string text;
EXPECT_THAT(text, IsEmpty());
text = "foo";
EXPECT_THAT(text, Not(IsEmpty()));
text = string("\0", 1);
text = std::string("\0", 1);
EXPECT_THAT(text, Not(IsEmpty()));
}
@@ -4115,7 +4119,7 @@ TEST(SizeIsTest, ImplementsSizeIs) {
}
TEST(SizeIsTest, WorksWithMap) {
map<string, int> container;
map<std::string, int> container;
EXPECT_THAT(container, SizeIs(0));
EXPECT_THAT(container, Not(SizeIs(1)));
container.insert(make_pair("foo", 1));
@@ -4380,13 +4384,13 @@ TEST(WhenSortedByTest, WorksForNonEmptyContainer) {
}
TEST(WhenSortedByTest, WorksForNonVectorContainer) {
list<string> words;
list<std::string> words;
words.push_back("say");
words.push_back("hello");
words.push_back("world");
EXPECT_THAT(words, WhenSortedBy(less<string>(),
EXPECT_THAT(words, WhenSortedBy(less<std::string>(),
ElementsAre("hello", "say", "world")));
EXPECT_THAT(words, Not(WhenSortedBy(less<string>(),
EXPECT_THAT(words, Not(WhenSortedBy(less<std::string>(),
ElementsAre("say", "hello", "world"))));
}
@@ -4429,7 +4433,7 @@ TEST(WhenSortedTest, WorksForEmptyContainer) {
}
TEST(WhenSortedTest, WorksForNonEmptyContainer) {
list<string> words;
list<std::string> words;
words.push_back("3");
words.push_back("1");
words.push_back("2");
@@ -4439,14 +4443,16 @@ TEST(WhenSortedTest, WorksForNonEmptyContainer) {
}
TEST(WhenSortedTest, WorksForMapTypes) {
map<string, int> word_counts;
word_counts["and"] = 1;
word_counts["the"] = 1;
word_counts["buffalo"] = 2;
EXPECT_THAT(word_counts, WhenSorted(ElementsAre(
Pair("and", 1), Pair("buffalo", 2), Pair("the", 1))));
EXPECT_THAT(word_counts, Not(WhenSorted(ElementsAre(
Pair("and", 1), Pair("the", 1), Pair("buffalo", 2)))));
map<std::string, int> word_counts;
word_counts["and"] = 1;
word_counts["the"] = 1;
word_counts["buffalo"] = 2;
EXPECT_THAT(word_counts,
WhenSorted(ElementsAre(Pair("and", 1), Pair("buffalo", 2),
Pair("the", 1))));
EXPECT_THAT(word_counts,
Not(WhenSorted(ElementsAre(Pair("and", 1), Pair("the", 1),
Pair("buffalo", 2)))));
}
TEST(WhenSortedTest, WorksForMultiMapTypes) {
@@ -4763,7 +4769,7 @@ TEST(UnorderedElementsAreArrayTest, TakesInitializerList) {
}
TEST(UnorderedElementsAreArrayTest, TakesInitializerListOfCStrings) {
const string a[5] = {"a", "b", "c", "d", "e"};
const std::string a[5] = {"a", "b", "c", "d", "e"};
EXPECT_THAT(a, UnorderedElementsAreArray({"a", "b", "c", "d", "e"}));
EXPECT_THAT(a, Not(UnorderedElementsAreArray({"a", "b", "c", "d", "ef"})));
}
@@ -4937,7 +4943,7 @@ TEST_F(UnorderedElementsAreTest, FailMessageUnmatchedMatcherAndElement) {
}
// Test helper for formatting element, matcher index pairs in expectations.
static string EMString(int element, int matcher) {
static std::string EMString(int element, int matcher) {
stringstream ss;
ss << "(element #" << element << ", matcher #" << matcher << ")";
return ss.str();
@@ -4946,7 +4952,7 @@ static string EMString(int element, int matcher) {
TEST_F(UnorderedElementsAreTest, FailMessageImperfectMatchOnly) {
// A situation where all elements and matchers have a match
// associated with them, but the max matching is not perfect.
std::vector<string> v;
std::vector<std::string> v;
v.push_back("a");
v.push_back("b");
v.push_back("c");
@@ -4955,7 +4961,7 @@ TEST_F(UnorderedElementsAreTest, FailMessageImperfectMatchOnly) {
UnorderedElementsAre("a", "a", AnyOf("b", "c")), v, &listener))
<< listener.str();
string prefix =
std::string prefix =
"where no permutation of the elements can satisfy all matchers, "
"and the closest match is 2 of 3 matchers with the "
"pairings:\n";
@@ -5366,13 +5372,13 @@ TEST(EachTest, MatchesVectorWhenAllElementsMatch) {
EXPECT_THAT(some_vector, Not(Each(3)));
EXPECT_THAT(some_vector, Each(Lt(3.5)));
vector<string> another_vector;
vector<std::string> another_vector;
another_vector.push_back("fee");
EXPECT_THAT(another_vector, Each(string("fee")));
EXPECT_THAT(another_vector, Each(std::string("fee")));
another_vector.push_back("fie");
another_vector.push_back("foe");
another_vector.push_back("fum");
EXPECT_THAT(another_vector, Not(Each(string("fee"))));
EXPECT_THAT(another_vector, Not(Each(std::string("fee"))));
}
TEST(EachTest, MatchesMapWhenAllElementsMatch) {
@@ -5381,15 +5387,15 @@ TEST(EachTest, MatchesMapWhenAllElementsMatch) {
my_map[bar] = 2;
EXPECT_THAT(my_map, Each(make_pair(bar, 2)));
map<string, int> another_map;
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Each(make_pair(string("fee"), 1)));
map<std::string, int> another_map;
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Each(make_pair(std::string("fee"), 1)));
another_map["fee"] = 1;
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Each(make_pair(string("fee"), 1)));
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Each(make_pair(std::string("fee"), 1)));
another_map["fie"] = 2;
another_map["foe"] = 3;
another_map["fum"] = 4;
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Not(Each(make_pair(string("fee"), 1))));
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Not(Each(make_pair(string("fum"), 1))));
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Not(Each(make_pair(std::string("fee"), 1))));
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Not(Each(make_pair(std::string("fum"), 1))));
EXPECT_THAT(another_map, Each(Pair(_, Gt(0))));
}
googlemock/test/gmock-more-actions_test.cc
+77 -74
View File
@@ -94,12 +94,12 @@ const char* Plus1(const char* s) { return s + 1; }
void VoidUnary(int /* n */) { g_done = true; }
bool ByConstRef(const string& s) { return s == "Hi"; }
bool ByConstRef(const std::string& s) { return s == "Hi"; }
const double g_double = 0;
bool ReferencesGlobalDouble(const double& x) { return &x == &g_double; }
string ByNonConstRef(string& s) { return s += "+"; } // NOLINT
std::string ByNonConstRef(std::string& s) { return s += "+"; } // NOLINT
struct UnaryFunctor {
int operator()(bool x) { return x ? 1 : -1; }
@@ -119,9 +119,9 @@ int SumOfFirst2(int a, int b, Unused, Unused) { return a + b; }
void VoidFunctionWithFourArguments(char, int, float, double) { g_done = true; }
string Concat4(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4;
std::string Concat4(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4;
}
int SumOf5(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e) { return a + b + c + d + e; }
@@ -132,9 +132,9 @@ struct SumOf5Functor {
}
};
string Concat5(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5;
std::string Concat5(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5;
}
int SumOf6(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f) {
@@ -147,34 +147,34 @@ struct SumOf6Functor {
}
};
string Concat6(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6;
std::string Concat6(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6;
}
string Concat7(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7;
std::string Concat7(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7;
}
string Concat8(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8;
std::string Concat8(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8;
}
string Concat9(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9;
std::string Concat9(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9;
}
string Concat10(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9,
const char* s10) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9 + s10;
std::string Concat10(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9,
const char* s10) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9 + s10;
}
class Foo {
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ class Foo {
short Unary(long x) { return static_cast<short>(value_ + x); } // NOLINT
string Binary(const string& str, char c) const { return str + c; }
std::string Binary(const std::string& str, char c) const { return str + c; }
int Ternary(int x, bool y, char z) { return value_ + x + y*z; }
@@ -201,29 +201,29 @@ class Foo {
return a + b + c + d + e + f;
}
string Concat7(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7;
std::string Concat7(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7;
}
string Concat8(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8;
std::string Concat8(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8;
}
string Concat9(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9;
std::string Concat9(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9;
}
string Concat10(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9,
const char* s10) {
return string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9 + s10;
std::string Concat10(const char* s1, const char* s2, const char* s3,
const char* s4, const char* s5, const char* s6,
const char* s7, const char* s8, const char* s9,
const char* s10) {
return std::string(s1) + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5 + s6 + s7 + s8 + s9 + s10;
}
private:
@@ -280,9 +280,9 @@ inline const char* CharPtr(const char* s) { return s; }
// Tests using Invoke() with a 7-argument function.
TEST(InvokeTest, FunctionThatTakes7Arguments) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Invoke(Concat7);
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*)>
a = Invoke(Concat7);
EXPECT_EQ("1234567",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"), CharPtr("3"),
CharPtr("4"), CharPtr("5"), CharPtr("6"),
@@ -291,9 +291,9 @@ TEST(InvokeTest, FunctionThatTakes7Arguments) {
// Tests using Invoke() with a 8-argument function.
TEST(InvokeTest, FunctionThatTakes8Arguments) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Invoke(Concat8);
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)>
a = Invoke(Concat8);
EXPECT_EQ("12345678",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"), CharPtr("3"),
CharPtr("4"), CharPtr("5"), CharPtr("6"),
@@ -302,9 +302,10 @@ TEST(InvokeTest, FunctionThatTakes8Arguments) {
// Tests using Invoke() with a 9-argument function.
TEST(InvokeTest, FunctionThatTakes9Arguments) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*)> a = Invoke(Concat9);
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*)>
a = Invoke(Concat9);
EXPECT_EQ("123456789",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"), CharPtr("3"),
CharPtr("4"), CharPtr("5"), CharPtr("6"),
@@ -313,9 +314,10 @@ TEST(InvokeTest, FunctionThatTakes9Arguments) {
// Tests using Invoke() with a 10-argument function.
TEST(InvokeTest, FunctionThatTakes10Arguments) {
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*)> a = Invoke(Concat10);
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*)>
a = Invoke(Concat10);
EXPECT_EQ("1234567890",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"), CharPtr("3"),
CharPtr("4"), CharPtr("5"), CharPtr("6"),
@@ -339,8 +341,7 @@ TEST(InvokeTest, FunctionWithUnusedParameters) {
// Tests using Invoke() with methods with parameters declared as Unused.
TEST(InvokeTest, MethodWithUnusedParameters) {
Foo foo;
Action<int(string, bool, int, int)> a1 =
Invoke(&foo, &Foo::SumOfLast2);
Action<int(std::string, bool, int, int)> a1 = Invoke(&foo, &Foo::SumOfLast2);
EXPECT_EQ(12, a1.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("hi"), true, 10, 2)));
Action<int(char, double, int, int)> a2 =
@@ -417,9 +418,9 @@ TEST(InvokeMethodTest, MethodThatTakes6Arguments) {
// Tests using Invoke() with a 7-argument method.
TEST(InvokeMethodTest, MethodThatTakes7Arguments) {
Foo foo;
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concat7);
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*)>
a = Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concat7);
EXPECT_EQ("1234567",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"), CharPtr("3"),
CharPtr("4"), CharPtr("5"), CharPtr("6"),
@@ -429,9 +430,9 @@ TEST(InvokeMethodTest, MethodThatTakes7Arguments) {
// Tests using Invoke() with a 8-argument method.
TEST(InvokeMethodTest, MethodThatTakes8Arguments) {
Foo foo;
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)> a =
Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concat8);
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)>
a = Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concat8);
EXPECT_EQ("12345678",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"), CharPtr("3"),
CharPtr("4"), CharPtr("5"), CharPtr("6"),
@@ -441,9 +442,10 @@ TEST(InvokeMethodTest, MethodThatTakes8Arguments) {
// Tests using Invoke() with a 9-argument method.
TEST(InvokeMethodTest, MethodThatTakes9Arguments) {
Foo foo;
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*)> a = Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concat9);
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*)>
a = Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concat9);
EXPECT_EQ("123456789",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"), CharPtr("3"),
CharPtr("4"), CharPtr("5"), CharPtr("6"),
@@ -453,9 +455,10 @@ TEST(InvokeMethodTest, MethodThatTakes9Arguments) {
// Tests using Invoke() with a 10-argument method.
TEST(InvokeMethodTest, MethodThatTakes10Arguments) {
Foo foo;
Action<string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*)> a = Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concat10);
Action<std::string(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*,
const char*, const char*)>
a = Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concat10);
EXPECT_EQ("1234567890",
a.Perform(make_tuple(CharPtr("1"), CharPtr("2"), CharPtr("3"),
CharPtr("4"), CharPtr("5"), CharPtr("6"),
@@ -495,8 +498,8 @@ TEST(ReturnArgActionTest, WorksForMultiArgBoolArg0) {
}
TEST(ReturnArgActionTest, WorksForMultiArgStringArg2) {
const Action<string(int, int, string, int)> a = ReturnArg<2>();
EXPECT_EQ("seven", a.Perform(make_tuple(5, 6, string("seven"), 8)));
const Action<std::string(int, int, std::string, int)> a = ReturnArg<2>();
EXPECT_EQ("seven", a.Perform(make_tuple(5, 6, std::string("seven"), 8)));
}
TEST(SaveArgActionTest, WorksForSameType) {
googlemock/test/gmock-nice-strict_test.cc
+36 -14
View File
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@ class Mock {
namespace testing {
namespace gmock_nice_strict_test {
using testing::internal::string;
using testing::GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::NaggyMock;
@@ -63,6 +62,12 @@ using testing::internal::CaptureStdout;
using testing::internal::GetCapturedStdout;
#endif
// Class without default constructor.
class NotDefaultConstructible {
public:
explicit NotDefaultConstructible(int) {}
};
// Defines some mock classes needed by the tests.
class Foo {
@@ -80,6 +85,7 @@ class MockFoo : public Foo {
MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, void());
MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, int(bool flag));
MOCK_METHOD0(ReturnNonDefaultConstructible, NotDefaultConstructible());
private:
GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockFoo);
@@ -87,23 +93,23 @@ class MockFoo : public Foo {
class MockBar {
public:
explicit MockBar(const string& s) : str_(s) {}
explicit MockBar(const std::string& s) : str_(s) {}
MockBar(char a1, char a2, string a3, string a4, int a5, int a6,
const string& a7, const string& a8, bool a9, bool a10) {
str_ = string() + a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + static_cast<char>(a5) +
MockBar(char a1, char a2, std::string a3, std::string a4, int a5, int a6,
const std::string& a7, const std::string& a8, bool a9, bool a10) {
str_ = std::string() + a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + static_cast<char>(a5) +
static_cast<char>(a6) + a7 + a8 + (a9 ? 'T' : 'F') + (a10 ? 'T' : 'F');
}
virtual ~MockBar() {}
const string& str() const { return str_; }
const std::string& str() const { return str_; }
MOCK_METHOD0(This, int());
MOCK_METHOD2(That, string(int, bool));
MOCK_METHOD2(That, std::string(int, bool));
private:
string str_;
std::string str_;
GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(MockBar);
};
@@ -112,7 +118,7 @@ class MockBar {
// Tests that a raw mock generates warnings for uninteresting calls.
TEST(RawMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCall) {
const string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = "warning";
MockFoo raw_foo;
@@ -129,7 +135,7 @@ TEST(RawMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCall) {
// Tests that a raw mock generates warnings for uninteresting calls
// that delete the mock object.
TEST(RawMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCallAfterDeath) {
const string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = "warning";
MockFoo* const raw_foo = new MockFoo;
@@ -150,7 +156,7 @@ TEST(RawMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCallAfterDeath) {
TEST(RawMockTest, InfoForUninterestingCall) {
MockFoo raw_foo;
const string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = "info";
CaptureStdout();
raw_foo.DoThis();
@@ -188,7 +194,7 @@ TEST(NiceMockTest, NoWarningForUninterestingCallAfterDeath) {
TEST(NiceMockTest, InfoForUninterestingCall) {
NiceMock<MockFoo> nice_foo;
const string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = "info";
CaptureStdout();
nice_foo.DoThis();
@@ -208,6 +214,22 @@ TEST(NiceMockTest, AllowsExpectedCall) {
nice_foo.DoThis();
}
// Tests that an unexpected call on a nice mock which returns a not-default-constructible
// type throws an exception and the exception contains the method's name.
TEST(NiceMockTest, ThrowsExceptionForUnknownReturnTypes) {
NiceMock<MockFoo> nice_foo;
#if GTEST_HAS_EXCEPTIONS
try {
nice_foo.ReturnNonDefaultConstructible();
FAIL();
} catch (const std::runtime_error& ex) {
EXPECT_THAT(ex.what(), HasSubstr("ReturnNonDefaultConstructible"));
}
#else
EXPECT_DEATH_IF_SUPPORTED({ nice_foo.ReturnNonDefaultConstructible(); }, "");
#endif
}
// Tests that an unexpected call on a nice mock fails.
TEST(NiceMockTest, UnexpectedCallFails) {
NiceMock<MockFoo> nice_foo;
@@ -257,7 +279,7 @@ TEST(NiceMockTest, AcceptsClassNamedMock) {
// Tests that a naggy mock generates warnings for uninteresting calls.
TEST(NaggyMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCall) {
const string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = "warning";
NaggyMock<MockFoo> naggy_foo;
@@ -274,7 +296,7 @@ TEST(NaggyMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCall) {
// Tests that a naggy mock generates a warning for an uninteresting call
// that deletes the mock object.
TEST(NaggyMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCallAfterDeath) {
const string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG(verbose);
GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = "warning";
NaggyMock<MockFoo>* const naggy_foo = new NaggyMock<MockFoo>;
googlemock/test/gmock-spec-builders_test.cc
+5 -6
View File
@@ -97,7 +97,6 @@ using testing::internal::kErrorVerbosity;
using testing::internal::kInfoVerbosity;
using testing::internal::kWarningVerbosity;
using testing::internal::linked_ptr;
using testing::internal::string;
#if GTEST_HAS_STREAM_REDIRECTION
using testing::HasSubstr;
@@ -1954,7 +1953,7 @@ class MockC {
public:
MockC() {}
MOCK_METHOD6(VoidMethod, void(bool cond, int n, string s, void* p,
MOCK_METHOD6(VoidMethod, void(bool cond, int n, std::string s, void* p,
const Printable& x, Unprintable y));
MOCK_METHOD0(NonVoidMethod, int()); // NOLINT
@@ -1970,7 +1969,7 @@ class VerboseFlagPreservingFixture : public testing::Test {
~VerboseFlagPreservingFixture() { GMOCK_FLAG(verbose) = saved_verbose_flag_; }
private:
const string saved_verbose_flag_;
const std::string saved_verbose_flag_;
GTEST_DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN_(VerboseFlagPreservingFixture);
};
@@ -2062,8 +2061,8 @@ class GMockVerboseFlagTest : public VerboseFlagPreservingFixture {
// contain the given function name in the stack trace. When it's
// false, the output should be empty.)
void VerifyOutput(const std::string& output, bool should_print,
const string& expected_substring,
const string& function_name) {
const std::string& expected_substring,
const std::string& function_name) {
if (should_print) {
EXPECT_THAT(output.c_str(), HasSubstr(expected_substring));
# ifndef NDEBUG
@@ -2113,7 +2112,7 @@ class GMockVerboseFlagTest : public VerboseFlagPreservingFixture {
// Tests how the flag affects uninteresting calls on a naggy mock.
void TestUninterestingCallOnNaggyMock(bool should_print) {
NaggyMock<MockA> a;
const string note =
const std::string note =
"NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this "
"call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding "
"an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. "
googlemock/test/gmock_stress_test.cc
+1 -1
View File
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ const int kRepeat = 50;
class MockFoo {
public:
MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, int(int n)); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD2(Baz, char(const char* s1, const internal::string& s2)); // NOLINT
MOCK_METHOD2(Baz, char(const char* s1, const std::string& s2)); // NOLINT
};
// Helper for waiting for the given thread to finish and then deleting it.