cook_book.md 143 KB
Newer Older
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1
# gMock Cookbook
2

3
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0012 DO NOT DELETE -->
4

5
6
You can find recipes for using gMock here. If you haven't yet, please read
[this](for_dummies.md) first to make sure you understand the basics.
7

8
9
10
11
**Note:** gMock lives in the `testing` name space. For readability, it is
recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in your file before using the
name `Foo` defined by gMock. We omit such `using` statements in this section for
brevity, but you should do it in your own code.
12

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
13
## Creating Mock Classes
14

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Mock classes are defined as normal classes, using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro to
generate mocked methods. The macro gets 3 or 4 parameters:

```cpp
class MyMock {
 public:
  MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args...));
  MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args...), (Specs...));
};
```

The first 3 parameters are simply the method declaration, split into 3 parts.
The 4th parameter accepts a closed list of qualifiers, which affect the
generated method:

*   **`const`** - Makes the mocked method a `const` method. Required if
    overriding a `const` method.
*   **`override`** - Marks the method with `override`. Recommended if overriding
    a `virtual` method.
*   **`noexcept`** - Marks the method with `noexcept`. Required if overriding a
    `noexcept` method.
*   **`Calltype(...)`** - Sets the call type for the method (e.g. to
    `STDMETHODCALLTYPE`), useful in Windows.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
39
### Dealing with unprotected commas
40

41
42
43
Unprotected commas, i.e. commas which are not surrounded by parentheses, prevent
`MOCK_METHOD` from parsing its arguments correctly:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
44
```cpp {.bad}
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
class MockFoo {
 public:
  MOCK_METHOD(std::pair<bool, int>, GetPair, ());  // Won't compile!
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (std::map<int, double>, bool));  // Won't compile!
};
```

Solution 1 - wrap with parentheses:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
54
```cpp {.good}
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
class MockFoo {
 public:
  MOCK_METHOD((std::pair<bool, int>), GetPair, ());
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, ((std::map<int, double>), bool));
};
```

Note that wrapping a return or argument type with parentheses is, in general,
invalid C++. `MOCK_METHOD` removes the parentheses.

Solution 2 - define an alias:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
67
```cpp {.good}
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
class MockFoo {
 public:
  using BoolAndInt = std::pair<bool, int>;
  MOCK_METHOD(BoolAndInt, GetPair, ());
  using MapIntDouble = std::map<int, double>;
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (MapIntDouble, bool));
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
77
### Mocking Private or Protected Methods
78
79
80
81
82
83
84

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:
85

86
```cpp
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
class Foo {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0;

 protected:
  virtual void Resume();

 private:
  virtual int GetTimeOut();
};

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  ...
102
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Transform, (Gadget* g), (override));
103
104
105

  // The following must be in the public section, even though the
  // methods are protected or private in the base class.
106
107
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Resume, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetTimeOut, (), (override));
108
109
110
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
111
### Mocking Overloaded Methods
112
113
114

You can mock overloaded functions as usual. No special attention is required:

115
```cpp
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
class Foo {
  ...

  // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from Foo.
  virtual ~Foo();

  // Overloaded on the types and/or numbers of arguments.
  virtual int Add(Element x);
  virtual int Add(int times, Element x);

  // Overloaded on the const-ness of this object.
  virtual Bar& GetBar();
  virtual const Bar& GetBar() const;
};

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
133
134
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override));
135

136
137
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
138
139
140
};
```

141
142
143
**Note:** if you don't mock all versions of the overloaded method, the compiler
will give you a warning about some methods in the base class being hidden. To
fix that, use `using` to bring them in scope:
144

145
```cpp
146
147
148
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  using Foo::Add;
149
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
150
151
152
153
154
  // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x);
  ...
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
155
### Mocking Class Templates
156

157
You can mock class templates just like any class.
158

159
```cpp
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
template <typename Elem>
class StackInterface {
  ...
  // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from StackInterface.
  virtual ~StackInterface();

  virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
  virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0;
};

template <typename Elem>
class MockStack : public StackInterface<Elem> {
  ...
173
174
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
175
176
177
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
178
### Mocking Non-virtual Methods {#MockingNonVirtualMethods}
179

180
gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in Hi-perf dependency
misterg's avatar
misterg committed
181
injection.<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0017 DO NOT DELETE -->
182

183
184
185
186
In this case, instead of sharing a common base class with the real class, your
mock class will be *unrelated* to the real class, but contain methods with the
same signatures. The syntax for mocking non-virtual methods is the *same* as
mocking virtual methods (just don't add `override`):
187

188
```cpp
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
// A simple packet stream class.  None of its members is virtual.
class ConcretePacketStream {
 public:
  void AppendPacket(Packet* new_packet);
  const Packet* GetPacket(size_t packet_number) const;
  size_t NumberOfPackets() const;
  ...
};

// A mock packet stream class.  It inherits from no other, but defines
// GetPacket() and NumberOfPackets().
class MockPacketStream {
 public:
202
203
  MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
  MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
204
205
206
207
  ...
};
```

208
209
Note that the mock class doesn't define `AppendPacket()`, unlike the real class.
That's fine as long as the test doesn't need to call it.
210

211
212
213
214
Next, you need a way to say that you want to use `ConcretePacketStream` in
production code, and use `MockPacketStream` in tests. Since the functions are
not virtual and the two classes are unrelated, you must specify your choice at
*compile time* (as opposed to run time).
215

216
217
218
219
220
One way to do it is to templatize your code that needs to use a packet stream.
More specifically, you will give your code a template type argument for the type
of the packet stream. In production, you will instantiate your template with
`ConcretePacketStream` as the type argument. In tests, you will instantiate the
same template with `MockPacketStream`. For example, you may write:
221

222
```cpp
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
template <class PacketStream>
void CreateConnection(PacketStream* stream) { ... }

template <class PacketStream>
class PacketReader {
 public:
  void ReadPackets(PacketStream* stream, size_t packet_num);
};
```

Then you can use `CreateConnection<ConcretePacketStream>()` and
`PacketReader<ConcretePacketStream>` in production code, and use
235
236
`CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
tests.
237

238
```cpp
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
  MockPacketStream mock_stream;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...;
  .. set more expectations on mock_stream ...
  PacketReader<MockPacketStream> reader(&mock_stream);
  ... exercise reader ...
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
246
### Mocking Free Functions
247

248
249
250
It's possible to use gMock to mock a free function (i.e. a C-style function or a
static method). You just need to rewrite your code to use an interface (abstract
class).
251

252
253
Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, introduce an
interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls the free function:
254

255
```cpp
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
class FileInterface {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0;
};

class File : public FileInterface {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) {
266
     return OpenFile(path, mode);
267
268
269
270
  }
};
```

271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
Your code should talk to `FileInterface` to open a file. Now it's easy to mock
out the function.

This may seem like a lot of hassle, but in practice you often have multiple
related functions that you can put in the same interface, so the per-function
syntactic overhead will be much lower.

If you are concerned about the performance overhead incurred by virtual
functions, and profiling confirms your concern, you can combine this with the
recipe for [mocking non-virtual methods](#MockingNonVirtualMethods).

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
282
### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
283

284
285
286
Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro was introduced, mocks where created using
a family of macros collectively called `MOCK_METHODn`. These macros are still
supported, though migration to the new `MOCK_METHOD` is recommended.
287

288
The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`:
289

290
291
292
293
294
295
296
*   The general structure is `MOCK_METHODn(MethodName, ReturnType(Args))`,
    instead of `MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args))`.
*   The number `n` must equal the number of arguments.
*   When mocking a const method, one must use `MOCK_CONST_METHODn`.
*   When mocking a class template, the macro name must be suffixed with `_T`.
*   In order to specify the call type, the macro name must be suffixed with
    `_WITH_CALLTYPE`, and the call type is the first macro argument.
297

298
Old macros and their new equivalents:
299

300
301
302
303
304
<a name="table99"></a>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1">
<tr> <th colspan=2> Simple </th></tr>
<tr> <td> Old </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr>
<tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))` </td> </tr>
305

306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old </td> <td>
`MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td>
`MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))` </td> </tr>

<tr> <th colspan=2> Method in a Class Template </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old </td>
<td> `MOCK_METHOD1_T(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td>
`MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))` </td> </tr>

<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method in a Class Template </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old
</td> <td> `MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New
</td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))` </td> </tr>

<tr> <th colspan=2> Method with Call Type </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old </td> <td>
`MOCK_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr>
<td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int),
(Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))` </td> </tr>

<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method with Call Type </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old</td>
<td> `MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))` </td>
</tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const,
Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))` </td> </tr>

<tr> <th colspan=2> Method with Call Type in a Class Template </th></tr> <tr>
<td> Old </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo,
bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int),
(Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))` </td> </tr>

<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method with Call Type in a Class Template </th></tr>
<tr> <td> Old </td> <td> `MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE,
Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo,
(int), (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))` </td> </tr>

</table>

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
340
### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350

If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, we say that it's an
"uninteresting call", and the default action (which can be specified using
`ON_CALL()`) of the method will be taken. Currently, an uninteresting call will
also by default cause gMock to print a warning. (In the future, we might remove
this warning by default.)

However, sometimes you may want to ignore these uninteresting calls, and
sometimes you may want to treat them as errors. gMock lets you make the decision
on a per-mock-object basis.
351
352
353

Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:

354
```cpp
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
TEST(...) {
  MockFoo mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

362
363
364
If a method of `mock_foo` other than `DoThis()` is called, you will get a
warning. However, if you rewrite your test to use `NiceMock<MockFoo>` instead,
you can suppress the warning:
365

366
```cpp
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
using ::testing::NiceMock;

TEST(...) {
  NiceMock<MockFoo> mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

376
377
`NiceMock<MockFoo>` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever
`MockFoo` is accepted.
378
379
380
381

It also works if `MockFoo`'s constructor takes some arguments, as
`NiceMock<MockFoo>` "inherits" `MockFoo`'s constructors:

382
```cpp
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
using ::testing::NiceMock;

TEST(...) {
  NiceMock<MockFoo> mock_foo(5, "hi");  // Calls MockFoo(5, "hi").
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

392
393
The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting
calls failures:
394

395
```cpp
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
using ::testing::StrictMock;

TEST(...) {
  StrictMock<MockFoo> mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...

  // The test will fail if a method of mock_foo other than DoThis()
  // is called.
}
```

408
409
410
411
412
NOTE: `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only affects *uninteresting* calls (calls of
*methods* with no expectations); they do not affect *unexpected* calls (calls of
methods with expectations, but they don't match). See
[Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls](#uninteresting-vs-unexpected).

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
413
414
There are some caveats though (sadly they are side effects of C++'s
limitations):
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423

1.  `NiceMock<MockFoo>` and `StrictMock<MockFoo>` only work for mock methods
    defined using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro **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.
2.  `NiceMock<MockFoo>` and `StrictMock<MockFoo>` may not work correctly if the
    destructor of `MockFoo` is not virtual. We would like to fix this, but it
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
424
    requires cleaning up existing tests.
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
3.  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
shouldn'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.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
447
### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
448
449
450

Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
For example:
451

452
```cpp
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
class LogSink {
 public:
  ...
  virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename,
                    const char* base_filename, int line,
                    const struct tm* tm_time,
                    const char* message, size_t message_len) = 0;
};
```

463
464
465
466
This method's argument list is lengthy and hard to work with (the `message`
argument is not even 0-terminated). If we mock it as is, using the mock will be
awkward. If, however, we try to simplify this interface, we'll need to fix all
clients depending on it, which is often infeasible.
467

468
The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class:
469

470
```cpp
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink {
 public:
  ...
  virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename,
                    const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time,
                    const char* message, size_t message_len) {
    // We are only interested in the log severity, full file name, and
    // log message.
    Log(severity, full_filename, std::string(message, message_len));
  }

  // Implements the mock method:
  //
  //   void Log(LogSeverity severity,
  //            const string& file_path,
  //            const string& message);
487
488
489
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Log,
              (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,
               const string& message));
490
491
492
};
```

493
By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock
494
class more user-friendly.
495

496
497
498
This technique may also be applied to make overloaded methods more amenable to
mocking. For example, when overloads have been used to implement default
arguments:
499

500
501
502
503
504
```cpp
class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
 public:
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
505

506
507
508
509
  // the above methods delegate to this one:
  MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
};
```
510

511
512
This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
argument matchers:
513

514
515
516
517
```cpp
ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
    .WillByDefault(MakeMockTurtle());
```
518

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
519
### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes
520

521
522
523
Often you may find yourself using classes that don't implement interfaces. In
order to test your code that uses such a class (let's call it `Concrete`), you
may be tempted to make the methods of `Concrete` virtual and then mock it.
524

525
Try not to do that.
526

527
528
529
530
531
Making a non-virtual function virtual is a big decision. It creates an extension
point where subclasses can tweak your class' behavior. This weakens your control
on the class because now it's harder to maintain the class invariants. You
should make a function virtual only when there is a valid reason for a subclass
to override it.
532

533
534
535
Mocking concrete classes directly is problematic as it creates a tight coupling
between the class and the tests - any small change in the class may invalidate
your tests and make test maintenance a pain.
536

537
538
539
540
541
To avoid such problems, many programmers have been practicing "coding to
interfaces": instead of talking to the `Concrete` class, your code would define
an interface and talk to it. Then you implement that interface as an adaptor on
top of `Concrete`. In tests, you can easily mock that interface to observe how
your code is doing.
542

543
This technique incurs some overhead:
544

545
546
*   You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem).
*   There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn.
547

548
549
However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better
testability:
550

551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
*   `Concrete`'s API may not fit your problem domain very well, as you may not
    be the only client it tries to serve. By designing your own interface, you
    have a chance to tailor it to your need - you may add higher-level
    functionalities, rename stuff, etc instead of just trimming the class. This
    allows you to write your code (user of the interface) in a more natural way,
    which means it will be more readable, more maintainable, and you'll be more
    productive.
*   If `Concrete`'s implementation ever has to change, you don't have to rewrite
    everywhere it is used. Instead, you can absorb the change in your
    implementation of the interface, and your other code and tests will be
    insulated from this change.

Some people worry that if everyone is practicing this technique, they will end
up writing lots of redundant code. This concern is totally understandable.
However, there are two reasons why it may not be the case:

*   Different projects may need to use `Concrete` in different ways, so the best
    interfaces for them will be different. Therefore, each of them will have its
    own domain-specific interface on top of `Concrete`, and they will not be the
    same code.
*   If enough projects want to use the same interface, they can always share it,
    just like they have been sharing `Concrete`. You can check in the interface
    and the adaptor somewhere near `Concrete` (perhaps in a `contrib`
    sub-directory) and let many projects use it.

You need to weigh the pros and cons carefully for your particular problem, but
I'd like to assure you that the Java community has been practicing this for a
long time and it's a proven effective technique applicable in a wide variety of
situations. :-)

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
581
### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
582
583
584

Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
example:
585

586
```cpp
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
class Foo {
 public:
  virtual ~Foo() {}
  virtual char DoThis(int n) = 0;
  virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) = 0;
};

class FakeFoo : public Foo {
 public:
596
  char DoThis(int n) override {
597
    return (n > 0) ? '+' :
598
           (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
599
600
  }

601
  void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
602
603
604
605
606
    *p = strlen(s);
  }
};
```

607
608
609
Now you want to mock this interface such that you can set expectations on it.
However, you also want to use `FakeFoo` for the default behavior, as duplicating
it in the mock object is, well, a lot of work.
610

611
612
When you define the mock class using gMock, you can have it delegate its default
action to a fake class you already have, using this pattern:
613

614
```cpp
615
616
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
617
618
619
  // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
620
621
622
623

  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.
  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.
  void DelegateToFake() {
624
625
626
627
628
629
    ON_CALL(*this, DoThis).WillByDefault([this](int n) {
      return fake_.DoThis(n);
    });
    ON_CALL(*this, DoThat).WillByDefault([this](const char* s, int* p) {
      fake_.DoThat(s, p);
    });
630
  }
631

632
633
634
635
636
 private:
  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.
};
```

637
638
639
With that, you can use `MockFoo` in your tests as usual. Just remember that if
you don't explicitly set an action in an `ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, the
fake will be called upon to do it.:
640

641
```cpp
642
643
644
645
using ::testing::_;

TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
  MockFoo foo;
646
647

  foo.DelegateToFake();  // Enables the fake for delegation.
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656

  // Put your ON_CALL(foo, ...)s here, if any.

  // No action specified, meaning to use the default action.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _));

  int n = 0;
  EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(5));  // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked.
657
  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);  // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
658
659
660
661
662
663
  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
}
```

**Some tips:**

664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
*   If you want, you can still override the default action by providing your own
    `ON_CALL()` or using `.WillOnce()` / `.WillRepeatedly()` in `EXPECT_CALL()`.
*   In `DelegateToFake()`, you only need to delegate the methods whose fake
    implementation you intend to use.

*   The general technique discussed here works for overloaded methods, but
    you'll need to tell the compiler which version you mean. To disambiguate a
    mock function (the one you specify inside the parentheses of `ON_CALL()`),
    use [this technique](#SelectOverload); to disambiguate a fake function (the
    one you place inside `Invoke()`), use a `static_cast` to specify the
    function's type. For instance, if class `Foo` has methods `char DoThis(int
    n)` and `bool DoThis(double x) const`, and you want to invoke the latter,
    you need to write `Invoke(&fake_, static_cast<bool (FakeFoo::*)(double)
    const>(&FakeFoo::DoThis))` instead of `Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)`
    (The strange-looking thing inside the angled brackets of `static_cast` is
    the type of a function pointer to the second `DoThis()` method.).

*   Having to mix a mock and a fake is often a sign of something gone wrong.
    Perhaps you haven't got used to the interaction-based way of testing yet. Or
    perhaps your interface is taking on too many roles and should be split up.
    Therefore, **don't abuse this**. We would only recommend to do it as an
    intermediate step when you are refactoring your code.

Regarding the tip on mixing a mock and a fake, here's an example on why it may
be a bad sign: Suppose you have a class `System` for low-level system
operations. In particular, it does file and I/O operations. And suppose you want
to test how your code uses `System` to do I/O, and you just want the file
operations to work normally. If you mock out the entire `System` class, you'll
have to provide a fake implementation for the file operation part, which
suggests that `System` is taking on too many roles.

Instead, you can define a `FileOps` interface and an `IOOps` interface and split
`System`'s functionalities into the two. Then you can mock `IOOps` without
mocking `FileOps`.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
699
### Delegating Calls to a Real Object
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712

When using testing doubles (mocks, fakes, stubs, and etc), sometimes their
behaviors will differ from those of the real objects. This difference could be
either intentional (as in simulating an error such that you can test the error
handling code) or unintentional. If your mocks have different behaviors than the
real objects by mistake, you could end up with code that passes the tests but
fails in production.

You can use the *delegating-to-real* technique to ensure that your mock has the
same behavior as the real object while retaining the ability to validate calls.
This technique is very similar to the [delegating-to-fake](#DelegatingToFake)
technique, the difference being that we use a real object instead of a fake.
Here's an example:
713

714
```cpp
715
716
717
718
719
720
using ::testing::AtLeast;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  MockFoo() {
    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
721
722
723
724
725
726
    ON_CALL(*this, DoThis).WillByDefault([this](int n) {
      return real_.DoThis(n);
    });
    ON_CALL(*this, DoThat).WillByDefault([this](const char* s, int* p) {
      real_.DoThat(s, p);
    });
727
728
    ...
  }
729
730
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...);
731
732
733
734
735
  ...
 private:
  Foo real_;
};

736
...
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
  MockFoo mock;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())
      .Times(3);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))
      .Times(AtLeast(1));
  ... use mock in test ...
```

745
746
747
748
With this, gMock will verify that your code made the right calls (with the right
arguments, in the right order, called the right number of times, etc), and a
real object will answer the calls (so the behavior will be the same as in
production). This gives you the best of both worlds.
749

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
750
### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class
751

752
753
754
Ideally, you should code to interfaces, whose methods are all pure virtual. In
reality, sometimes you do need to mock a virtual method that is not pure (i.e,
it already has an implementation). For example:
755

756
```cpp
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
class Foo {
 public:
  virtual ~Foo();

  virtual void Pure(int n) = 0;
  virtual int Concrete(const char* str) { ... }
};

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // Mocking a pure method.
768
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
769
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
770
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
771
772
773
774
};
```

Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of
775
776
777
778
`MockFoo::Concrete()`. Perhaps you want to do it as part of a stub action, or
perhaps your test doesn't need to mock `Concrete()` at all (but it would be
oh-so painful to have to define a new mock class whenever you don't need to mock
one of its methods).
779

780
781
The trick is to leave a back door in your mock class for accessing the real
methods in the base class:
782

783
```cpp
784
785
786
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // Mocking a pure method.
787
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
788
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
789
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797

  // Use this to call Concrete() defined in Foo.
  int FooConcrete(const char* str) { return Foo::Concrete(str); }
};
```

Now, you can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by:

798
```cpp
799
...
800
801
802
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
    return foo.FooConcrete(str);
  });
803
804
805
806
```

or tell the mock object that you don't want to mock `Concrete()`:

807
```cpp
808
...
809
810
811
  ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) {
    return foo.FooConcrete(str);
  });
812
813
```

814
815
816
(Why don't we just write `{ return foo.Concrete(str); }`? If you do that,
`MockFoo::Concrete()` will be called (and cause an infinite recursion) since
`Foo::Concrete()` is virtual. That's just how C++ works.)
817

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
818
## Using Matchers
819

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
820
### Matching Argument Values Exactly
821
822
823

You can specify exactly which arguments a mock method is expecting:

824
```cpp
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
using ::testing::Return;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))
      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
832
### Using Simple Matchers
833
834
835

You can use matchers to match arguments that have a certain property:

836
```cpp
837
838
839
840
841
842
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::Return;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Ge(5)))  // The argument must be >= 5.
      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", NotNull()));
843
      // The second argument must not be NULL.
844
845
846
847
```

A frequently used matcher is `_`, which matches anything:

848
```cpp
849
850
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
```
851
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0022 DO NOT DELETE -->
852

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
853
### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
854
855

You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
856
`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
857

858
```cpp
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::HasSubstr;
using ::testing::Ne;
using ::testing::Not;
...
  // The argument must be > 5 and != 10.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(AllOf(Gt(5),
                                Ne(10))));

  // The first argument must not contain sub-string "blah".
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(Not(HasSubstr("blah")),
                          NULL));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
874
### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
875

876
877
878
gMock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler can catch your
mistake if you use a matcher of the wrong type (for example, if you use `Eq(5)`
to match a `string` argument). Good for you!
879

880
881
882
883
884
885
Sometimes, however, you know what you're doing and want the compiler to give you
some slack. One example is that you have a matcher for `long` and the argument
you want to match is `int`. While the two types aren't exactly the same, there
is nothing really wrong with using a `Matcher<long>` to match an `int` - after
all, we can first convert the `int` argument to a `long` losslessly before
giving it to the matcher.
886

887
888
889
To support this need, gMock gives you the `SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)` function. It
casts a matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`. To ensure safety, gMock checks that
(let `U` be the type `m` accepts :
890

891
892
893
894
895
896
897
1.  Type `T` can be *implicitly* cast to type `U`;
2.  When both `T` and `U` are built-in arithmetic types (`bool`, integers, and
    floating-point numbers), the conversion from `T` to `U` is not lossy (in
    other words, any value representable by `T` can also be represented by `U`);
    and
3.  When `U` is a reference, `T` must also be a reference (as the underlying
    matcher may be interested in the address of the `U` value).
898

899
The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.
900
901
902

Here's one example:

903
```cpp
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

// A base class and a child class.
class Base { ... };
class Derived : public Base { ... };

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
912
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
913
914
};

915
...
916
917
918
919
920
  MockFoo foo;
  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));
```

921
922
923
If you find `SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)` too limiting, you can use a similar function
`MatcherCast<T>(m)`. The difference is that `MatcherCast` works as long as you
can `static_cast` type `T` to type `U`.
924

925
926
927
`MatcherCast` essentially lets you bypass C++'s type system (`static_cast` isn't
always safe as it could throw away information, for example), so be careful not
to misuse/abuse it.
928

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
929
### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload}
930

931
932
If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some
help on which overloaded version it is.
933

934
935
To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the
`Const()` argument wrapper.
936

937
```cpp
938
939
940
941
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
942
943
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
944
945
};

946
...
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
  MockFoo foo;
  Bar bar1, bar2;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())         // The non-const GetBar().
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar1));
  EXPECT_CALL(Const(foo), GetBar())  // The const GetBar().
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar2));
```

955
(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.)
956

957
958
959
960
To disambiguate overloaded functions with the same number of arguments but
different argument types, you may need to specify the exact type of a matcher,
either by wrapping your matcher in `Matcher<type>()`, or using a matcher whose
type is fixed (`TypedEq<type>`, `An<type>()`, etc):
961

962
```cpp
963
964
965
966
967
968
using ::testing::An;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::TypedEq;

class MockPrinter : public Printer {
 public:
969
970
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
};

TEST(PrinterTest, Print) {
  MockPrinter printer;

  EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(An<int>()));            // void Print(int);
  EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(Matcher<int>(Lt(5))));  // void Print(int);
  EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(TypedEq<char>('a')));   // void Print(char);

  printer.Print(3);
  printer.Print(6);
  printer.Print('a');
}
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
986
### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments
987

988
989
990
When a mock method is called, the *last* matching expectation that's still
active will be selected (think "newer overrides older"). So, you can make a
method do different things depending on its argument values like this:
991

992
```cpp
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Lt;
using ::testing::Return;
...
  // The default case.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_))
      .WillRepeatedly(Return('b'));
  // The more specific case.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Lt(5)))
      .WillRepeatedly(Return('a'));
```

1005
1006
Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be
returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned.
1007

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1008
### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole
1009

1010
1011
1012
1013
Sometimes it's not enough to match the arguments individually. For example, we
may want to say that the first argument must be less than the second argument.
The `With()` clause allows us to match all arguments of a mock function as a
whole. For example,
1014

1015
```cpp
1016
1017
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Ne;
1018
using ::testing::Lt;
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))
      .With(Lt());
```

1024
1025
says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than
the second argument.
1026

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1027
1028
The expression inside `With()` must be a matcher of type `Matcher<std::tuple<A1,
..., An>>`, where `A1`, ..., `An` are the types of the function arguments.
1029

1030
1031
You can also write `AllArgs(m)` instead of `m` inside `.With()`. The two forms
are equivalent, but `.With(AllArgs(Lt()))` is more readable than `.With(Lt())`.
1032

1033
1034
You can use `Args<k1, ..., kn>(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a
tuple) against `m`. For example,
1035

1036
```cpp
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Args;
using ::testing::Lt;
...
1042
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah)
1043
1044
1045
      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));
```

1046
1047
1048
says that `Blah` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where `x < y <
z`. Note that in this example, it wasn't necessary specify the positional
matchers.
1049

1050
1051
1052
As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
including the `Lt()` matcher above. See [here](#MultiArgMatchers) for the
complete list.
1053

1054
1055
Note that if you want to pass the arguments to a predicate of your own (e.g.
`.With(Args<0, 1>(Truly(&MyPredicate)))`), that predicate MUST be written to
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1056
1057
take a `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected arguments
as *one* single tuple to the predicate.
1058

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1059
### Using Matchers as Predicates
1060

1061
1062
1063
Have you noticed that a matcher is just a fancy predicate that also knows how to
describe itself? Many existing algorithms take predicates as arguments (e.g.
those defined in STL's `<algorithm>` header), and it would be a shame if gMock
Krystian Kuzniarek's avatar
Krystian Kuzniarek committed
1064
matchers were not allowed to participate.
1065

1066
1067
Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by
wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example,
1068

1069
```cpp
1070
1071
1072
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

1073
1074
1075
1076
using ::testing::Matches;
using ::testing::Ge;

vector<int> v;
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
...
// How many elements in v are >= 10?
const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));
```

1082
1083
1084
1085
Since you can build complex matchers from simpler ones easily using gMock, this
gives you a way to conveniently construct composite predicates (doing the same
using STL's `<functional>` header is just painful). For example, here's a
predicate that's satisfied by any number that is >= 0, <= 100, and != 50:
1086

1087
```cpp
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
using testing::AllOf;
using testing::Ge;
using testing::Le;
using testing::Matches;
using testing::Ne;
...
1094
1095
1096
Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1097
### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
1098
1099

Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe
1100
1101
themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in googletest assertions.
It's called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`:
1102

1103
```cpp
1104
1105
1106
1107
  ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);  // Asserts that value matches matcher.
  EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);  // The non-fatal version.
```

1108
For example, in a googletest test you can write:
1109

1110
```cpp
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Ge;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::MatchesRegex;
using ::testing::StartsWith;

1119
...
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
  EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
  EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+"));
  ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10)));
```

1125
1126
which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and `Baz()`, and
verifies that:
1127

1128
1129
1130
*   `Foo()` returns a string that starts with `"Hello"`.
*   `Bar()` returns a string that matches regular expression `"Line \\d+"`.
*   `Baz()` returns a number in the range [5, 10].
1131

1132
1133
1134
The nice thing about these macros is that *they read like English*. They
generate informative messages too. For example, if the first `EXPECT_THAT()`
above fails, the message will be something like:
1135

1136
```cpp
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
Value of: Foo()
  Actual: "Hi, world!"
Expected: starts with "Hello"
```

1142
1143
**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was borrowed from Joe Walnes'
Hamcrest project, which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.
1144

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1145
### Using Predicates as Matchers
1146

1147
1148
1149
1150
gMock provides a [built-in set](#MatcherList) of matchers. In case you find them
lacking, you can use an arbitrary unary predicate function or functor as a
matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type you want. You do
this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` function, for example:
1151

1152
```cpp
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
using ::testing::Truly;

int IsEven(int n) { return (n % 2) == 0 ? 1 : 0; }
...
  // Bar() must be called with an even number.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Truly(IsEven)));
```

1161
1162
1163
Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return `bool`. It
works as long as the return value can be used as the condition in in statement
`if (condition) ...`.
1164

1165
1166
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0023 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1167
### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180

When you do an `EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar))`, gMock saves away a copy of
`bar`. When `Foo()` is called later, gMock compares the argument to `Foo()` with
the saved copy of `bar`. This way, you don't need to worry about `bar` being
modified or destroyed after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. The same is true
when you use matchers like `Eq(bar)`, `Le(bar)`, and so on.

But what if `bar` cannot be copied (i.e. has no copy constructor)? You could
define your own matcher function or callback and use it with `Truly()`, as the
previous couple of recipes have shown. Or, you may be able to get away from it
if you can guarantee that `bar` won't be changed after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is
executed. Just tell gMock that it should save a reference to `bar`, instead of a
copy of it. Here's how:
1181

1182
```cpp
1183
using ::testing::Eq;
1184
1185
1186
using ::testing::Lt;
...
  // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1187
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(std::ref(bar))));
1188
1189

  // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1190
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(std::ref(bar))));
1191
1192
```

1193
1194
Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the `EXPECT_CALL()`, or the
result is undefined.
1195

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1196
### Validating a Member of an Object
1197

1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
Often a mock function takes a reference to object as an argument. When matching
the argument, you may not want to compare the entire object against a fixed
object, as that may be over-specification. Instead, you may need to validate a
certain member variable or the result of a certain getter method of the object.
You can do this with `Field()` and `Property()`. More specifically,
1203

1204
```cpp
1205
1206
1207
Field(&Foo::bar, m)
```

1208
1209
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies
matcher `m`.
1210

1211
```cpp
1212
1213
1214
Property(&Foo::baz, m)
```

1215
1216
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value
that satisfies matcher `m`.
1217
1218
1219

For example:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1220
<!-- mdformat off(github rendering does not support multiline tables) -->
1221
1222
1223
| Expression                   | Description                              |
| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`.       |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1224
1225
| `Property(&Foo::name,  StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with  `"John "`. |
<!-- mdformat on -->
1226

1227
1228
Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument
and be declared as `const`.
1229

1230
1231
BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
instance,
1232

1233
```cpp
1234
1235
1236
using ::testing::Field;
using ::testing::Ge;
...
1237
1238
1239
Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))
```

1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
matches a plain pointer `p` where `p->number >= 3`. If `p` is `NULL`, the match
will always fail regardless of the inner matcher.

What if you want to validate more than one members at the same time? Remember
that there are [`AllOf()` and `AllOfArray()`](#CombiningMatchers).

Finally `Field()` and `Property()` provide overloads that take the field or
property names as the first argument to include it in the error message. This
can be useful when creating combined matchers.
1249

1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
```cpp
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Field;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

Matcher<Foo> IsFoo(const Foo& foo) {
  return AllOf(Field("some_field", &Foo::some_field, foo.some_field),
               Field("other_field", &Foo::other_field, foo.other_field),
               Field("last_field", &Foo::last_field, foo.last_field));
}
```
1262

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1263
### Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument
1264

1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
C++ functions often take pointers as arguments. You can use matchers like
`IsNull()`, `NotNull()`, and other comparison matchers to match a pointer, but
what if you want to make sure the value *pointed to* by the pointer, instead of
the pointer itself, has a certain property? Well, you can use the `Pointee(m)`
matcher.
1270

1271
`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer
1272
points to. For example:
1273

1274
```cpp
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
using ::testing::Ge;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3))));
```

1281
1282
expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value greater
than or equal to 3.
1283

1284
1285
One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as a match
failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of
1286

1287
```cpp
1288
1289
1290
1291
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
  AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m))
```

without worrying that a `NULL` pointer will crash your test.

1297
1298
Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers **and**
smart pointers (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, etc)?
1299

1300
1301
1302
1303
What if you have a pointer to pointer? You guessed it - you can use nested
`Pointee()` to probe deeper inside the value. For example,
`Pointee(Pointee(Lt(3)))` matches a pointer that points to a pointer that points
to a number less than 3 (what a mouthful...).
1304

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1305
### Testing a Certain Property of an Object
1306

1307
1308
1309
Sometimes you want to specify that an object argument has a certain property,
but there is no existing matcher that does this. If you want good error
messages, you should [define a matcher](#NewMatchers). If you want to do it
1310
1311
quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function.

1312
1313
1314
1315
Let's say you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, which has
an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method, and you want to constrain that
the argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` value is a given number. Here's
how you can define a matcher to do it:
1316

1317
```cpp
1318
using ::testing::Matcher;
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

class BarPlusBazEqMatcher : public MatcherInterface<const Foo&> {
 public:
  explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum)
      : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {}

1327
1328
  bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
1329
1330
1331
    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1332
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
1333
1334
1335
    *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1336
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
    *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
  }
 private:
  const int expected_sum_;
};

1343
Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
  return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum));
}

...
  EXPECT_CALL(..., DoThis(BarPlusBazEq(5)))...;
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1351
### Matching Containers
1352

1353
1354
1355
1356
Sometimes an STL container (e.g. list, vector, map, ...) is passed to a mock
function and you may want to validate it. Since most STL containers support the
`==` operator, you can write `Eq(expected_container)` or simply
`expected_container` to match a container exactly.
1357

1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
Sometimes, though, you may want to be more flexible (for example, the first
element must be an exact match, but the second element can be any positive
number, and so on). Also, containers used in tests often have a small number of
elements, and having to define the expected container out-of-line is a bit of a
hassle.
1363

1364
1365
You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in such
cases:
1366

1367
```cpp
1368
1369
1370
1371
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::ElementsAre;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
1372
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1373
1374
1375
1376
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1377
1378
The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which must be 1,
greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1379
1380
1381

If you instead write:

1382
```cpp
1383
1384
1385
1386
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
...
1387
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1388
1389
1390
1391
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1392
1393
It means that the container must have 4 elements, which (under some permutation)
must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1394

1395
1396
As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use
`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead:
1397

1398
```cpp
1399
1400
1401
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values.
1402
  const int expected_vector1[] = {1, 5, 2, 4, ...};
1403
1404
1405
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1)));

  // Or, an array of element matchers.
1406
  Matcher<int> expected_vector2[] = {1, Gt(2), _, 3, ...};
1407
1408
1409
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2)));
```

1410
1411
1412
In case the array needs to be dynamically created (and therefore the array size
cannot be inferred by the compiler), you can give `ElementsAreArray()` an
additional argument to specify the array size:
1413

1414
```cpp
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];
  ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));
```

1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
Use `Pair` when comparing maps or other associative containers.

```cpp
using testing::ElementsAre;
using testing::Pair;
...
  std::map<string, int> m = {{"a", 1}, {"b", 2}, {"c", 3}};
  EXPECT_THAT(m, ElementsAre(Pair("a", 1), Pair("b", 2), Pair("c", 3)));
```

1432
1433
**Tips:**

1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
*   `ElementsAre*()` can be used to match *any* container that implements the
    STL iterator pattern (i.e. it has a `const_iterator` type and supports
    `begin()/end()`), not just the ones defined in STL. It will even work with
    container types yet to be written - as long as they follows the above
    pattern.
*   You can use nested `ElementsAre*()` to match nested (multi-dimensional)
    containers.
*   If the container is passed by pointer instead of by reference, just write
    `Pointee(ElementsAre*(...))`.
*   The order of elements *matters* for `ElementsAre*()`. If you are using it
    with containers whose element order are undefined (e.g. `hash_map`) you
    should use `WhenSorted` around `ElementsAre`.
1446

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1447
### Sharing Matchers
1448

1449
1450
1451
1452
Under the hood, a gMock matcher object consists of a pointer to a ref-counted
implementation object. Copying matchers is allowed and very efficient, as only
the pointer is copied. When the last matcher that references the implementation
object dies, the implementation object will be deleted.
1453

1454
1455
1456
Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again and
again, there is no need to build it everytime. Just assign it to a matcher
variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example,
1457

1458
```cpp
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::Matcher;
...
1464
1465
1466
1467
  Matcher<int> in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10));
  ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ...
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1468
### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479

WARNING: gMock does not guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be
invoked. Therefore, all matchers must be *purely functional*: they cannot have
any side effects, and the match result must not depend on anything other than
the matcher's parameters and the value being matched.

This requirement must be satisfied no matter how a matcher is defined (e.g., if
it is one of the standard matchers, or a custom matcher). In particular, a
matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the
mock object and gMock.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1480
## Setting Expectations
1481

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1482
### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
1483

1484
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0018 DO NOT DELETE -->
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534

**`ON_CALL`** is likely the *single most under-utilized construct* in gMock.

There are basically two constructs for defining the behavior of a mock object:
`ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL`. The difference? `ON_CALL` defines what happens when
a mock method is called, but <em>doesn't imply any expectation on the method
being called</em>. `EXPECT_CALL` not only defines the behavior, but also sets an
expectation that <em>the method will be called with the given arguments, for the
given number of times</em> (and *in the given order* when you specify the order
too).

Since `EXPECT_CALL` does more, isn't it better than `ON_CALL`? Not really. Every
`EXPECT_CALL` adds a constraint on the behavior of the code under test. Having
more constraints than necessary is *baaad* - even worse than not having enough
constraints.

This may be counter-intuitive. How could tests that verify more be worse than
tests that verify less? Isn't verification the whole point of tests?

The answer lies in *what* a test should verify. **A good test verifies the
contract of the code.** If a test over-specifies, it doesn't leave enough
freedom to the implementation. As a result, changing the implementation without
breaking the contract (e.g. refactoring and optimization), which should be
perfectly fine to do, can break such tests. Then you have to spend time fixing
them, only to see them broken again the next time the implementation is changed.

Keep in mind that one doesn't have to verify more than one property in one test.
In fact, **it's a good style to verify only one thing in one test.** If you do
that, a bug will likely break only one or two tests instead of dozens (which
case would you rather debug?). If you are also in the habit of giving tests
descriptive names that tell what they verify, you can often easily guess what's
wrong just from the test log itself.

So use `ON_CALL` by default, and only use `EXPECT_CALL` when you actually intend
to verify that the call is made. For example, you may have a bunch of `ON_CALL`s
in your test fixture to set the common mock behavior shared by all tests in the
same group, and write (scarcely) different `EXPECT_CALL`s in different `TEST_F`s
to verify different aspects of the code's behavior. Compared with the style
where each `TEST` has many `EXPECT_CALL`s, this leads to tests that are more
resilient to implementational changes (and thus less likely to require
maintenance) and makes the intent of the tests more obvious (so they are easier
to maintain when you do need to maintain them).

If you are bothered by the "Uninteresting mock function call" message printed
when a mock method without an `EXPECT_CALL` is called, you may use a `NiceMock`
instead to suppress all such messages for the mock object, or suppress the
message for specific methods by adding `EXPECT_CALL(...).Times(AnyNumber())`. DO
NOT suppress it by blindly adding an `EXPECT_CALL(...)`, or you'll have a test
that's a pain to maintain.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1535
### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547

If you are not interested in how a mock method is called, just don't say
anything about it. In this case, if the method is ever called, gMock will
perform its default action to allow the test program to continue. If you are not
happy with the default action taken by gMock, you can override it using
`DefaultValue<T>::Set()` (described [here](#DefaultValue)) or `ON_CALL()`.

Please note that once you expressed interest in a particular mock method (via
`EXPECT_CALL()`), all invocations to it must match some expectation. If this
function is called but the arguments don't match any `EXPECT_CALL()` statement,
it will be an error.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1548
### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
1549
1550
1551

If a mock method shouldn't be called at all, explicitly say so:

1552
```cpp
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
using ::testing::_;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .Times(0);
```

1559
1560
If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the
expected calls:
1561

1562
```cpp
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
using ::testing::AnyNumber;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))
      .Times(AnyNumber());
```

1571
1572
A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements
will be an error.
1573

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1574
### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
1575

1576
1577
*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
*Very* different.
1578

1579
1580
1581
1582
A call `x.Y(...)` is **uninteresting** if there's *not even a single*
`EXPECT_CALL(x, Y(...))` set. In other words, the test isn't interested in the
`x.Y()` method at all, as evident in that the test doesn't care to say anything
about it.
1583

1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
A call `x.Y(...)` is **unexpected** if there are *some* `EXPECT_CALL(x,
Y(...))`s set, but none of them matches the call. Put another way, the test is
interested in the `x.Y()` method (therefore it explicitly sets some
`EXPECT_CALL` to verify how it's called); however, the verification fails as the
test doesn't expect this particular call to happen.
1589

1590
1591
**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
the way the test expects it to behave.
1592

1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
**By default, an uninteresting call is not an error,** as it violates no
constraint specified by the test. (gMock's philosophy is that saying nothing
means there is no constraint.) However, it leads to a warning, as it *might*
indicate a problem (e.g. the test author might have forgotten to specify a
constraint).
1598

1599
1600
In gMock, `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` can be used to make a mock class "nice" or
"strict". How does this affect uninteresting calls and unexpected calls?
1601

1602
1603
1604
1605
A **nice mock** suppresses uninteresting call *warnings*. It is less chatty than
the default mock, but otherwise is the same. If a test fails with a default
mock, it will also fail using a nice mock instead. And vice versa. Don't expect
making a mock nice to change the test's result.
1606

1607
1608
A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
mock strict may change the test's result.
1609
1610
1611

Let's look at an example:

1612
```cpp
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
TEST(...) {
  NiceMock<MockDomainRegistry> mock_registry;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com"))
          .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page"));

  // Use mock_registry in code under test.
  ... &mock_registry ...
}
```

1623
1624
1625
1626
The sole `EXPECT_CALL` here says that all calls to `GetDomainOwner()` must have
`"google.com"` as the argument. If `GetDomainOwner("yahoo.com")` is called, it
will be an unexpected call, and thus an error. *Having a nice mock doesn't
change the severity of an unexpected call.*
1627

1628
1629
So how do we tell gMock that `GetDomainOwner()` can be called with some other
arguments as well? The standard technique is to add a "catch all" `EXPECT_CALL`:
1630

1631
```cpp
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner(_))
        .Times(AnyNumber());  // catches all other calls to this method.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com"))
        .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page"));
```

1638
1639
1640
1641
Remember that `_` is the wildcard matcher that matches anything. With this, if
`GetDomainOwner("google.com")` is called, it will do what the second
`EXPECT_CALL` says; if it is called with a different argument, it will do what
the first `EXPECT_CALL` says.
1642

1643
1644
Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
1645

1646
1647
For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
1648

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1649
### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
1650

1651
1652
If your test doesn't care about the parameters (it only cares about the number
or order of calls), you can often simply omit the parameter list:
1653

1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
```cpp
  // Expect foo.Bar( ... ) twice with any arguments.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar).Times(2);

  // Delegate to the given method whenever the factory is invoked.
  ON_CALL(foo_factory, MakeFoo)
      .WillByDefault(&BuildFooForTest);
```

This functionality is only available when a method is not overloaded; to prevent
unexpected behavior it is a compilation error to try to set an expectation on a
method where the specific overload is ambiguous. You can work around this by
supplying a [simpler mock interface](#SimplerInterfaces) than the mocked class
provides.

This pattern is also useful when the arguments are interesting, but match logic
is substantially complex. You can leave the argument list unspecified and use
SaveArg actions to [save the values for later verification](#SaveArgVerify). If
you do that, you can easily differentiate calling the method the wrong number of
times from calling it with the wrong arguments.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1675
### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
1676

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined later takes precedence when gMock
tries to match a function call with an expectation, by default calls don't have
to happen in the order `EXPECT_CALL()` statements are written. For example, if
the arguments match the matchers in the second `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those in
the first and third, then the second expectation will be used.
1682
1683
1684
1685

If you would rather have all calls occur in the order of the expectations, put
the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements in a block where you define a variable of type
`InSequence`:
1686

1687
```cpp
1688
1689
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InSequence;
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700

  {
    InSequence s;

    EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5));
    EXPECT_CALL(bar, DoThat(_))
        .Times(2);
    EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(6));
  }
```

1701
1702
1703
1704
In this example, we expect a call to `foo.DoThis(5)`, followed by two calls to
`bar.DoThat()` where the argument can be anything, which are in turn followed by
a call to `foo.DoThis(6)`. If a call occurred out-of-order, gMock will report an
error.
1705

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1706
### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
1707

1708
1709
1710
1711
Sometimes requiring everything to occur in a predetermined order can lead to
brittle tests. For example, we may care about `A` occurring before both `B` and
`C`, but aren't interested in the relative order of `B` and `C`. In this case,
the test should reflect our real intent, instead of being overly constraining.
1712

1713
gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1714
1715
calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the
[After](cheat_sheet.md#AfterClause) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`.
1716

1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
Another way is via the `InSequence()` clause (not the same as the `InSequence`
class), which we borrowed from jMock 2. It's less flexible than `After()`, but
more convenient when you have long chains of sequential calls, as it doesn't
require you to come up with different names for the expectations in the chains.
Here's how it works:
1722

1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
If we view `EXPECT_CALL()` statements as nodes in a graph, and add an edge from
node A to node B wherever A must occur before B, we can get a DAG. We use the
term "sequence" to mean a directed path in this DAG. Now, if we decompose the
DAG into sequences, we just need to know which sequences each `EXPECT_CALL()`
belongs to in order to be able to reconstruct the original DAG.
1728

1729
1730
1731
So, to specify the partial order on the expectations we need to do two things:
first to define some `Sequence` objects, and then for each `EXPECT_CALL()` say
which `Sequence` objects it is part of.
1732

1733
1734
Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For
example,
1735

1736
1737
1738
```cpp
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
  Sequence s1, s2;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, A())
      .InSequence(s1, s2);
  EXPECT_CALL(bar, B())
      .InSequence(s1);
  EXPECT_CALL(bar, C())
      .InSequence(s2);
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, D())
      .InSequence(s2);
```

1751
specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`):
1752

1753
```text
1754
1755
1756
1757
       +---> B
       |
  A ---|
       |
1758
        +---> C ---> D
1759
1760
```

1761
1762
This means that A must occur before B and C, and C must occur before D. There's
no restriction about the order other than these.
1763

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1764
### Controlling When an Expectation Retires
1765

1766
1767
1768
When a mock method is called, gMock only considers expectations that are still
active. An expectation is active when created, and becomes inactive (aka
*retires*) when a call that has to occur later has occurred. For example, in
1769

1770
```cpp
1771
1772
1773
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1774
1775
  Sequence s1, s2;

1776
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #1
1777
1778
      .Times(AnyNumber())
      .InSequence(s1, s2);
1779
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))   // #2
1780
      .InSequence(s1);
1781
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))      // #3
1782
1783
1784
      .InSequence(s2);
```

1785
1786
as soon as either #2 or #3 is matched, #1 will retire. If a warning `"File too
large."` is logged after this, it will be an error.
1787

1788
1789
Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For
example,
1790

1791
```cpp
1792
1793
using ::testing::_;
...
1794
1795
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."));     // #2
1796
1797
```

1798
1799
1800
says that there will be exactly one warning with the message `"File too
large."`. If the second warning contains this message too, #2 will match again
and result in an upper-bound-violated error.
1801

1802
1803
If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it
becomes saturated:
1804

1805
```cpp
1806
1807
using ::testing::_;
...
1808
1809
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #2
1810
1811
1812
      .RetiresOnSaturation();
```

1813
1814
1815
Here #2 can be used only once, so if you have two warnings with the message
`"File too large."`, the first will match #2 and the second will match #1 -
there will be no error.
1816

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1817
## Using Actions
1818

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1819
### Returning References from Mock Methods
1820

1821
1822
If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()`
instead of `Return()` to return a result:
1823

1824
```cpp
1825
1826
1827
1828
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1829
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
};
...
  MockFoo foo;
  Bar bar;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));
1836
...
1837
1838
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1839
### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods
1840

1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
The `Return(x)` action saves a copy of `x` when the action is created, and
always returns the same value whenever it's executed. Sometimes you may want to
instead return the *live* value of `x` (i.e. its value at the time when the
action is *executed*.). Use either `ReturnRef()` or `ReturnPointee()` for this
purpose.
1846
1847

If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using
1848
1849
1850
1851
`ReturnRef(x)`, as shown in the previous recipe ("Returning References from Mock
Methods"). However, gMock doesn't let you use `ReturnRef()` in a mock function
whose return type is not a reference, as doing that usually indicates a user
error. So, what shall you do?
1852

ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1853
Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`:
1854

1855
```cpp
1856
1857
1858
1859
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1860
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
};
...
  int x = 0;
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1866
      .WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x)));  // Wrong!
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
  x = 42;
  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
```

Unfortunately, it doesn't work here. The above code will fail with error:

1873
```text
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
Value of: foo.GetValue()
  Actual: 0
Expected: 42
```

1879
1880
1881
The reason is that `Return(*value*)` converts `value` to the actual return type
of the mock function at the time when the action is *created*, not when it is
*executed*. (This behavior was chosen for the action to be safe when `value` is
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1882
1883
1884
a proxy object that references some temporary objects.) As a result,
`std::ref(x)` is converted to an `int` value (instead of a `const int&`) when
the expectation is set, and `Return(std::ref(x))` will always return 0.
1885

1886
1887
`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It
returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:
1888

1889
```cpp
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
using testing::ReturnPointee;
...
  int x = 0;
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&x));  // Note the & here.
  x = 42;
  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());  // This will succeed now.
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1900
### Combining Actions
1901

1902
1903
1904
Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's fine. `DoAll()`
allow you to do sequence of actions every time. Only the return value of the
last action in the sequence will be used.
1905

1906
```cpp
1907
using ::testing::_;
1908
1909
1910
1911
using ::testing::DoAll;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1912
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
};
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
                      action_2,
                      ...
                      action_n));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1922
### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928

If you want to verify that a method is called with a particular argument but the
match criteria is complex, it can be difficult to distinguish between
cardinality failures (calling the method the wrong number of times) and argument
match failures. Similarly, if you are matching multiple parameters, it may not
be easy to distinguishing which argument failed to match. For example:
1929

1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
```cpp
  // Not ideal: this could fail because of a problem with arg1 or arg2, or maybe
  // just the method wasn't called.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, SendValues(_, ElementsAre(1, 4, 4, 7), EqualsProto( ... )));
```

You can instead save the arguments and test them individually:

```cpp
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, SendValues)
      .WillOnce(DoAll(SaveArg<1>(&actual_array), SaveArg<2>(&actual_proto)));
  ... run the test
  EXPECT_THAT(actual_array, ElementsAre(1, 4, 4, 7));
  EXPECT_THAT(actual_proto, EqualsProto( ... ));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1946
### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951

Sometimes a method exhibits its effect not via returning a value but via side
effects. For example, it may change some global state or modify an output
argument. To mock side effects, in general you can define your own action by
implementing `::testing::ActionInterface`.
1952
1953
1954
1955

If all you need to do is to change an output argument, the built-in
`SetArgPointee()` action is convenient:

1956
```cpp
1957
using ::testing::_;
1958
1959
1960
1961
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
1962
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
1963
  ...
1964
}
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))
      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));
```

1971
1972
In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the
`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based).
1973

1974
1975
1976
`SetArgPointee()` conveniently makes an internal copy of the value you pass to
it, removing the need to keep the value in scope and alive. The implication
however is that the value must have a copy constructor and assignment operator.
1977
1978

If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain
1979
1980
`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the
`Return()` statement last:
1981

1982
```cpp
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
  ...
1990
1991
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
}
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                      Return(true)));
```

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Note, however, that if you use the `ReturnOKWith()` method, it will override the
values provided by `SetArgPointee()` in the response parameters of your function
call.

If the output argument is an array, use the `SetArrayArgument<N>(first, last)`
action instead. It copies the elements in source range `[first, last)` to the
array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument:
2006

2007
```cpp
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;

class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
 public:
2013
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
2014
  ...
2015
}
2016
2017
...
  MockArrayMutator mutator;
2018
  int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));
```

This also works when the argument is an output iterator:

2025
```cpp
2026
using ::testing::_;
bartshappee's avatar
bartshappee committed
2027
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
2028
2029
2030

class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
 public:
2031
2032
  MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
              (override));
2033
  ...
2034
}
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
...
  MockRolodex rolodex;
  vector<string> names;
  names.push_back("George");
  names.push_back("John");
  names.push_back("Thomas");
  EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end()));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2045
### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State
2046

2047
2048
2049
If you expect a call to change the behavior of a mock object, you can use
`::testing::InSequence` to specify different behaviors before and after the
call:
2050

2051
```cpp
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;

...
  {
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
     InSequence seq;
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));
2063
2064
2065
2066
  }
  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();
```

2067
2068
This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called
and return `false` afterwards.
2069

2070
2071
If the behavior change is more complex, you can store the effects in a variable
and make a mock method get its return value from that variable:
2072

2073
```cpp
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::SaveArg;
using ::testing::Return;

ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }
...
  int previous_value = 0;
2081
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue)
2082
      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));
2083
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue)
2084
2085
2086
2087
      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));
  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();
```

2088
2089
Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last
`UpdateValue()` call.
2090

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2091
### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue}
2092

2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
If a mock method's return type is a built-in C++ type or pointer, by default it
will return 0 when invoked. Also, in C++ 11 and above, a mock method whose
return type has a default constructor will return a default-constructed value by
default. You only need to specify an action if this default value doesn't work
for you.
2098

2099
2100
2101
Sometimes, you may want to change this default value, or you may want to specify
a default value for types gMock doesn't know about. You can do this using the
`::testing::DefaultValue` class template:
2102

2103
```cpp
2104
2105
using ::testing::DefaultValue;

2106
2107
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2108
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
2109
2110
};

2111
2112

...
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
  Bar default_bar;
  // Sets the default return value for type Bar.
  DefaultValue<Bar>::Set(default_bar);

  MockFoo foo;

  // We don't need to specify an action here, as the default
  // return value works for us.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, CalculateBar());

  foo.CalculateBar();  // This should return default_bar.

  // Unsets the default return value.
  DefaultValue<Bar>::Clear();
```

2129
2130
2131
2132
Please note that changing the default value for a type can make you tests hard
to understand. We recommend you to use this feature judiciously. For example,
you may want to make sure the `Set()` and `Clear()` calls are right next to the
code that uses your mock.
2133

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2134
### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method
2135

2136
2137
2138
2139
You've learned how to change the default value of a given type. However, this
may be too coarse for your purpose: perhaps you have two mock methods with the
same return type and you want them to have different behaviors. The `ON_CALL()`
macro allows you to customize your mock's behavior at the method level:
2140

2141
```cpp
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::AnyNumber;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::Return;
...
  ON_CALL(foo, Sign(_))
      .WillByDefault(Return(-1));
  ON_CALL(foo, Sign(0))
      .WillByDefault(Return(0));
  ON_CALL(foo, Sign(Gt(0)))
      .WillByDefault(Return(1));

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sign(_))
      .Times(AnyNumber());

  foo.Sign(5);   // This should return 1.
  foo.Sign(-9);  // This should return -1.
  foo.Sign(0);   // This should return 0.
```

2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
As you may have guessed, when there are more than one `ON_CALL()` statements,
the newer ones in the order take precedence over the older ones. In other words,
the **last** one that matches the function arguments will be used. This matching
order allows you to set up the common behavior in a mock object's constructor or
the test fixture's set-up phase and specialize the mock's behavior later.

Note that both `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` have the same "later statements take
precedence" rule, but they don't interact. That is, `EXPECT_CALL`s have their
own precedence order distinct from the `ON_CALL` precedence order.
2171

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2172
### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
2173

2174
If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2175
(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda) as an action.
2176
2177
2178
2179

<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0024 DO NOT DELETE -->

```cpp
2180
using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke;
2181
2182
2183

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2184
2185
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override));
2186
2187
2188
};

int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
2189
int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; }
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195

class Helper {
 public:
  bool ComplexJob(int x);
};

2196
...
2197
2198
2199
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))
2200
2201
      .WillOnce(&CalculateSum)
      .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1)));
2202
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2203
      .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2204
      .WillOnce([] { return true; })
2205
      .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; });
2206

2207
2208
2209
2210
  foo.Sum(5, 6);         // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6).
  foo.Sum(2, 3);         // Invokes Sum3(1, 2, 3).
  foo.ComplexJob(10);    // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10).
  foo.ComplexJob(-1);    // Invokes the inline lambda.
2211
2212
```

2213
The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible*
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the latter's arguments (if
it takes any) can be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the
former, and the former's return type can be implicitly converted to that of the
latter. So, you can invoke something whose type is *not* exactly the same as the
mock function, as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh?
2219

2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
**`Note:`{.escaped}**

*   The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the
    action itself is destructed.
*   If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need
    to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g.

    ```cpp
    using ::testing::Invoke;
    ...
      ResultCallback<bool>* is_ok = ...;
      ... Invoke(is_ok) ...;  // This works.

      BlockingClosure* done = new BlockingClosure;
      ... Invoke(implicit_cast<Closure*>(done)) ...;  // The cast is necessary.
    ```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2237
### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265

The function or functor you call using `Invoke()` must have the same number of
arguments as the mock function you use it for. Sometimes you may have a function
that takes more arguments, and you are willing to pass in the extra arguments
yourself to fill the gap. You can do this in gMock using callbacks with
pre-bound arguments. Here's an example:

```cpp
using ::testing::Invoke;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
};

char SignOfSum(int x, int y) {
  const int sum = x + y;
  return (sum > 0) ? '+' : (sum < 0) ? '-' : '0';
}

TEST_F(FooTest, Test) {
  MockFoo foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(2))
      .WillOnce(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(SignOfSum, 5)));
  EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(2));  // Invokes SignOfSum(5, 2).
}
```
2266

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2267
### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
2268

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2269
2270
2271
2272
`Invoke()` passes the mock function's arguments to the function, etc being
invoked such that the callee has the full context of the call to work with. If
the invoked function is not interested in some or all of the arguments, it can
simply ignore them.
2273

2274
Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2275
2276
2277
the arguments of the mock function. She could do that using a wrapper function
that throws away the arguments before invoking an underlining nullary function.
Needless to say, this can be tedious and obscures the intent of the test.
2278

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2279
2280
2281
2282
There are two solutions to this problem. First, you can pass any callable of
zero args as an action. Alternatively, use `InvokeWithoutArgs()`, which is like
`Invoke()` except that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the
callee. Here's an example of each:
2283

2284
```cpp
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2290
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override));
2291
2292
2293
};

bool Job1() { ... }
2294
bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
2295

2296
...
2297
2298
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2299
      .WillOnce([] { Job1(); });
2300
      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
2301
2302

  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().
2303
  foo.ComplexJob(20);  // Invokes Job2(5, 'a').
2304
2305
```

2306
**`Note:`{.escaped}**
2307

2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
*   The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the
    action itself is destructed.
*   If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need
    to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g.

    ```cpp
    using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;
    ...
      ResultCallback<bool>* is_ok = ...;
      ... InvokeWithoutArgs(is_ok) ...;  // This works.

      BlockingClosure* done = ...;
      ... InvokeWithoutArgs(implicit_cast<Closure*>(done)) ...;
      // The cast is necessary.
    ```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2324
### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
2325

2326
2327
Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other
words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g.
2328

2329
```cpp
2330
2331
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2332
2333
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1<bool, int>* callback)),
              (override));
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
};
```

and you may want to invoke this callable argument:

2339
```cpp
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
using ::testing::_;
...
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(...);
2345
2346
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2347
2348
```

2349
2350
2351
2352
NOTE: The section below is legacy documentation from before C++ had lambdas:

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?
2353

2354
Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
2355

2356
```cpp
2357
InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)
2358
2359
```

2360
2361
2362
will invoke the `N`-th (0-based) argument the mock function receives, with
`arg_1`, `arg_2`, ..., and `arg_m`. No matter if the argument is a function
pointer, a functor, or a callback. gMock handles them all.
2363
2364
2365

With that, you could write:

2366
```cpp
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
2372
2373
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2374
2375
```

2376
What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2377
inside `std::ref()`:
2378

2379
```cpp
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
              ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2388
2389
2390
2391
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2392
2393
2394
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, std::ref(helper)));
      // std::ref(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of
      // it, will be passed to the callback.
2395
2396
```

2397
What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2398
argument in `std::ref()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the
2399
2400
2401
argument, and pass a *reference to the copy*, instead of a reference to the
original value, to the callable. This is especially handy when the argument is a
temporary value:
2402

2403
```cpp
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2411
2412
2413
2414
  MockFoo foo;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
      // Will execute (*f)(5.0, string("Hi")), where f is the function pointer
      // DoThat() receives.  Note that the values 5.0 and string("Hi") are
      // temporary and dead once the EXPECT_CALL() statement finishes.  Yet
      // it's fine to perform this action later, since a copy of the values
      // are kept inside the InvokeArgument action.
2420
2421
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2422
### Ignoring an Action's Result
2423

2424
2425
2426
2427
Sometimes you have an action that returns *something*, but you need an action
that returns `void` (perhaps you want to use it in a mock function that returns
`void`, or perhaps it needs to be used in `DoAll()` and it's not the last in the
list). `IgnoreResult()` lets you do that. For example:
2428

2429
```cpp
2430
using ::testing::_;
2431
2432
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
using ::testing::Return;

int Process(const MyData& data);
string DoSomething();

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2440
2441
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
2442
2443
};

2444
  ...
2445
2446
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))
2447
2448
2449
2450
      // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));
      // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs
      // to return void.
      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process));
2451
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
2452
2453
      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething),
                      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.
2454
2455
2456
                      Return(true)));
```

2457
2458
Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns
`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors.
2459

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2460
### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs}
2461

2462
2463
2464
Say you have a mock function `Foo()` that takes seven arguments, and you have a
custom action that you want to invoke when `Foo()` is called. Trouble is, the
custom action only wants three arguments:
2465

2466
```cpp
2467
2468
2469
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
...
2470
2471
2472
2473
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo,
              (bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y,
               (const map<pair<int, int>>), double& weight, double min_weight,
               double max_wight));
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
...
bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {
  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;
}
...
2479
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2480
2481
2482
      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(
```

2483
2484
To please the compiler God, you need to define an "adaptor" that has the same
signature as `Foo()` and calls the custom action with the right arguments:
2485

2486
```cpp
2487
2488
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
2489
...
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
bool MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y,
                            const map<pair<int, int>, double>& weight,
                            double min_weight, double max_wight) {
  return IsVisibleInQuadrant1(visible, x, y);
}
...
2496
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.
```

But isn't this awkward?

2502
2503
gMock provides a generic *action adaptor*, so you can spend your time minding
more important business than writing your own adaptors. Here's the syntax:
2504

2505
```cpp
2506
WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)
2507
2508
```

2509
2510
2511
creates an action that passes the arguments of the mock function at the given
indices (0-based) to the inner `action` and performs it. Using `WithArgs`, our
original example can be written as:
2512

2513
```cpp
2514
2515
2516
2517
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::WithArgs;
...
2518
2519
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));  // No need to define your own adaptor.
2520
2521
```

2522
For better readability, gMock also gives you:
2523

2524
2525
2526
*   `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and
*   `WithArg<N>(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes
    *one* argument.
2527

2528
2529
As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for
`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`.
2530
2531
2532

Here are more tips:

2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
*   The inner action used in `WithArgs` and friends does not have to be
    `Invoke()` -- it can be anything.
*   You can repeat an argument in the argument list if necessary, e.g.
    `WithArgs<2, 3, 3, 5>(...)`.
*   You can change the order of the arguments, e.g. `WithArgs<3, 2, 1>(...)`.
*   The types of the selected arguments do *not* have to match the signature of
    the inner action exactly. It works as long as they can be implicitly
    converted to the corresponding arguments of the inner action. For example,
    if the 4-th argument of the mock function is an `int` and `my_action` takes
    a `double`, `WithArg<4>(my_action)` will work.
2543

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2544
### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions
2545

2546
2547
2548
2549
The [selecting-an-action's-arguments](#SelectingArgs) recipe showed us one way
to make a mock function and an action with incompatible argument lists fit
together. The downside is that wrapping the action in `WithArgs<...>()` can get
tedious for people writing the tests.
2550

2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
If you are defining a function (or method, functor, lambda, callback) to be used
with `Invoke*()`, and you are not interested in some of its arguments, an
alternative to `WithArgs` is to declare the uninteresting arguments as `Unused`.
This makes the definition less cluttered and less fragile in case the types of
the uninteresting arguments change. It could also increase the chance the action
function can be reused. For example, given
2557

2558
```cpp
2559
2560
2561
2562
 public:
  MOCK_METHOD(double, Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y),
              (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(double, Bar, (int index, double x, double y), (override));
2563
2564
2565
2566
```

instead of

2567
```cpp
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;

double DistanceToOriginWithLabel(const string& label, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
double DistanceToOriginWithIndex(int index, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
...
2578
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2579
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
2580
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
```

you could write

2586
```cpp
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::Unused;

double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
...
2595
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2596
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
2597
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2598
2599
2600
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2601
### Sharing Actions
2602

2603
2604
2605
2606
Just like matchers, a gMock action object consists of a pointer to a ref-counted
implementation object. Therefore copying actions is also allowed and very
efficient. When the last action that references the implementation object dies,
the implementation object will be deleted.
2607

2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, you may
not have to build it from scratch everytime. If the action doesn't have an
internal state (i.e. if it always does the same thing no matter how many times
it has been called), you can assign it to an action variable and use that
variable repeatedly. For example:
2613

2614
```cpp
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
using ::testing::Action;
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
...
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                                      Return(true));
  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...
```

2625
2626
2627
2628
However, if the action has its own state, you may be surprised if you share the
action object. Suppose you have an action factory `IncrementCounter(init)` which
creates an action that increments and returns a counter whose initial value is
`init`, using two actions created from the same expression and using a shared
Krystian Kuzniarek's avatar
Krystian Kuzniarek committed
2629
action will exhibit different behaviors. Example:
2630

2631
```cpp
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis())
      .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat())
      .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0));
  foo.DoThis();  // Returns 1.
  foo.DoThis();  // Returns 2.
  foo.DoThat();  // Returns 1 - Blah() uses a different
                 // counter than Bar()'s.
```

versus

2644
```cpp
2645
2646
using ::testing::Action;
...
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
  Action<int()> increment = IncrementCounter(0);
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis())
      .WillRepeatedly(increment);
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat())
      .WillRepeatedly(increment);
  foo.DoThis();  // Returns 1.
  foo.DoThis();  // Returns 2.
  foo.DoThat();  // Returns 3 - the counter is shared.
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2657
### Testing Asynchronous Behavior
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685

One oft-encountered problem with gMock is that it can be hard to test
asynchronous behavior. Suppose you had a `EventQueue` class that you wanted to
test, and you created a separate `EventDispatcher` interface so that you could
easily mock it out. However, the implementation of the class fired all the
events on a background thread, which made test timings difficult. You could just
insert `sleep()` statements and hope for the best, but that makes your test
behavior nondeterministic. A better way is to use gMock actions and
`Notification` objects to force your asynchronous test to behave synchronously.

```cpp
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;
using ::testing::Return;

class MockEventDispatcher : public EventDispatcher {
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DispatchEvent, (int32), (override));
};

ACTION_P(Notify, notification) {
  notification->Notify();
}

TEST(EventQueueTest, EnqueueEventTest) {
  MockEventDispatcher mock_event_dispatcher;
  EventQueue event_queue(&mock_event_dispatcher);

  const int32 kEventId = 321;
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2686
  absl::Notification done;
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_event_dispatcher, DispatchEvent(kEventId))
      .WillOnce(Notify(&done));

  event_queue.EnqueueEvent(kEventId);
  done.WaitForNotification();
}
```

In the example above, we set our normal gMock expectations, but then add an
additional action to notify the `Notification` object. Now we can just call
`Notification::WaitForNotification()` in the main thread to wait for the
asynchronous call to finish. After that, our test suite is complete and we can
safely exit.

Note: this example has a downside: namely, if the expectation is not satisfied,
our test will run forever. It will eventually time-out and fail, but it will
take longer and be slightly harder to debug. To alleviate this problem, you can
use `WaitForNotificationWithTimeout(ms)` instead of `WaitForNotification()`.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2706
## Misc Recipes on Using gMock
2707

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2708
### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types
2709

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2710
C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from
2711
2712
one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr<T>` is probably
the most commonly used move-only type.
2713

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2714
2715
2716
2717
Mocking a method that takes and/or returns move-only types presents some
challenges, but nothing insurmountable. This recipe shows you how you can do it.
Note that the support for move-only method arguments was only introduced to
gMock in April 2017; in older code, you may find more complex
2718
[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature.
2719

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2720
2721
Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
2722

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2723
```cpp
2724
2725
2726
2727
enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic };

class Buzz {
 public:
2728
  explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... }
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
  ...
};

class Buzzer {
 public:
  virtual ~Buzzer() {}
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2735
2736
  virtual std::unique_ptr<Buzz> MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0;
  virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0;
2737
2738
2739
2740
  ...
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2741
2742
A `Buzz` object represents a snippet being posted. A class that implements the
`Buzzer` interface is capable of creating and sharing `Buzz`es. Methods in
2743
2744
`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr<Buzz>` or take a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`. Now we
need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests.
2745

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2746
2747
To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the
familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual:
2748

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2749
```cpp
2750
2751
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2752
2753
2754
  MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr<Buzz>, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp),
              (override));
2755
2756
2757
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2758
2759
2760
Now that we have the mock class defined, we can use it in tests. In the
following code examples, we assume that we have defined a `MockBuzzer` object
named `mock_buzzer_`:
2761

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2762
```cpp
2763
2764
2765
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2766
2767
First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which
returns a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`.
2768

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2769
As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or
2770
2771
2772
`.WillRepeatedly()` clause), when that expectation fires, the default action for
that method will be taken. Since `unique_ptr<>` has a default constructor that
returns a null `unique_ptr`, that’s what you’ll get if you don’t specify an
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2773
action:
2774

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2775
```cpp
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
  // Use the default action.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello"));

  // Triggers the previous EXPECT_CALL.
  EXPECT_EQ(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"));
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2783
If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
2784
[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
2785

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2786
2787
If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
`Return(ByMove(...))` action:
2788

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2789
```cpp
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
  // When this fires, the unique_ptr<> specified by ByMove(...) will
  // be returned.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("world"))
      .WillOnce(Return(ByMove(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal))));

  EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("world"));
```

Note that `ByMove()` is essential here - if you drop it, the code won’t compile.

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2800
Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is
2801
2802
2803
performed more than once (e.g. you write `...
.WillRepeatedly(Return(ByMove(...)));`)? Come think of it, after the first time
the action runs, the source value will be consumed (since it’s a move-only
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2804
2805
value), so the next time around, there’s no value to move from -- you’ll get a
run-time error that `Return(ByMove(...))` can only be run once.
2806

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2807
2808
2809
If you need your mock method to do more than just moving a pre-defined value,
remember that you can always use a lambda or a callable object, which can do
pretty much anything you want:
2810

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2811
```cpp
2812
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x"))
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2813
2814
2815
      .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
        return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
      });
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820

  EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x"));
  EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x"));
```

2821
2822
Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr<Buzz>` will be created
and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`.
2823

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2824
2825
2826
That covers returning move-only values; but how do we work with methods
accepting move-only arguments? The answer is that they work normally, although
some actions will not compile when any of method's arguments are move-only. You
2827
can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions):
2828

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2829
2830
```cpp
  using ::testing::Unused;
2831

2832
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2833
2834
2835
  EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
              0);

2836
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce(
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2837
2838
      [](std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; });
  EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0));
2839
2840
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2841
2842
2843
Many built-in actions (`WithArgs`, `WithoutArgs`,`DeleteArg`, `SaveArg`, ...)
could in principle support move-only arguments, but the support for this is not
implemented yet. If this is blocking you, please file a bug.
2844

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2845
2846
A few actions (e.g. `DoAll`) copy their arguments internally, so they can never
work with non-copyable objects; you'll have to use functors instead.
2847

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2848
#### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly}
2849

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
Support for move-only function arguments was only introduced to gMock in April
2017. In older code, you may encounter the following workaround for the lack of
this feature (it is no longer necessary - we're including it just for
reference):

```cpp
2856
2857
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2858
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2859
2860
  bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Time timestamp) override {
    return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp);
2861
2862
2863
2864
  }
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2865
2866
2867
2868
The trick is to delegate the `ShareBuzz()` method to a mock method (let’s call
it `DoShareBuzz()`) that does not take move-only parameters. Then, instead of
setting expectations on `ShareBuzz()`, you set them on the `DoShareBuzz()` mock
method:
2869

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2870
2871
2872
```cpp
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _));
2873

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2874
2875
2876
2877
  // 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<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal), 0);
2878
2879
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2880
### Making the Compilation Faster
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2881

2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
Believe it or not, the *vast majority* of the time spent on compiling a mock
class is in generating its constructor and destructor, as they perform
non-trivial tasks (e.g. verification of the expectations). What's more, mock
methods with different signatures have different types and thus their
constructors/destructors need to be generated by the compiler separately. As a
result, if you mock many different types of methods, compiling your mock class
can get really slow.
2889

2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
If you are experiencing slow compilation, you can move the definition of your
mock class' constructor and destructor out of the class body and into a `.cc`
file. This way, even if you `#include` your mock class in N files, the compiler
only needs to generate its constructor and destructor once, resulting in a much
faster compilation.
2895

2896
2897
Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock
class before applying this recipe:
2898

2899
```cpp
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
// File mock_foo.h.
...
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // Since we don't declare the constructor or the destructor,
  // the compiler will generate them in every translation unit
  // where this mock class is used.

2908
2909
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```

After the change, it would look like:

2916
```cpp
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
// File mock_foo.h.
...
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.
  MockFoo();
  virtual ~MockFoo();

2925
2926
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2927
2928
2929
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```
2930

2931
and
2932

2933
```cpp
2934
// File mock_foo.cc.
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
#include "path/to/mock_foo.h"

// The definitions may appear trivial, but the functions actually do a
// lot of things through the constructors/destructors of the member
// variables used to implement the mock methods.
MockFoo::MockFoo() {}
MockFoo::~MockFoo() {}
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2944
### Forcing a Verification
2945

2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
When it's being destroyed, your friendly mock object will automatically verify
that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will generate 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
destroyed.
2951

2952
2953
2954
2955
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 testing. Suppose
there's a bug in that code and it doesn't delete the mock object properly - you
could end up with a passing test when there's actually a bug.
2956

2957
2958
2959
2960
Using a heap checker is a good idea and can alleviate the concern, but its
implementation is not 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want to *force* gMock
to verify a mock object before it is (hopefully) destructed. You can do this
with `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)`:
2961

2962
```cpp
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
TEST(MyServerTest, ProcessesRequest) {
  using ::testing::Mock;

  MockFoo* const foo = new MockFoo;
  EXPECT_CALL(*foo, ...)...;
  // ... other expectations ...

  // server now owns foo.
  MyServer server(foo);
  server.ProcessRequest(...);

  // In case that server's destructor will forget to delete foo,
  // this will verify the expectations anyway.
  Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(foo);
}  // server is destroyed when it goes out of scope here.
```

2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
**Tip:** The `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function returns a `bool` to
indicate whether the verification was successful (`true` for yes), so you can
wrap that function call inside a `ASSERT_TRUE()` if there is no point going
further when the verification has failed.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2985
### Using Check Points {#UsingCheckPoints}
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003

Sometimes you may want to "reset" a mock object at various check points in your
test: at each check point, you verify that all existing expectations on the mock
object have been satisfied, and then you set some new expectations on it as if
it's newly created. This allows you to work with a mock object in "phases" whose
sizes are each manageable.

One such scenario is that in your test's `SetUp()` function, you may want to put
the object you are testing into a certain state, with the help from a mock
object. Once in the desired state, you want to clear all expectations on the
mock, such that in the `TEST_F` body you can set fresh expectations on it.

As you may have figured out, the `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function
we saw in the previous recipe can help you here. Or, if you are using
`ON_CALL()` to set default actions on the mock object and want to clear the
default actions as well, use `Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_object)` instead. This
function does what `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)` does and
returns the same `bool`, **plus** it clears the `ON_CALL()` statements on
3004
3005
`mock_object` too.

3006
3007
3008
3009
Another trick you can use to achieve the same effect is to put the expectations
in sequences and insert calls to a dummy "check-point" function at specific
places. Then you can verify that the mock function calls do happen at the right
time. For example, if you are exercising code:
3010

3011
```cpp
3012
3013
3014
  Foo(1);
  Foo(2);
  Foo(3);
3015
3016
```

3017
3018
and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke `mock.Bar("a")`, but
`Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything. You can write:
3019

3020
```cpp
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
using ::testing::MockFunction;

TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) {
  MyMock mock;
  // Class MockFunction<F> has exactly one mock method.  It is named
  // Call() and has type F.
  MockFunction<void(string check_point_name)> check;
  {
    InSequence s;

    EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a"));
    EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1"));
    EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2"));
    EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a"));
  }
  Foo(1);
  check.Call("1");
  Foo(2);
  check.Call("2");
  Foo(3);
}
```

3044
3045
3046
3047
The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` must happen before check
point "1", the second `Bar("a")` must happen after check point "2", and nothing
should happen between the two check points. The explicit check points make it
easy to tell which `Bar("a")` is called by which call to `Foo()`.
3048

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3049
### Mocking Destructors
3050

3051
3052
3053
3054
Sometimes you want to make sure a mock object is destructed at the right time,
e.g. after `bar->A()` is called but before `bar->B()` is called. We already know
that you can specify constraints on the [order](#OrderedCalls) of mock function
calls, so all we need to do is to mock the destructor of the mock function.
3055

3056
3057
3058
This sounds simple, except for one problem: a destructor is a special function
with special syntax and special semantics, and the `MOCK_METHOD` macro doesn't
work for it:
3059

3060
```cpp
3061
MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ());  // Won't compile!
3062
3063
```

3064
3065
3066
The good news is that you can use a simple pattern to achieve the same effect.
First, add a mock function `Die()` to your mock class and call it in the
destructor, like this:
3067

3068
```cpp
3069
3070
3071
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
3072
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
3073
3074
3075
3076
  virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); }
};
```

3077
3078
3079
(If the name `Die()` clashes with an existing symbol, choose another name.) Now,
we have translated the problem of testing when a `MockFoo` object dies to
testing when its `Die()` method is called:
3080

3081
```cpp
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
  MockFoo* foo = new MockFoo;
  MockBar* bar = new MockBar;
  ...
  {
    InSequence s;

    // Expects *foo to die after bar->A() and before bar->B().
    EXPECT_CALL(*bar, A());
    EXPECT_CALL(*foo, Die());
    EXPECT_CALL(*bar, B());
  }
```

And that's that.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3097
### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
3098

3099
3100
3101
In a **unit** test, it's best if you could isolate and test a piece of code in a
single-threaded context. That avoids race conditions and dead locks, and makes
debugging your test much easier.
3102

3103
3104
Yet most programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something we need to
pound on it from more than one thread. gMock works for this purpose too.
3105
3106
3107

Remember the steps for using a mock:

3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
1.  Create a mock object `foo`.
2.  Set its default actions and expectations using `ON_CALL()` and
    `EXPECT_CALL()`.
3.  The code under test calls methods of `foo`.
4.  Optionally, verify and reset the mock.
5.  Destroy the mock yourself, or let the code under test destroy it. The
    destructor will automatically verify it.
3115

3116
3117
If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live
happily together:
3118

3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
*   Execute your *test code* (as opposed to the code being tested) in *one*
    thread. This makes your test easy to follow.
*   Obviously, you can do step #1 without locking.
*   When doing step #2 and #5, make sure no other thread is accessing `foo`.
    Obvious too, huh?
*   #3 and #4 can be done either in one thread or in multiple threads - anyway
    you want. gMock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any -
    unless required by your test logic.
3127

3128
3129
3130
If you violate the rules (for example, if you set expectations on a mock while
another thread is calling its methods), you get undefined behavior. That's not
fun, so don't do it.
3131

3132
3133
gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
that called the mock function. For example, in
3134

3135
```cpp
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))
      .WillOnce(action1);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))
      .WillOnce(action2);
```

3142
3143
if `Foo(1)` is called in thread 1 and `Foo(2)` is called in thread 2, gMock will
execute `action1` in thread 1 and `action2` in thread 2.
3144

3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
gMock does *not* impose a sequence on actions performed in different threads
(doing so may create deadlocks as the actions may need to cooperate). This means
that the execution of `action1` and `action2` in the above example *may*
interleave. If this is a problem, you should add proper synchronization logic to
`action1` and `action2` to make the test thread-safe.
3150

3151
3152
3153
Also, remember that `DefaultValue<T>` is a global resource that potentially
affects *all* living mock objects in your program. Naturally, you won't want to
mess with it from multiple threads or when there still are mocks in action.
3154

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3155
### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints
3156

3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
When gMock sees something that has the potential of being an error (e.g. a mock
function with no expectation is called, a.k.a. an uninteresting call, which is
allowed but perhaps you forgot to explicitly ban the call), it prints some
warning messages, including the arguments of the function, the return value, and
the stack trace. Hopefully this will remind you to take a look and see if there
is indeed a problem.
3163

3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
Sometimes you are confident that your tests are correct and may not appreciate
such friendly messages. Some other times, you are debugging your tests or
learning about the behavior of the code you are testing, and wish you could
observe every mock call that happens (including argument values, the return
value, and the stack trace). Clearly, one size doesn't fit all.
3169

3170
3171
You can control how much gMock tells you using the `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL`
command-line flag, where `LEVEL` is a string with three possible values:
3172

3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
*   `info`: gMock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors
    (most verbose). At this setting, gMock will also log any calls to the
    `ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL` macros. It will include a stack trace in
    "uninteresting call" warnings.
*   `warning`: gMock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose); it will
    omit the stack traces in "uninteresting call" warnings. This is the default.
*   `error`: gMock will print errors only (least verbose).
3180

3181
3182
Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
so:
3183

3184
```cpp
3185
3186
3187
  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
```

3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
If you find gMock printing too many stack frames with its informational or
warning messages, remember that you can control their amount with the
`--gtest_stack_trace_depth=max_depth` flag.

Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable gMock serve you better!
3193

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3194
### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
3195

3196
3197
3198
3199
You have a test using gMock. It fails: gMock tells you some expectations aren't
satisfied. However, you aren't sure why: Is there a typo somewhere in the
matchers? Did you mess up the order of the `EXPECT_CALL`s? Or is the code under
test doing something wrong? How can you find out the cause?
3200

3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
Won't it be nice if you have X-ray vision and can actually see the trace of all
`EXPECT_CALL`s and mock method calls as they are made? For each call, would you
like to see its actual argument values and which `EXPECT_CALL` gMock thinks it
matches? If you still need some help to figure out who made these calls, how
about being able to see the complete stack trace at each mock call?
3206

3207
3208
You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
flag. For example, given the test program:
3209

3210
```cpp
3211
3212
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
using testing::_;
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo {
 public:
3219
  MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y));
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
};

TEST(Foo, Bar) {
  MockFoo mock;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)).WillRepeatedly(Return());
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"));
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d")));

  mock.F("a", "good");
  mock.F("a", "b");
}
```

if you run it with `--gmock_verbose=info`, you will see this output:

3235
3236
```shell
[ RUN       ] Foo.Bar
3237
3238

foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
3239
3240
Stack trace: ...

3241
foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
3242
3243
Stack trace: ...

3244
foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
3245
3246
Stack trace: ...

3247
foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
3248
3249
3250
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
Stack trace: ...

3251
foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
3252
3253
3254
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
Stack trace: ...

3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
foo_test.cc:16: Failure
Actual function call count doesn't match EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d")))...
         Expected: to be called once
           Actual: never called - unsatisfied and active
[  FAILED  ] Foo.Bar
```

3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
Suppose the bug is that the `"c"` in the third `EXPECT_CALL` is a typo and
should actually be `"a"`. With the above message, you should see that the actual
`F("a", "good")` call is matched by the first `EXPECT_CALL`, not the third as
you thought. From that it should be obvious that the third `EXPECT_CALL` is
written wrong. Case solved.
3267

3268
3269
3270
If you are interested in the mock call trace but not the stack traces, you can
combine `--gmock_verbose=info` with `--gtest_stack_trace_depth=0` on the test
command line.
3271

3272
3273
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0025 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3274
### Running Tests in Emacs
3275

3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
If you build and run your tests in Emacs using the `M-x google-compile` command
(as many googletest users do), the source file locations of gMock and googletest
errors will be highlighted. Just press `<Enter>` on one of them and you'll be
taken to the offending line. Or, you can just type `C-x`` to jump to the next
error.
3281

3282
3283
3284
3285
To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your `~/.emacs` file:

```text
(global-set-key "\M-m"  'google-compile)  ; m is for make
3286
(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)
3287
(global-set-key [M-up]  '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))
3288
3289
```

3290
3291
3292
Then you can type `M-m` to start a build (if you want to run the test as well,
just make sure `foo_test.run` or `runtests` is in the build command you supply
after typing `M-m`), or `M-up`/`M-down` to move back and forth between errors.
3293

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3294
## Extending gMock
3295

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3296
### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
3297

3298
3299
3300
WARNING: gMock does not guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be
invoked. Therefore, all matchers must be functionally pure. See
[this section](#PureMatchers) for more details.
3301

3302
3303
The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
The syntax:
3304

3305
```cpp
3306
3307
3308
MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }
```

3309
3310
3311
3312
will define a matcher with the given name that executes the statements, which
must return a `bool` to indicate if the match succeeds. Inside the statements,
you can refer to the value being matched by `arg`, and refer to its type by
`arg_type`.
3313

3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
The *description string* is a `string`-typed expression that documents what the
matcher does, and is used to generate the failure message when the match fails.
It can (and should) reference the special `bool` variable `negation`, and should
evaluate to the description of the matcher when `negation` is `false`, or that
of the matcher's negation when `negation` is `true`.
3319

3320
3321
3322
For convenience, we allow the description string to be empty (`""`), in which
case gMock will use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the
description.
3323
3324

For example:
3325

3326
```cpp
3327
3328
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
```
3329

3330
allows you to write
3331

3332
```cpp
3333
3334
3335
  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3336

3337
or,
3338

3339
```cpp
3340
3341
3342
  using ::testing::Not;
  ...
  // Verifies that two values are divisible by 7.
3343
3344
3345
  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3346

3347
If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
3348
3349

```shell
3350
3351
3352
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27
3353
  ...
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
  Value of: some_other_expression
  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)
    Actual: 21
```

3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
where the descriptions `"is divisible by 7"` and `"not (is divisible by 7)"` are
automatically calculated from the matcher name `IsDivisibleBy7`.

As you may have noticed, the auto-generated descriptions (especially those for
the negation) may not be so great. You can always override them with a `string`
expression of your own:

3366
```cpp
3367
3368
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
        absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) {
3369
3370
3371
3372
  return (arg % 7) == 0;
}
```

3373
3374
3375
3376
Optionally, you can stream additional information to a hidden argument named
`result_listener` to explain the match result. For example, a better definition
of `IsDivisibleBy7` is:

3377
```cpp
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") {
  if ((arg % 7) == 0)
    return true;

  *result_listener << "the remainder is " << (arg % 7);
  return false;
}
```

With this definition, the above assertion will give a better message:
3388
3389

```shell
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
```

3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
You should let `MatchAndExplain()` print *any additional information* that can
help a user understand the match result. Note that it should explain why the
match succeeds in case of a success (unless it's obvious) - this is useful when
the matcher is used inside `Not()`. There is no need to print the argument value
itself, as gMock already prints it for you.
3400

3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
NOTE: The type of the value being matched (`arg_type`) is determined by the
context in which you use the matcher and is supplied to you by the compiler, so
you don't need to worry about declaring it (nor can you). This allows the
matcher to be polymorphic. For example, `IsDivisibleBy7()` can be used to match
any type where the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a
`bool`. In the `Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())` example above, if method `Bar()` takes an
`int`, `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will
be `unsigned long`; and so on.
3409

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3410
### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
3411

3412
3413
Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
use the macro:
3414

3415
```cpp
3416
3417
MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }
```
3418
3419
3420

where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that
references `negation` and `param_name`.
3421
3422

For example:
3423

3424
```cpp
3425
3426
MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
```
3427

3428
will allow you to write:
3429

3430
```cpp
3431
3432
  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
```
3433

3434
which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
3435
3436

```shell
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
  Value of: Blah("a")
  Expected: has absolute value 10
    Actual: -9
```

3442
3443
Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the
message human-friendly.
3444

3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
In the matcher definition body, you can write `foo_type` to reference the type
of a parameter named `foo`. For example, in the body of
`MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value)` above, you can write `value_type` to refer
to the type of `value`.

gMock also provides `MATCHER_P2`, `MATCHER_P3`, ..., up to `MATCHER_P10` to
support multi-parameter matchers:
3452

3453
```cpp
3454
3455
3456
MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }
```

3457
3458
3459
3460
Please note that the custom description string is for a particular *instance* of
the matcher, where the parameters have been bound to actual values. Therefore
usually you'll want the parameter values to be part of the description. gMock
lets you do that by referencing the matcher parameters in the description string
3461
3462
3463
expression.

For example,
3464

3465
```cpp
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
using ::testing::PrintToString;
MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi,
           absl::StrFormat("%s in range [%s, %s]", negation ? "isn't" : "is",
                           PrintToString(low), PrintToString(hi))) {
  return low <= arg && arg <= hi;
}
...
EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
3474
```
3475

3476
would generate a failure that contains the message:
3477
3478

```shell
3479
3480
3481
  Expected: is in range [4, 6]
```

3482
3483
3484
3485
If you specify `""` as the description, the failure message will contain the
sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the parameter values printed
as a tuple. For example,

3486
```cpp
3487
3488
3489
3490
  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
  ...
  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
```
3491

3492
would generate a failure that contains the text:
3493
3494

```shell
3495
3496
3497
3498
  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
```

For the purpose of typing, you can view
3499

3500
```cpp
3501
3502
MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
```
3503

3504
as shorthand for
3505

3506
```cpp
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>
FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>
Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }
```

3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
When you write `Foo(v1, ..., vk)`, the compiler infers the types of the
parameters `v1`, ..., and `vk` for you. If you are not happy with the result of
the type inference, you can specify the types by explicitly instantiating the
template, as in `Foo<long, bool>(5, false)`. As said earlier, you don't get to
(or need to) specify `arg_type` as that's determined by the context in which the
matcher is used.

You can assign the result of expression `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to a variable of type
`FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>`. This can be useful when composing
matchers. Matchers that don't have a parameter or have only one parameter have
special types: you can assign `Foo()` to a `FooMatcher`-typed variable, and
assign `Foo(p)` to a `FooMatcherP<p_type>`-typed variable.

While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, passing the
parameters by pointer usually makes your code more readable. If, however, you
still want to pass a parameter by reference, be aware that in the failure
message generated by the matcher you will see the value of the referenced object
but not its address.
3530
3531

You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:
3532

3533
```cpp
3534
3535
3536
3537
MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }
MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }
```

3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining a new
matcher, you should also consider implementing `MatcherInterface` or using
`MakePolymorphicMatcher()` instead (see the recipes that follow), especially if
you need to use the matcher a lot. While these approaches require more work,
they give you more control on the types of the value being matched and the
matcher parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error messages
that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading matchers based on
parameter types (as opposed to just based on the number of parameters).
3546

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3547
### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers
3548

3549
3550
3551
3552
A matcher of argument type `T` implements `::testing::MatcherInterface<T>` and
does two things: it tests whether a value of type `T` matches the matcher, and
can describe what kind of values it matches. The latter ability is used for
generating readable error messages when expectations are violated.
3553
3554
3555

The interface looks like this:

3556
```cpp
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
class MatchResultListener {
 public:
  ...
  // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream
  // is NULL.
  template <typename T>
  MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x);

  // Returns the underlying ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3566
  std::ostream* stream();
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
};

template <typename T>
class MatcherInterface {
 public:
  virtual ~MatcherInterface();

3574
  // Returns true if and only if the matcher matches x; also explains the match
3575
3576
3577
3578
  // result to 'listener'.
  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0;

  // Describes this matcher to an ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3579
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3580
3581

  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3582
  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const;
3583
3584
3585
};
```

3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
If you need a custom matcher but `Truly()` is not a good option (for example,
you may not be happy with the way `Truly(predicate)` describes itself, or you
may want your matcher to be polymorphic as `Eq(value)` is), you can define a
matcher to do whatever you want in two steps: first implement the matcher
interface, and then define a factory function to create a matcher instance. The
second step is not strictly needed but it makes the syntax of using the matcher
nicer.

For example, you can define a matcher to test whether an `int` is divisible by 7
and then use it like this:
3596

3597
```cpp
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
using ::testing::MakeMatcher;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
 public:
3605
3606
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
3607
3608
3609
    return (n % 7) == 0;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3610
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
3611
3612
3613
    *os << "is divisible by 7";
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3614
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
3615
3616
3617
3618
    *os << "is not divisible by 7";
  }
};

3619
Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
3620
3621
3622
  return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher);
}

3623
...
3624
3625
3626
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
```

3627
3628
You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
`listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
3629

3630
```cpp
3631
3632
class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
 public:
3633
3634
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
                       MatchResultListener* listener) const override {
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
    const int remainder = n % 7;
    if (remainder != 0) {
      *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder;
    }
    return remainder == 0;
  }
  ...
};
```

3645
3646
3647
Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:

```shell
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
Value of: x
Expected: is divisible by 7
  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3653
### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
3654

3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
You've learned how to write your own matchers in the previous recipe. Just one
problem: a matcher created using `MakeMatcher()` only works for one particular
type of arguments. If you want a *polymorphic* matcher that works with arguments
of several types (for instance, `Eq(x)` can be used to match a *`value`* as long
as `value == x` compiles -- *`value`* and `x` don't have to share the same
type), you can learn the trick from `testing/base/public/gmock-matchers.h` but
it's a bit involved.
3662

3663
3664
3665
Fortunately, most of the time you can define a polymorphic matcher easily with
the help of `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`. Here's how you can define `NotNull()` as
an example:
3666

3667
```cpp
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
using ::testing::PolymorphicMatcher;

class NotNullMatcher {
 public:
  // To implement a polymorphic matcher, first define a COPYABLE class
  // that has three members MatchAndExplain(), DescribeTo(), and
  // DescribeNegationTo(), like the following.

  // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so
  // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument.
  // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or
  // a method template, or even overload it.
  template <typename T>
  bool MatchAndExplain(T* p,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const {
    return p != NULL;
  }

  // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3689
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
3690
3691

  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3692
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
3693
3694
3695
3696
};

// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class
// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.
3697
PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
3698
3699
  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
}
3700

3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull()));  // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer.
```

**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from
3707
3708
`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be
virtual.
3709

3710
3711
Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming
additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`.
3712

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3713
### Writing New Cardinalities
3714

3715
3716
3717
A cardinality is used in `Times()` to tell gMock how many times you expect a
call to occur. It doesn't have to be exact. For example, you can say
`AtLeast(5)` or `Between(2, 4)`.
3718

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3719
3720
3721
If the [built-in set](cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList) of cardinalities doesn't
suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following
interface (in namespace `testing`):
3722

3723
```cpp
3724
3725
3726
3727
class CardinalityInterface {
 public:
  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();

3728
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality.
3729
3730
  virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

3731
3732
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this
  // cardinality.
3733
3734
3735
  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

  // Describes self to an ostream.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3736
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3737
3738
3739
};
```

3740
3741
For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can
write
3742

3743
```cpp
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
using ::testing::Cardinality;
using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
using ::testing::MakeCardinality;

class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
 public:
3750
  bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3751
3752
3753
    return (call_count % 2) == 0;
  }

3754
  bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3755
3756
3757
    return false;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3758
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
    *os << "called even number of times";
  }
};

Cardinality EvenNumber() {
  return MakeCardinality(new EvenNumberCardinality);
}

3767
...
3768
3769
3770
3771
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))
      .Times(EvenNumber());
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3772
### Writing New Actions Quickly {#QuickNewActions}
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787

If the built-in actions don't work for you, you can easily define your own one.
Just define a functor class with a (possibly templated) call operator, matching
the signature of your action.

```cpp
struct Increment {
  template <typename T>
  T operator()(T* arg) {
    return ++(*arg);
  }
}
```

The same approach works with stateful functors (or any callable, really):
3788

3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
```
struct MultiplyBy {
  template <typename T>
  T operator()(T arg) { return arg * multiplier; }

  int multiplier;
}

// Then use:
// EXPECT_CALL(...).WillOnce(MultiplyBy{7});
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3801
#### Legacy macro-based Actions
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807

Before C++11, the functor-based actions were not supported; the old way of
writing actions was through a set of `ACTION*` macros. We suggest to avoid them
in new code; they hide a lot of logic behind the macro, potentially leading to
harder-to-understand compiler errors. Nevertheless, we cover them here for
completeness.
3808
3809

By writing
3810

3811
```cpp
3812
3813
ACTION(name) { statements; }
```
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820

in a namespace scope (i.e. not inside a class or function), you will define an
action with the given name that executes the statements. The value returned by
`statements` will be used as the return value of the action. Inside the
statements, you can refer to the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function as
`argK`. For example:

3821
```cpp
3822
3823
ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
```
3824

3825
allows you to write
3826

3827
```cpp
3828
3829
3830
... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());
```

3831
3832
3833
3834
Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function arguments.
Rest assured that your code is type-safe though: you'll get a compiler error if
`*arg1` doesn't support the `++` operator, or if the type of `++(*arg1)` isn't
compatible with the mock function's return type.
3835
3836

Another example:
3837

3838
```cpp
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
ACTION(Foo) {
  (*arg2)(5);
  Blah();
  *arg1 = 0;
  return arg0;
}
```

3847
3848
3849
defines an action `Foo()` that invokes argument #2 (a function pointer) with 5,
calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument #1 to 0, and
returns argument #0.
3850

3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
For more convenience and flexibility, you can also use the following pre-defined
symbols in the body of `ACTION`:

`argK_type`     | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function
:-------------- | :-----------------------------------------------------------
`args`          | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple
`args_type`     | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple
`return_type`   | The return type of the mock function
`function_type` | The type of the mock function
3860
3861

For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
3862

3863
```cpp
3864
3865
int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
```
3866

3867
we have:
3868

3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
Pre-defined Symbol | Is Bound To
------------------ | ---------------------------------
`arg0`             | the value of `flag`
`arg0_type`        | the type `bool`
`arg1`             | the value of `ptr`
`arg1_type`        | the type `int*`
`args`             | the tuple `(flag, ptr)`
`args_type`        | the type `std::tuple<bool, int*>`
`return_type`      | the type `int`
`function_type`    | the type `int(bool, int*)`
3879

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3880
#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
3881
3882
3883

Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
another macro
3884

3885
```cpp
3886
3887
3888
3889
ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
```

For example,
3890

3891
```cpp
3892
3893
ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
```
3894

3895
will allow you to write
3896

3897
```cpp
3898
3899
3900
3901
// Returns argument #0 + 5.
... WillOnce(Add(5));
```

3902
3903
3904
For convenience, we use the term *arguments* for the values used to invoke the
mock function, and the term *parameters* for the values used to instantiate an
action.
3905

3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter either. Suppose
the parameter is named `param`, you can also use the gMock-defined symbol
`param_type` to refer to the type of the parameter as inferred by the compiler.
For example, in the body of `ACTION_P(Add, n)` above, you can write `n_type` for
the type of `n`.

gMock also provides `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support multi-parameter
actions. For example,
3914

3915
```cpp
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
  double dx = arg0 - x;
  double dy = arg1 - y;
  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
}
```
3922

3923
lets you write
3924

3925
```cpp
3926
3927
3928
... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
```

3929
3930
You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of
parameters is 0.
3931
3932

You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
3933

3934
```cpp
3935
3936
3937
3938
ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3939
### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION
3940
3941
3942
3943

For maximum brevity and reusability, the `ACTION*` macros don't ask you to
provide the types of the mock function arguments and the action parameters.
Instead, we let the compiler infer the types for us.
3944

3945
3946
Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. There are
several tricks to do that. For example:
3947

3948
```cpp
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
ACTION(Foo) {
  // Makes sure arg0 can be converted to int.
  int n = arg0;
  ... use n instead of arg0 here ...
}

ACTION_P(Bar, param) {
  // Makes sure the type of arg1 is const char*.
  ::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq<const char*, arg1_type>();

  // Makes sure param can be converted to bool.
  bool flag = param;
}
```

3964
3965
where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that
verifies two types are the same.
3966

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3967
### Writing New Action Templates Quickly
3968
3969
3970
3971

Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters that cannot be
inferred from its value parameters. `ACTION_TEMPLATE()` supports that and can be
viewed as an extension to `ACTION()` and `ACTION_P*()`.
3972
3973

The syntax:
3974

3975
```cpp
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,
                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),
                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }
```

3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
defines an action template that takes *m* explicit template parameters and *n*
value parameters, where *m* is in [1, 10] and *n* is in [0, 10]. `name_i` is the
name of the *i*-th template parameter, and `kind_i` specifies whether it's a
`typename`, an integral constant, or a template. `p_i` is the name of the *i*-th
value parameter.
3986
3987

Example:
3988

3989
```cpp
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
// DuplicateArg<k, T>(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock
// function to type T and copies it to *output.
ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg,
                // Note the comma between int and k:
                HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T),
                AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) {
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3996
  *output = T(std::get<k>(args));
3997
3998
3999
4000
}
```

To create an instance of an action template, write:
4001

4002
```cpp
4003
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
4004
```
4005
4006
4007
4008

where the `t`s are the template arguments and the `v`s are the value arguments.
The value argument types are inferred by the compiler. For example:

4009
```cpp
4010
4011
4012
using ::testing::_;
...
  int n;
4013
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));
4014
4015
```

4016
4017
4018
If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide
additional template arguments:

4019
```cpp
4020
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)
4021
```
4022

4023
4024
where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`.

4025
4026
4027
`ACTION_TEMPLATE` and `ACTION`/`ACTION_P*` can be overloaded on the number of
value parameters, but not on the number of template parameters. Without the
restriction, the meaning of the following is unclear:
4028

4029
```cpp
4030
4031
4032
  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);
```

4033
4034
4035
Are we using a single-template-parameter action where `bool` refers to the type
of `x`, or a two-template-parameter action where the compiler is asked to infer
the type of `x`?
4036

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4037
### Using the ACTION Object's Type
4038

4039
4040
4041
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:
4042

4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
| Given Definition              | Expression          | Has Type              |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------- |
| `ACTION(Foo)`                 | `Foo()`             | `FooAction`           |
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo,`        | `Foo<t1, ...,       | `FooAction<t1, ...,   |
: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : t_m>()`             : t_m>`                 :
: `AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())`       :                     :                       :
| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)`        | `Bar(int_value)`    | `BarActionP<int>`     |
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar,`        | `Bar<t1, ..., t_m>` | `FooActionP<t1, ...,  |
: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : `(int_value)`       : t_m, int>`            :
: `AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))`     :                     :                       :
| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)`      | `Baz(bool_value,`   | `BazActionP2<bool,    |
:                               : `int_value)`        : int>`                 :
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz,`        | `Baz<t1, ..., t_m>` | `FooActionP2<t1, ..., |
: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : `(bool_value,`      : t_m,` `bool, int>`    :
: `AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` : `int_value)`        :                       :
| ...                           | ...                 | ...                   |
4059

4060
4061
4062
Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`, `ActionP2`,
and etc) for actions with different numbers of value parameters, or the action
definitions cannot be overloaded on the number of them.
4063

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4064
### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions}
4065
4066

While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
inappropriate. For example, despite the tricks shown in the previous recipes,
they don't let you directly specify the types of the mock function arguments and
the action parameters, which in general leads to unoptimized compiler error
messages that can baffle unfamiliar users. They also don't allow overloading
actions based on parameter types without jumping through some hoops.
4072
4073

An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement
4074
4075
`::testing::ActionInterface<F>`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in
which the action will be used. For example:
4076

4077
```cpp
4078
4079
template <typename F>
class ActionInterface {
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
 public:
  virtual ~ActionInterface();

  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type
  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.
  //
4086

4087
  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4088
  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
4089
4090
  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
};
4091
```
4092

4093
```cpp
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Action;
using ::testing::ActionInterface;
using ::testing::MakeAction;

typedef int IncrementMethod(int*);

class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface<IncrementMethod> {
 public:
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4103
4104
  int Perform(const std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
    int* p = std::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
    return *p++;
  }
};

Action<IncrementMethod> IncrementArgument() {
  return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction);
}

4113
...
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Baz(_))
      .WillOnce(IncrementArgument());

  int n = 5;
  foo.Baz(&n);  // Should return 5 and change n to 6.
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4121
### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions}
4122

4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
The previous recipe showed you how to define your own action. This is all good,
except that you need to know the type of the function in which the action will
be used. Sometimes that can be a problem. For example, if you want to use the
action in functions with *different* types (e.g. like `Return()` and
`SetArgPointee()`).
4128

4129
4130
4131
If an action can be used in several types of mock functions, we say it's
*polymorphic*. The `MakePolymorphicAction()` function template makes it easy to
define such an action:
4132

4133
```cpp
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
namespace testing {
template <typename Impl>
PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);
}  // namespace testing
```

4140
4141
4142
As an example, let's define an action that returns the second argument in the
mock function's argument list. The first step is to define an implementation
class:
4143

4144
```cpp
4145
4146
4147
4148
class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
 public:
  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4149
4150
    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args).
    return std::get<1>(args);
4151
4152
4153
4154
  }
};
```

4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
This implementation class does *not* need to inherit from any particular class.
What matters is that it must have a `Perform()` method template. This method
template takes the mock function's arguments as a tuple in a **single**
argument, and returns the result of the action. It can be either `const` or not,
but must be invokable with exactly one template argument, which is the result
type. In other words, you must be able to call `Perform<R>(args)` where `R` is
the mock function's return type and `args` is its arguments in a tuple.
4162

4163
4164
4165
Next, we use `MakePolymorphicAction()` to turn an instance of the implementation
class into the polymorphic action we need. It will be convenient to have a
wrapper for this:
4166

4167
```cpp
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;
using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;

PolymorphicAction<ReturnSecondArgumentAction> ReturnSecondArgument() {
  return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction());
}
```

4176
Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones:
4177

4178
```cpp
4179
4180
4181
4182
using ::testing::_;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
4183
4184
4185
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
              (override));
4186
4187
};

4188
  ...
4189
  MockFoo foo;
4190
4191
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
4192
  ...
4193
  foo.DoThis(true, 5);  // Will return 5.
4194
4195
4196
  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4197
### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values
4198

4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, gMock prints the argument
values and the stack trace to help you debug. Assertion macros like
`EXPECT_THAT` and `EXPECT_EQ` also print the values in question when the
assertion fails. gMock and googletest do this using googletest's user-extensible
value printer.
4204
4205

This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other types, it
prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the user can figure it out.
[googletest's advanced guide](../../googletest/docs/advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values)
explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your
particular type than to dump the bytes.
4211

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4212
## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
4213
4214
4215
4216

<!--#include file="includes/g3_testing_LOGs.md"-->
<!--#include file="includes/g3_mock_callbacks.md"-->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4217
### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268

`std::function` is a general function type introduced in C++11. It is a
preferred way of passing callbacks to new interfaces. Functions are copiable,
and are not usually passed around by pointer, which makes them tricky to mock.
But fear not - `MockFunction` can help you with that.

`MockFunction<R(T1, ..., Tn)>` has a mock method `Call()` with the signature:

```cpp
  R Call(T1, ..., Tn);
```

It also has a `AsStdFunction()` method, which creates a `std::function` proxy
forwarding to Call:

```cpp
  std::function<R(T1, ..., Tn)> AsStdFunction();
```

To use `MockFunction`, first create `MockFunction` object and set up
expectations on its `Call` method. Then pass proxy obtained from
`AsStdFunction()` to the code you are testing. For example:

```cpp
TEST(FooTest, RunsCallbackWithBarArgument) {
  // 1. Create a mock object.
  MockFunction<int(string)> mock_function;

  // 2. Set expectations on Call() method.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_function, Call("bar")).WillOnce(Return(1));

  // 3. Exercise code that uses std::function.
  Foo(mock_function.AsStdFunction());
  // Foo's signature can be either of:
  // void Foo(const std::function<int(string)>& fun);
  // void Foo(std::function<int(string)> fun);

  // 4. All expectations will be verified when mock_function
  //     goes out of scope and is destroyed.
}
```

Remember that function objects created with `AsStdFunction()` are just
forwarders. If you create multiple of them, they will share the same set of
expectations.

Although `std::function` supports unlimited number of arguments, `MockFunction`
implementation is limited to ten. If you ever hit that limit... well, your
callback has bigger problems than being mockable. :-)

<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0034 DO NOT DELETE -->