gmock_cook_book.md 144 KB
Newer Older
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1
# gMock Cookbook
2

3
You can find recipes for using gMock here. If you haven't yet, please read
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4
5
[the dummy guide](gmock_for_dummies.md) first to make sure you understand the
basics.
6

7
8
9
10
**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.
11

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
12
## Creating Mock Classes
13

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
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
37
38
39
*   **`ref(...)`** - Marks the method with the reference qualification
    specified. Required if overriding a method that has reference
    qualifications. Eg `ref(&)` or `ref(&&)`.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
40

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
41
### Dealing with unprotected commas
42

43
44
45
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
46
```cpp {.bad}
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
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
56
```cpp {.good}
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
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
69
```cpp {.good}
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
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
79
### Mocking Private or Protected Methods
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

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:
87

88
```cpp
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
class Foo {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0;

 protected:
  virtual void Resume();

 private:
  virtual int GetTimeOut();
};

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  ...
104
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Transform, (Gadget* g), (override));
105
106
107

  // The following must be in the public section, even though the
  // methods are protected or private in the base class.
108
109
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Resume, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetTimeOut, (), (override));
110
111
112
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
113
### Mocking Overloaded Methods
114
115
116

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

117
```cpp
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
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 {
  ...
135
136
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override));
137

138
139
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
140
141
142
};
```

143
144
145
**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:
146

147
```cpp
148
149
150
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  using Foo::Add;
151
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
152
153
154
155
156
  // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x);
  ...
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
157
### Mocking Class Templates
158

159
You can mock class templates just like any class.
160

161
```cpp
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
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> {
  ...
175
176
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
177
178
179
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
180
### Mocking Non-virtual Methods {#MockingNonVirtualMethods}
181

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
182
gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in Hi-perf dependency injection.
183

184
185
186
187
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`):
188

189
```cpp
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
// 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:
203
204
  MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
  MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
205
206
207
208
  ...
};
```

209
210
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.
211

212
213
214
215
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).
216

217
218
219
220
221
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:
222

223
```cpp
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
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
236
237
`CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
tests.
238

239
```cpp
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
  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
247
### Mocking Free Functions
248

249
250
251
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).
252

253
254
Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, introduce an
interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls the free function:
255

256
```cpp
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
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) {
267
     return OpenFile(path, mode);
268
269
270
271
  }
};
```

272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
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
283
### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
284

285
286
Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro
[was introduced in 2018](https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/c5f08bf91944ce1b19bcf414fa1760e69d20afc2),
287
288
289
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.
290

291
The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`:
292

293
294
295
296
297
298
299
*   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.
300

301
Old macros and their new equivalents:
302

303
304
305
306
307
<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>
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
340
341
342
<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
343
### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353

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.
354
355
356

Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:

357
```cpp
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
TEST(...) {
  MockFoo mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

365
366
367
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:
368

369
```cpp
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

379
380
`NiceMock<MockFoo>` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever
`MockFoo` is accepted.
381
382
383
384

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

385
```cpp
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

395
396
The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting
calls failures:
397

398
```cpp
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
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.
}
```

411
412
413
414
415
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
416
417
There are some caveats though (sadly they are side effects of C++'s
limitations):
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426

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
427
    requires cleaning up existing tests.
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439

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
440
### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
441
442
443

Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
For example:
444

445
```cpp
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
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;
};
```

456
457
458
459
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.
460

461
The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class:
462

463
```cpp
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
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);
480
481
482
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Log,
              (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,
               const string& message));
483
484
485
};
```

486
By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock
487
class more user-friendly.
488

489
490
491
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:
492

493
494
495
496
497
```cpp
class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
 public:
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
498

499
500
501
502
  // the above methods delegate to this one:
  MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
};
```
503

504
505
This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
argument matchers:
506

507
508
```cpp
ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
509
    .WillByDefault(Return(MakeMockTurtle()));
510
```
511

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
512
### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes
513

514
515
516
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.
517

518
Try not to do that.
519

520
521
522
523
524
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.
525

526
527
528
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.
529

530
531
532
533
534
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.
535

536
This technique incurs some overhead:
537

538
539
*   You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem).
*   There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn.
540

541
542
However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better
testability:
543

544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
*   `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
574
### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
575
576
577

Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
example:
578

579
```cpp
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
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:
589
  char DoThis(int n) override {
590
    return (n > 0) ? '+' :
591
           (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
592
593
  }

594
  void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
595
596
597
598
599
    *p = strlen(s);
  }
};
```

600
601
602
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.
603

604
605
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:
606

607
```cpp
608
609
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
610
611
612
  // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
613
614
615
616

  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.
  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.
  void DelegateToFake() {
617
618
619
620
621
622
    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);
    });
623
  }
624

625
626
627
628
629
 private:
  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.
};
```

630
631
632
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.:
633

634
```cpp
635
636
637
638
using ::testing::_;

TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
  MockFoo foo;
639
640

  foo.DelegateToFake();  // Enables the fake for delegation.
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649

  // 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.
650
  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);  // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
651
652
653
654
655
656
  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
}
```

**Some tips:**

657
658
659
660
661
662
663
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
*   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
692
### Delegating Calls to a Real Object
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705

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:
706

707
```cpp
708
709
710
711
712
713
using ::testing::AtLeast;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  MockFoo() {
    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
714
715
716
717
718
719
    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);
    });
720
721
    ...
  }
722
723
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...);
724
725
726
727
728
  ...
 private:
  Foo real_;
};

729
...
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
  MockFoo mock;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())
      .Times(3);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))
      .Times(AtLeast(1));
  ... use mock in test ...
```

738
739
740
741
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.
742

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
743
### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class
744

745
746
747
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:
748

749
```cpp
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
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.
761
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
762
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
763
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
764
765
766
767
};
```

Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of
768
769
770
771
`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).
772

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
773
You can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by:
774

775
```cpp
776
...
777
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
778
    return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
779
  });
780
781
782
783
```

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

784
```cpp
785
...
786
  ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
787
    return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
788
  });
789
790
```

791
792
793
(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.)
794

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
795
## Using Matchers
796

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
797
### Matching Argument Values Exactly
798
799
800

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

801
```cpp
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
using ::testing::Return;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))
      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
809
### Using Simple Matchers
810
811
812

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

813
```cpp
814
815
816
817
818
819
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()));
820
      // The second argument must not be NULL.
821
822
823
824
```

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

825
```cpp
826
827
828
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
829
### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
830
831

You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
832
`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
833

834
```cpp
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
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
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
Matchers are function objects, and parametrized matchers can be composed just
like any other function. However because their types can be long and rarely
provide meaningful information, it can be easier to express them with C++14
generic lambdas to avoid specifying types. For example,

```cpp
using ::testing::Contains;
using ::testing::Property;

inline constexpr auto HasFoo = [](const auto& f) {
  return Property(&MyClass::foo, Contains(f));
};
...
  EXPECT_THAT(x, HasFoo("blah"));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
866
### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
867

868
869
870
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!
871

872
873
874
875
876
877
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.
878

879
880
881
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 :
882

883
884
885
886
887
888
889
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).
890

891
The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.
892
893
894

Here's one example:

895
```cpp
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
904
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
905
906
};

907
...
908
909
910
911
912
  MockFoo foo;
  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));
```

913
914
915
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`.
916

917
918
919
`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.
920

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
921
### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload}
922

923
924
If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some
help on which overloaded version it is.
925

926
927
To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the
`Const()` argument wrapper.
928

929
```cpp
930
931
932
933
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
934
935
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
936
937
};

938
...
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
  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));
```

947
(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.)
948

949
950
951
952
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):
953

954
```cpp
955
956
957
958
959
960
using ::testing::An;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::TypedEq;

class MockPrinter : public Printer {
 public:
961
962
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
};

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
978
### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments
979

980
981
982
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:
983

984
```cpp
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
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'));
```

997
998
Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be
returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned.
999

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1000
### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole
1001

1002
1003
1004
1005
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,
1006

1007
```cpp
1008
1009
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Ne;
1010
using ::testing::Lt;
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))
      .With(Lt());
```

1016
1017
says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than
the second argument.
1018

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1019
1020
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.
1021

1022
1023
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())`.
1024

1025
1026
You can use `Args<k1, ..., kn>(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a
tuple) against `m`. For example,
1027

1028
```cpp
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Args;
using ::testing::Lt;
...
1034
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah)
1035
1036
1037
      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));
```

1038
1039
1040
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.
1041

1042
1043
1044
As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
including the `Lt()` matcher above. See [here](#MultiArgMatchers) for the
complete list.
1045

1046
1047
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
1048
1049
take a `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected arguments
as *one* single tuple to the predicate.
1050

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1051
### Using Matchers as Predicates
1052

1053
1054
1055
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
1056
matchers were not allowed to participate.
1057

1058
1059
Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by
wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example,
1060

1061
```cpp
1062
1063
1064
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

1065
1066
1067
1068
using ::testing::Matches;
using ::testing::Ge;

vector<int> v;
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
...
// How many elements in v are >= 10?
const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));
```

1074
1075
1076
1077
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:
1078

1079
```cpp
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
using testing::AllOf;
using testing::Ge;
using testing::Le;
using testing::Matches;
using testing::Ne;
...
1086
1087
1088
Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1089
### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
1090
1091

Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe
1092
1093
themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in googletest assertions.
It's called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`:
1094

1095
```cpp
1096
1097
1098
1099
  ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);  // Asserts that value matches matcher.
  EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);  // The non-fatal version.
```

1100
For example, in a googletest test you can write:
1101

1102
```cpp
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

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

1111
...
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
  EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
  EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+"));
  ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10)));
```

1117
1118
which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and `Baz()`, and
verifies that:
1119

1120
1121
1122
*   `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].
1123

1124
1125
1126
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:
1127

1128
```cpp
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
Value of: Foo()
  Actual: "Hi, world!"
Expected: starts with "Hello"
```

1134
1135
**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was borrowed from Joe Walnes'
Hamcrest project, which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.
1136

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1137
### Using Predicates as Matchers
1138

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
gMock provides a [built-in set](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#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:
1144

1145
```cpp
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
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)));
```

1154
1155
1156
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) ...`.
1157

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1158
### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171

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:
1172

1173
```cpp
1174
using ::testing::Eq;
1175
1176
1177
using ::testing::Lt;
...
  // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1178
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(std::ref(bar))));
1179
1180

  // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1181
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(std::ref(bar))));
1182
1183
```

1184
1185
Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the `EXPECT_CALL()`, or the
result is undefined.
1186

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1187
### Validating a Member of an Object
1188

1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
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,
1194

1195
```cpp
1196
1197
1198
Field(&Foo::bar, m)
```

1199
1200
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies
matcher `m`.
1201

1202
```cpp
1203
1204
1205
Property(&Foo::baz, m)
```

1206
1207
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value
that satisfies matcher `m`.
1208
1209
1210

For example:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1211
<!-- mdformat off(github rendering does not support multiline tables) -->
1212
1213
1214
| Expression                   | Description                              |
| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`.       |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1215
1216
| `Property(&Foo::name,  StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with  `"John "`. |
<!-- mdformat on -->
1217

1218
Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1219
1220
1221
and be declared as `const`. Don't use `Property()` against member functions that
you do not own, because taking addresses of functions is fragile and generally
not part of the contract of the function.
1222

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1223
`Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
1224
instance,
1225

1226
```cpp
1227
1228
1229
using ::testing::Field;
using ::testing::Ge;
...
1230
1231
1232
Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))
```

1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
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.
1242

1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
```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));
}
```
1255

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1256
### Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument
1257

1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
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.
1263

1264
`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer
1265
points to. For example:
1266

1267
```cpp
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
using ::testing::Ge;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3))));
```

1274
1275
expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value greater
than or equal to 3.
1276

1277
1278
One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as a match
failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of
1279

1280
```cpp
1281
1282
1283
1284
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
  AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m))
```

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

1290
1291
Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers **and**
smart pointers (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, etc)?
1292

1293
1294
1295
1296
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...).
1297

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1298
### Testing a Certain Property of an Object
1299

1300
1301
1302
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
1303
1304
quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function.

1305
1306
1307
1308
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:
1309

1310
```cpp
1311
using ::testing::Matcher;
1312

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1313
class BarPlusBazEqMatcher {
1314
1315
1316
1317
 public:
  explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum)
      : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {}

1318
  bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1319
                       std::ostream* /* listener */) const {
1320
1321
1322
    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1323
1324
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream& os) const {
    os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
1325
1326
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1327
1328
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream& os) const {
    os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
  }
 private:
  const int expected_sum_;
};

1334
Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1335
  return BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum);
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
}

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1342
### Matching Containers
1343

1344
1345
1346
1347
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.
1348

1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
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.
1354

1355
1356
You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in such
cases:
1357

1358
```cpp
1359
1360
1361
1362
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::ElementsAre;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
1363
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1364
1365
1366
1367
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1368
1369
The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which must be 1,
greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1370
1371
1372

If you instead write:

1373
```cpp
1374
1375
1376
1377
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
...
1378
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1379
1380
1381
1382
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1383
1384
It means that the container must have 4 elements, which (under some permutation)
must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1385

1386
1387
As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use
`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead:
1388

1389
```cpp
1390
1391
1392
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values.
1393
  const int expected_vector1[] = {1, 5, 2, 4, ...};
1394
1395
1396
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1)));

  // Or, an array of element matchers.
1397
  Matcher<int> expected_vector2[] = {1, Gt(2), _, 3, ...};
1398
1399
1400
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2)));
```

1401
1402
1403
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:
1404

1405
```cpp
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];
  ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));
```

1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
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)));
```

1423
1424
**Tips:**

1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
*   `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`.
1437

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1438
### Sharing Matchers
1439

1440
1441
1442
1443
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.
1444

1445
1446
1447
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,
1448

1449
```cpp
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::Matcher;
...
1455
1456
1457
1458
  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
1459
### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470

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
1471
## Setting Expectations
1472

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1473
### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
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

**`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
1524
### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536

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
1537
### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
1538
1539
1540

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

1541
```cpp
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
using ::testing::_;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .Times(0);
```

1548
1549
If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the
expected calls:
1550

1551
```cpp
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
using ::testing::AnyNumber;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))
      .Times(AnyNumber());
```

1560
1561
A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements
will be an error.
1562

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1563
### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
1564

1565
1566
*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
*Very* different.
1567

1568
1569
1570
1571
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.
1572

1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
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.
1578

1579
1580
**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
the way the test expects it to behave.
1581

1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
**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).
1587

1588
1589
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?
1590

1591
1592
1593
1594
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.
1595

1596
1597
A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
mock strict may change the test's result.
1598
1599
1600

Let's look at an example:

1601
```cpp
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
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 ...
}
```

1612
1613
1614
1615
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.*
1616

1617
1618
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`:
1619

1620
```cpp
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
  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"));
```

1627
1628
1629
1630
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.
1631

1632
1633
Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
1634

1635
1636
For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
1637

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1638
### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
1639

1640
1641
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:
1642

1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
```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
1664
### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
1665

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
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.
1671
1672
1673
1674

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`:
1675

1676
```cpp
1677
1678
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InSequence;
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689

  {
    InSequence s;

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

1690
1691
1692
1693
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.
1694

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1695
### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
1696

1697
1698
1699
1700
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.
1701

1702
gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1703
calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1704
[After](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#AfterClause) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`.
1705

1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
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:
1711

1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
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.
1717

1718
1719
1720
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.
1721

1722
1723
Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For
example,
1724

1725
1726
1727
```cpp
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
  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);
```

1740
specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`):
1741

1742
```text
1743
1744
1745
1746
       +---> B
       |
  A ---|
       |
1747
        +---> C ---> D
1748
1749
```

1750
1751
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.
1752

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1753
### Controlling When an Expectation Retires
1754

1755
1756
1757
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
1758

1759
```cpp
1760
1761
1762
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1763
1764
  Sequence s1, s2;

1765
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #1
1766
1767
      .Times(AnyNumber())
      .InSequence(s1, s2);
1768
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))   // #2
1769
      .InSequence(s1);
1770
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))      // #3
1771
1772
1773
      .InSequence(s2);
```

1774
1775
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.
1776

1777
1778
Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For
example,
1779

1780
```cpp
1781
1782
using ::testing::_;
...
1783
1784
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."));     // #2
1785
1786
```

1787
1788
1789
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.
1790

1791
1792
If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it
becomes saturated:
1793

1794
```cpp
1795
1796
using ::testing::_;
...
1797
1798
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #2
1799
1800
1801
      .RetiresOnSaturation();
```

1802
1803
1804
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.
1805

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1806
## Using Actions
1807

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1808
### Returning References from Mock Methods
1809

1810
1811
If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()`
instead of `Return()` to return a result:
1812

1813
```cpp
1814
1815
1816
1817
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1818
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
};
...
  MockFoo foo;
  Bar bar;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));
1825
...
1826
1827
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1828
### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods
1829

1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
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.
1835
1836

If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using
1837
1838
1839
1840
`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?
1841

ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1842
Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`:
1843

1844
```cpp
1845
1846
1847
1848
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1849
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
};
...
  int x = 0;
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1855
      .WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x)));  // Wrong!
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
  x = 42;
  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
```

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

1862
```text
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
Value of: foo.GetValue()
  Actual: 0
Expected: 42
```

1868
1869
1870
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
1871
1872
1873
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.
1874

1875
1876
`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It
returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:
1877

1878
```cpp
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
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
1889
### Combining Actions
1890

1891
1892
1893
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.
1894

1895
```cpp
1896
using ::testing::_;
1897
1898
1899
1900
using ::testing::DoAll;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1901
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
};
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
                      action_2,
                      ...
                      action_n));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1911
### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917

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:
1918

1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
```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
1935
### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940

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`.
1941
1942
1943
1944

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

1945
```cpp
1946
using ::testing::_;
1947
1948
1949
1950
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
1951
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
1952
  ...
1953
}
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))
      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));
```

1960
1961
In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the
`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based).
1962

1963
1964
1965
`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.
1966
1967

If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain
1968
1969
`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the
`Return()` statement last:
1970

1971
```cpp
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
  ...
1979
1980
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
}
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                      Return(true)));
```

1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
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:
1995

1996
```cpp
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;

class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
 public:
2002
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
2003
  ...
2004
}
2005
2006
...
  MockArrayMutator mutator;
2007
  int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));
```

This also works when the argument is an output iterator:

2014
```cpp
2015
using ::testing::_;
bartshappee's avatar
bartshappee committed
2016
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
2017
2018
2019

class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
 public:
2020
2021
  MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
              (override));
2022
  ...
2023
}
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
...
  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
2034
### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State
2035

2036
2037
2038
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:
2039

2040
```cpp
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;

...
  {
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
     InSequence seq;
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));
2052
2053
2054
2055
  }
  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();
```

2056
2057
This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called
and return `false` afterwards.
2058

2059
2060
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:
2061

2062
```cpp
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::SaveArg;
using ::testing::Return;

ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }
...
  int previous_value = 0;
2070
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue)
2071
      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));
2072
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue)
2073
2074
2075
2076
      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));
  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();
```

2077
2078
Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last
`UpdateValue()` call.
2079

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2080
### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue}
2081

2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
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.
2087

2088
2089
2090
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:
2091

2092
```cpp
2093
2094
using ::testing::DefaultValue;

2095
2096
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2097
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
2098
2099
};

2100
2101

...
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
  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();
```

keshavgbpecdelhi's avatar
keshavgbpecdelhi committed
2118
Please note that changing the default value for a type can make your tests hard
2119
2120
2121
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.
2122

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2123
### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method
2124

2125
2126
2127
2128
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:
2129

2130
```cpp
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
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.
```

2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
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.
2160

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2161
### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
2162

2163
If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2164
(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda) as an action.
2165
2166

```cpp
2167
using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke;
2168
2169
2170

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2171
2172
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override));
2173
2174
2175
};

int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
2176
int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; }
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182

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

2183
...
2184
2185
2186
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))
2187
2188
      .WillOnce(&CalculateSum)
      .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1)));
2189
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2190
      .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2191
      .WillOnce([] { return true; })
2192
      .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; });
2193

2194
2195
2196
2197
  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.
2198
2199
```

2200
The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible*
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
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?
2206

2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
**`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
2224
### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252

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).
}
```
2253

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2254
### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
2255

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2256
2257
2258
2259
`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.
2260

2261
Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2262
2263
2264
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.
2265

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2266
2267
2268
2269
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:
2270

2271
```cpp
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2277
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override));
2278
2279
2280
};

bool Job1() { ... }
2281
bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
2282

2283
...
2284
2285
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2286
      .WillOnce([] { Job1(); });
2287
      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
2288
2289

  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().
2290
  foo.ComplexJob(20);  // Invokes Job2(5, 'a').
2291
2292
```

2293
**`Note:`{.escaped}**
2294

2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
*   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
2311
### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
2312

2313
2314
Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other
words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g.
2315

2316
```cpp
2317
2318
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2319
2320
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1<bool, int>* callback)),
              (override));
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
};
```

and you may want to invoke this callable argument:

2326
```cpp
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
using ::testing::_;
...
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(...);
2332
2333
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2334
2335
```

2336
2337
2338
2339
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?
2340

2341
Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
2342

2343
```cpp
2344
InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)
2345
2346
```

2347
2348
2349
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.
2350
2351
2352

With that, you could write:

2353
```cpp
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
2359
2360
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2361
2362
```

2363
What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2364
inside `std::ref()`:
2365

2366
```cpp
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
              ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2375
2376
2377
2378
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2379
2380
2381
      .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.
2382
2383
```

2384
What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2385
argument in `std::ref()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the
2386
2387
2388
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:
2389

2390
```cpp
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2398
2399
2400
2401
  MockFoo foo;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
      // 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.
2407
2408
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2409
### Ignoring an Action's Result
2410

2411
2412
2413
2414
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:
2415

2416
```cpp
2417
using ::testing::_;
2418
2419
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
using ::testing::Return;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2427
2428
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
2429
2430
};

2431
  ...
2432
2433
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))
2434
2435
2436
2437
      // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));
      // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs
      // to return void.
      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process));
2438
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
2439
2440
      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething),
                      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.
2441
2442
2443
                      Return(true)));
```

2444
2445
Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns
`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors.
2446

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2447
### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs}
2448

2449
2450
2451
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:
2452

2453
```cpp
2454
2455
2456
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
...
2457
2458
2459
2460
  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));
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
...
bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {
  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;
}
...
2466
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2467
2468
2469
      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(
```

2470
2471
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:
2472

2473
```cpp
2474
2475
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
2476
...
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
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);
}
...
2483
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.
```

But isn't this awkward?

2489
2490
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:
2491

2492
```cpp
2493
WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)
2494
2495
```

2496
2497
2498
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:
2499

2500
```cpp
2501
2502
2503
2504
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::WithArgs;
...
2505
2506
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));  // No need to define your own adaptor.
2507
2508
```

2509
For better readability, gMock also gives you:
2510

2511
2512
2513
*   `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and
*   `WithArg<N>(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes
    *one* argument.
2514

2515
2516
As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for
`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`.
2517
2518
2519

Here are more tips:

2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
*   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.
2530

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2531
### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions
2532

2533
2534
2535
2536
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.
2537

2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
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
2544

2545
```cpp
2546
2547
2548
2549
 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));
2550
2551
2552
2553
```

instead of

2554
```cpp
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
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);
}
...
2565
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2566
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
2567
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
```

you could write

2573
```cpp
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::Unused;

double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
...
2582
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2583
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
2584
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2585
2586
2587
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2588
### Sharing Actions
2589

2590
2591
2592
2593
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.
2594

2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
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:
2600

2601
```cpp
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
using ::testing::Action;
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
...
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                                      Return(true));
  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...
```

2612
2613
2614
2615
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
2616
action will exhibit different behaviors. Example:
2617

2618
```cpp
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
  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

2631
```cpp
2632
2633
using ::testing::Action;
...
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
  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
2644
### Testing Asynchronous Behavior
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672

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
2673
  absl::Notification done;
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
  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
2693
## Misc Recipes on Using gMock
2694

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2695
### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types
2696

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2697
C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from
2698
2699
one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr<T>` is probably
the most commonly used move-only type.
2700

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2701
2702
2703
2704
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
2705
[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature.
2706

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2707
2708
Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
2709

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2710
```cpp
2711
2712
2713
2714
enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic };

class Buzz {
 public:
2715
  explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... }
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
  ...
};

class Buzzer {
 public:
  virtual ~Buzzer() {}
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2722
2723
  virtual std::unique_ptr<Buzz> MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0;
  virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0;
2724
2725
2726
2727
  ...
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2728
2729
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
2730
2731
`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr<Buzz>` or take a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`. Now we
need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests.
2732

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2733
2734
To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the
familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual:
2735

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2736
```cpp
2737
2738
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2739
2740
2741
  MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr<Buzz>, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp),
              (override));
2742
2743
2744
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2745
2746
2747
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_`:
2748

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2749
```cpp
2750
2751
2752
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2753
2754
First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which
returns a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`.
2755

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2756
As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or
2757
2758
2759
`.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
2760
action:
2761

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2762
```cpp
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
  // 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
2770
If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
2771
[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
2772

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2773
2774
If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
`Return(ByMove(...))` action:
2775

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2776
```cpp
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
  // 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
2787
Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is
2788
2789
2790
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
2791
2792
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.
2793

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2794
2795
2796
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:
2797

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2798
```cpp
2799
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x"))
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2800
2801
2802
      .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
        return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
      });
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807

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

2808
2809
Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr<Buzz>` will be created
and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`.
2810

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2811
2812
2813
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
2814
can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions):
2815

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2816
2817
```cpp
  using ::testing::Unused;
2818

2819
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2820
2821
2822
  EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
              0);

2823
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce(
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2824
2825
      [](std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; });
  EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0));
2826
2827
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2828
2829
2830
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.
2831

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2832
2833
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.
2834

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2835
#### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly}
2836

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
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
2843
2844
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2845
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2846
2847
  bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Time timestamp) override {
    return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp);
2848
2849
2850
2851
  }
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2852
2853
2854
2855
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:
2856

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2857
2858
2859
```cpp
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _));
2860

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2861
2862
2863
2864
  // 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);
2865
2866
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2867
### Making the Compilation Faster
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2868

2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
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.
2876

2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
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.
2882

2883
2884
Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock
class before applying this recipe:
2885

2886
```cpp
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
// 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.

2895
2896
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```

After the change, it would look like:

2903
```cpp
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
// File mock_foo.h.
...
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.
  MockFoo();
  virtual ~MockFoo();

2912
2913
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2914
2915
2916
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```
2917

2918
and
2919

2920
```cpp
2921
// File mock_foo.cc.
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
#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
2931
### Forcing a Verification
2932

2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
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.
2938

2939
2940
2941
2942
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.
2943

2944
2945
2946
2947
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)`:
2948

2949
```cpp
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
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.
```

2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
**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
2972
### Using Check Points {#UsingCheckPoints}
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990

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
2991
2992
`mock_object` too.

2993
2994
2995
2996
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:
2997

2998
```cpp
2999
3000
3001
  Foo(1);
  Foo(2);
  Foo(3);
3002
3003
```

3004
3005
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:
3006

3007
```cpp
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
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);
}
```

3031
3032
3033
3034
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()`.
3035

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3036
### Mocking Destructors
3037

3038
3039
3040
3041
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.
3042

3043
3044
3045
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:
3046

3047
```cpp
3048
MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ());  // Won't compile!
3049
3050
```

3051
3052
3053
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:
3054

3055
```cpp
3056
3057
3058
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
3059
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3060
  ~MockFoo() override { Die(); }
3061
3062
3063
};
```

3064
3065
3066
(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:
3067

3068
```cpp
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
  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
3084
### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
3085

3086
3087
3088
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.
3089

3090
3091
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.
3092
3093
3094

Remember the steps for using a mock:

3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
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.
3102

3103
3104
If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live
happily together:
3105

3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
*   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.
3114

3115
3116
3117
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.
3118

3119
3120
gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
that called the mock function. For example, in
3121

3122
```cpp
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))
      .WillOnce(action1);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))
      .WillOnce(action2);
```

3129
3130
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.
3131

3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
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.
3137

3138
3139
3140
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.
3141

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3142
### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints
3143

3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
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.
3150

3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
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.
3156

3157
3158
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:
3159

3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
*   `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).
3167

3168
3169
Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
so:
3170

3171
```cpp
3172
3173
3174
  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
```

3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
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!
3180

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3181
### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
3182

3183
3184
3185
3186
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?
3187

3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
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?
3193

3194
3195
You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
flag. For example, given the test program:
3196

3197
```cpp
3198
3199
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
using testing::_;
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo {
 public:
3206
  MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y));
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
};

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:

3222
3223
```shell
[ RUN       ] Foo.Bar
3224
3225

foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
3226
3227
Stack trace: ...

3228
foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
3229
3230
Stack trace: ...

3231
foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
3232
3233
Stack trace: ...

3234
foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
3235
3236
3237
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
Stack trace: ...

3238
foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
3239
3240
3241
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
Stack trace: ...

3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
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
```

3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
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.
3254

3255
3256
3257
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.
3258

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3259
### Running Tests in Emacs
3260

3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
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.
3266

3267
3268
3269
3270
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
3271
(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)
3272
(global-set-key [M-up]  '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))
3273
3274
```

3275
3276
3277
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.
3278

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3279
## Extending gMock
3280

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3281
### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
3282

3283
3284
3285
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.
3286

3287
3288
The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
The syntax:
3289

3290
```cpp
3291
3292
3293
MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }
```

3294
3295
3296
3297
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`.
3298

3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
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`.
3304

3305
3306
3307
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.
3308
3309

For example:
3310

3311
```cpp
3312
3313
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
```
3314

3315
allows you to write
3316

3317
```cpp
3318
3319
3320
  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3321

3322
or,
3323

3324
```cpp
3325
3326
3327
  using ::testing::Not;
  ...
  // Verifies that two values are divisible by 7.
3328
3329
3330
  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3331

3332
If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
3333
3334

```shell
3335
3336
3337
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27
3338
  ...
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
  Value of: some_other_expression
  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)
    Actual: 21
```

3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
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:

3351
```cpp
3352
3353
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
        absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) {
3354
3355
3356
3357
  return (arg % 7) == 0;
}
```

3358
3359
3360
3361
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:

3362
```cpp
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
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:
3373
3374

```shell
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
```

3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
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.
3385

3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
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.
3394

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3395
### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
3396

3397
3398
Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
use the macro:
3399

3400
```cpp
3401
3402
MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }
```
3403
3404
3405

where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that
references `negation` and `param_name`.
3406
3407

For example:
3408

3409
```cpp
3410
3411
MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
```
3412

3413
will allow you to write:
3414

3415
```cpp
3416
3417
  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
```
3418

3419
which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
3420
3421

```shell
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
  Value of: Blah("a")
  Expected: has absolute value 10
    Actual: -9
```

3427
3428
Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the
message human-friendly.
3429

3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
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:
3437

3438
```cpp
3439
3440
3441
MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }
```

3442
3443
3444
3445
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
3446
3447
3448
expression.

For example,
3449

3450
```cpp
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
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));
3459
```
3460

3461
would generate a failure that contains the message:
3462
3463

```shell
3464
3465
3466
  Expected: is in range [4, 6]
```

3467
3468
3469
3470
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,

3471
```cpp
3472
3473
3474
3475
  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
  ...
  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
```
3476

3477
would generate a failure that contains the text:
3478
3479

```shell
3480
3481
3482
3483
  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
```

For the purpose of typing, you can view
3484

3485
```cpp
3486
3487
MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
```
3488

3489
as shorthand for
3490

3491
```cpp
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>
FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>
Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }
```

3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
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.
3515
3516

You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:
3517

3518
```cpp
3519
3520
3521
3522
MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }
MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }
```

3523
While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining a new
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
matcher, you should also consider implementing the matcher interface directly
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).
3531

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3532
### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers
3533

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3534
3535
3536
A matcher of argument type `T` implements the matcher interface for `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
3537
generating readable error messages when expectations are violated.
3538

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3539
A matcher of `T` must declare a typedef like:
3540

3541
```cpp
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3542
3543
using is_gtest_matcher = void;
```
3544

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3545
and supports the following operations:
3546

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
```cpp
// Match a value and optionally explain into an ostream.
bool matched = matcher.MatchAndExplain(value, maybe_os);
// where `value` is of type `T` and
// `maybe_os` is of type `std::ostream*`, where it can be null if the caller
// is not interested in there textual explanation.
3553

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3554
3555
3556
matcher.DescribeTo(os);
matcher.DescribeNegationTo(os);
// where `os` is of type `std::ostream*`.
3557
3558
```

3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
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:
3569

3570
```cpp
3571
3572
using ::testing::Matcher;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3573
class DivisibleBy7Matcher {
3574
 public:
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3575
3576
  using is_gtest_matcher = void;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3577
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream*) const {
3578
3579
3580
    return (n % 7) == 0;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3581
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3582
3583
3584
    *os << "is divisible by 7";
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3585
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3586
3587
3588
3589
    *os << "is not divisible by 7";
  }
};

3590
Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3591
  return DivisibleBy7Matcher();
3592
3593
}

3594
...
3595
3596
3597
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
```

3598
You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3599
`os` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
3600

3601
```cpp
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3602
class DivisibleBy7Matcher {
3603
 public:
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3604
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream* os) const {
3605
    const int remainder = n % 7;
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3606
3607
    if (remainder != 0 && os != nullptr) {
      *os << "the remainder is " << remainder;
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
    }
    return remainder == 0;
  }
  ...
};
```

3615
3616
3617
Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:

```shell
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
Value of: x
Expected: is divisible by 7
  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3623
3624
3625
Tip: for convenience, `MatchAndExplain()` can take a `MatchResultListener*`
instead of `std::ostream*`.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3626
### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
3627

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
Expanding what we learned above to *polymorphic* matchers is now just as simple
as adding templates in the right place.

```cpp

class NotNullMatcher {
 public:
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3635
3636
  using is_gtest_matcher = void;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
  // To implement a polymorphic matcher, we just need to make MatchAndExplain a
  // template on its first argument.

  // 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, std::ostream*) const {
    return p != nullptr;
  }

  // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher.
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream& os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }

  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
};

NotNullMatcher NotNull() {
  return NotNullMatcher();
}

...

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

### Legacy Matcher Implementation

Defining matchers used to be somewhat more complicated, in which it required
several supporting classes and virtual functions. To implement a matcher for
type `T` using the legacy API you have to derive from `MatcherInterface<T>` and
call `MakeMatcher` to construct the object.

The interface looks like this:

```cpp
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.
  std::ostream* stream();
};

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

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

  // Describes this matcher to an ostream.
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;

  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.
  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const;
};
```
3703

3704
3705
3706
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:
3707

3708
```cpp
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
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
3730
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
3731
3732

  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3733
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
3734
3735
3736
3737
};

// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class
// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.
3738
PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
3739
3740
  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
}
3741

3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
...

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

**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from
3748
3749
`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be
virtual.
3750

3751
3752
Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming
additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`.
3753

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3754
### Writing New Cardinalities
3755

3756
3757
3758
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)`.
3759

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3760
3761
If the [built-in set](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList) of cardinalities
doesn't suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3762
interface (in namespace `testing`):
3763

3764
```cpp
3765
3766
3767
3768
class CardinalityInterface {
 public:
  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();

3769
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality.
3770
3771
  virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

3772
3773
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this
  // cardinality.
3774
3775
3776
  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

  // Describes self to an ostream.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3777
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3778
3779
3780
};
```

3781
3782
For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can
write
3783

3784
```cpp
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
using ::testing::Cardinality;
using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
using ::testing::MakeCardinality;

class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
 public:
3791
  bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3792
3793
3794
    return (call_count % 2) == 0;
  }

3795
  bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3796
3797
3798
    return false;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3799
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
    *os << "called even number of times";
  }
};

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

3808
...
3809
3810
3811
3812
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))
      .Times(EvenNumber());
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3813
### Writing New Actions Quickly {#QuickNewActions}
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828

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):
3829

3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
```
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
3842
#### Legacy macro-based Actions
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848

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.
3849
3850

By writing
3851

3852
```cpp
3853
3854
ACTION(name) { statements; }
```
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861

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:

3862
```cpp
3863
3864
ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
```
3865

3866
allows you to write
3867

3868
```cpp
3869
3870
3871
... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());
```

3872
3873
3874
3875
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.
3876
3877

Another example:
3878

3879
```cpp
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
ACTION(Foo) {
  (*arg2)(5);
  Blah();
  *arg1 = 0;
  return arg0;
}
```

3888
3889
3890
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.
3891

3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
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
3901
3902

For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
3903

3904
```cpp
3905
3906
int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
```
3907

3908
we have:
3909

3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
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*)`
3920

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3921
#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
3922
3923
3924

Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
another macro
3925

3926
```cpp
3927
3928
3929
3930
ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
```

For example,
3931

3932
```cpp
3933
3934
ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
```
3935

3936
will allow you to write
3937

3938
```cpp
3939
3940
3941
3942
// Returns argument #0 + 5.
... WillOnce(Add(5));
```

3943
3944
3945
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.
3946

3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
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,
3955

3956
```cpp
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
  double dx = arg0 - x;
  double dy = arg1 - y;
  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
}
```
3963

3964
lets you write
3965

3966
```cpp
3967
3968
3969
... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
```

3970
3971
You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of
parameters is 0.
3972
3973

You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
3974

3975
```cpp
3976
3977
3978
3979
ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3980
### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION
3981
3982
3983
3984

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.
3985

3986
3987
Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. There are
several tricks to do that. For example:
3988

3989
```cpp
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
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;
}
```

4005
4006
where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that
verifies two types are the same.
4007

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4008
### Writing New Action Templates Quickly
4009
4010
4011
4012

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*()`.
4013
4014

The syntax:
4015

4016
```cpp
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,
                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),
                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }
```

4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
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.
4027
4028

Example:
4029

4030
```cpp
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
// 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
4037
  *output = T(std::get<k>(args));
4038
4039
4040
4041
}
```

To create an instance of an action template, write:
4042

4043
```cpp
4044
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
4045
```
4046
4047
4048
4049

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:

4050
```cpp
4051
4052
4053
using ::testing::_;
...
  int n;
4054
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));
4055
4056
```

4057
4058
4059
If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide
additional template arguments:

4060
```cpp
4061
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)
4062
```
4063

4064
4065
where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`.

4066
4067
4068
`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:
4069

4070
```cpp
4071
4072
4073
  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);
```

4074
4075
4076
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`?
4077

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4078
### Using the ACTION Object's Type
4079

4080
4081
4082
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:
4083

4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
| 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)`        :                       :
| ...                           | ...                 | ...                   |
4100

4101
4102
4103
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.
4104

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4105
### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions}
4106
4107

While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
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.
4113
4114

An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement
4115
4116
`::testing::ActionInterface<F>`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in
which the action will be used. For example:
4117

4118
```cpp
4119
4120
template <typename F>
class ActionInterface {
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
 public:
  virtual ~ActionInterface();

  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type
  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.
  //
4127

4128
  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4129
  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
4130
4131
  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
};
4132
```
4133

4134
```cpp
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
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
4144
4145
  int Perform(const std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
    int* p = std::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
    return *p++;
  }
};

Action<IncrementMethod> IncrementArgument() {
  return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction);
}

4154
...
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
  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
4162
### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions}
4163

4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
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()`).
4169

4170
4171
4172
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:
4173

4174
```cpp
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
namespace testing {
template <typename Impl>
PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);
}  // namespace testing
```

4181
4182
4183
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:
4184

4185
```cpp
4186
4187
4188
4189
class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
 public:
  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4190
4191
    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args).
    return std::get<1>(args);
4192
4193
4194
4195
  }
};
```

4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
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.
4203

4204
4205
4206
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:
4207

4208
```cpp
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;
using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;

PolymorphicAction<ReturnSecondArgumentAction> ReturnSecondArgument() {
  return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction());
}
```

4217
Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones:
4218

4219
```cpp
4220
4221
4222
4223
using ::testing::_;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
4224
4225
4226
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
              (override));
4227
4228
};

4229
  ...
4230
  MockFoo foo;
4231
4232
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
4233
  ...
4234
  foo.DoThis(true, 5);  // Will return 5.
4235
4236
4237
  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4238
### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values
4239

4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
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.
4245
4246

This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL
4247
4248
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.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4249
[The GoogleTest advanced guide](advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values)
4250
4251
explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your
particular type than to dump the bytes.
4252

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4253
## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
4254
4255
4256
4257

<!--#include file="includes/g3_testing_LOGs.md"-->
<!--#include file="includes/g3_mock_callbacks.md"-->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4258
### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307

`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. :-)