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

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

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
13
14
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0035 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
15
## Creating Mock Classes
16

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
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
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

182
gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in Hi-perf dependency
misterg's avatar
misterg committed
183
injection.<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0017 DO NOT DELETE -->
184

185
186
187
188
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`):
189

190
```cpp
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
// 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:
204
205
  MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
  MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
206
207
208
209
  ...
};
```

210
211
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.
212

213
214
215
216
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).
217

218
219
220
221
222
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:
223

224
```cpp
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
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
237
238
`CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
tests.
239

240
```cpp
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
  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
248
### Mocking Free Functions
249

250
251
252
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).
253

254
255
Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, introduce an
interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls the free function:
256

257
```cpp
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
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) {
268
     return OpenFile(path, mode);
269
270
271
272
  }
};
```

273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
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
284
### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
285

286
287
Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro
[was introduced in 2018](https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/c5f08bf91944ce1b19bcf414fa1760e69d20afc2),
288
289
290
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.
291

292
The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`:
293

294
295
296
297
298
299
300
*   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.
301

302
Old macros and their new equivalents:
303

304
305
306
307
308
<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>
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
343
<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
344
### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354

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.
355
356
357

Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:

358
```cpp
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
TEST(...) {
  MockFoo mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

366
367
368
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:
369

370
```cpp
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

380
381
`NiceMock<MockFoo>` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever
`MockFoo` is accepted.
382
383
384
385

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

386
```cpp
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

396
397
The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting
calls failures:
398

399
```cpp
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
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.
}
```

412
413
414
415
416
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
417
418
There are some caveats though (sadly they are side effects of C++'s
limitations):
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427

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
428
    requires cleaning up existing tests.
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
3.  During the constructor or destructor of `MockFoo`, the mock object is *not*
    nice or strict. This may cause surprises if the constructor or destructor
    calls a mock method on `this` object. (This behavior, however, is consistent
    with C++'s general rule: if a constructor or destructor calls a virtual
    method of `this` object, that method is treated as non-virtual. In other
    words, to the base class's constructor or destructor, `this` object behaves
    like an instance of the base class, not the derived class. This rule is
    required for safety. Otherwise a base constructor may use members of a
    derived class before they are initialized, or a base destructor may use
    members of a derived class after they have been destroyed.)

Finally, you should be **very cautious** about when to use naggy or strict
mocks, as they tend to make tests more brittle and harder to maintain. When you
refactor your code without changing its externally visible behavior, ideally you
shouldn't need to update any tests. If your code interacts with a naggy mock,
however, you may start to get spammed with warnings as the result of your
change. Worse, if your code interacts with a strict mock, your tests may start
to fail and you'll be forced to fix them. Our general recommendation is to use
nice mocks (not yet the default) most of the time, use naggy mocks (the current
default) when developing or debugging tests, and use strict mocks only as the
last resort.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
451
### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
452
453
454

Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
For example:
455

456
```cpp
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
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;
};
```

467
468
469
470
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.
471

472
The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class:
473

474
```cpp
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
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);
491
492
493
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Log,
              (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,
               const string& message));
494
495
496
};
```

497
By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock
498
class more user-friendly.
499

500
501
502
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:
503

504
505
506
507
508
```cpp
class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
 public:
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
509

510
511
512
513
  // the above methods delegate to this one:
  MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
};
```
514

515
516
This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
argument matchers:
517

518
519
520
521
```cpp
ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
    .WillByDefault(MakeMockTurtle());
```
522

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
523
### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes
524

525
526
527
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.
528

529
Try not to do that.
530

531
532
533
534
535
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.
536

537
538
539
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.
540

541
542
543
544
545
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.
546

547
This technique incurs some overhead:
548

549
550
*   You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem).
*   There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn.
551

552
553
However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better
testability:
554

555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
*   `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
585
### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
586
587
588

Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
example:
589

590
```cpp
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
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:
600
  char DoThis(int n) override {
601
    return (n > 0) ? '+' :
602
           (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
603
604
  }

605
  void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
606
607
608
609
610
    *p = strlen(s);
  }
};
```

611
612
613
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.
614

615
616
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:
617

618
```cpp
619
620
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
621
622
623
  // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
624
625
626
627

  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.
  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.
  void DelegateToFake() {
628
629
630
631
632
633
    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);
    });
634
  }
635

636
637
638
639
640
 private:
  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.
};
```

641
642
643
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.:
644

645
```cpp
646
647
648
649
using ::testing::_;

TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
  MockFoo foo;
650
651

  foo.DelegateToFake();  // Enables the fake for delegation.
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660

  // 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.
661
  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);  // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
662
663
664
665
666
667
  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
}
```

**Some tips:**

668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
*   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
703
### Delegating Calls to a Real Object
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716

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:
717

718
```cpp
719
720
721
722
723
724
using ::testing::AtLeast;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  MockFoo() {
    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
725
726
727
728
729
730
    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);
    });
731
732
    ...
  }
733
734
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...);
735
736
737
738
739
  ...
 private:
  Foo real_;
};

740
...
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
  MockFoo mock;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())
      .Times(3);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))
      .Times(AtLeast(1));
  ... use mock in test ...
```

749
750
751
752
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.
753

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
754
### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class
755

756
757
758
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:
759

760
```cpp
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
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.
772
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
773
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
774
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
775
776
777
778
};
```

Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of
779
780
781
782
`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).
783

784
785
The trick is to leave a back door in your mock class for accessing the real
methods in the base class:
786

787
```cpp
788
789
790
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // Mocking a pure method.
791
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
792
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
793
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801

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

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

802
```cpp
803
...
804
805
806
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
    return foo.FooConcrete(str);
  });
807
808
809
810
```

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

811
```cpp
812
...
813
814
815
  ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) {
    return foo.FooConcrete(str);
  });
816
817
```

818
819
820
(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.)
821

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
822
## Using Matchers
823

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
824
### Matching Argument Values Exactly
825
826
827

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

828
```cpp
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
using ::testing::Return;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))
      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
836
### Using Simple Matchers
837
838
839

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

840
```cpp
841
842
843
844
845
846
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()));
847
      // The second argument must not be NULL.
848
849
850
851
```

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

852
```cpp
853
854
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
```
855
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0022 DO NOT DELETE -->
856

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
857
### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
858
859

You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
860
`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
861

862
```cpp
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
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
878
### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
879

880
881
882
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!
883

884
885
886
887
888
889
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.
890

891
892
893
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 :
894

895
896
897
898
899
900
901
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).
902

903
The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.
904
905
906

Here's one example:

907
```cpp
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
916
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
917
918
};

919
...
920
921
922
923
924
  MockFoo foo;
  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));
```

925
926
927
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`.
928

929
930
931
`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.
932

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
933
### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload}
934

935
936
If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some
help on which overloaded version it is.
937

938
939
To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the
`Const()` argument wrapper.
940

941
```cpp
942
943
944
945
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
946
947
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
948
949
};

950
...
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
  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));
```

959
(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.)
960

961
962
963
964
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):
965

966
```cpp
967
968
969
970
971
972
using ::testing::An;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::TypedEq;

class MockPrinter : public Printer {
 public:
973
974
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
};

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
990
### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments
991

992
993
994
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:
995

996
```cpp
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
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'));
```

1009
1010
Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be
returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned.
1011

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1012
### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole
1013

1014
1015
1016
1017
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,
1018

1019
```cpp
1020
1021
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Ne;
1022
using ::testing::Lt;
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))
      .With(Lt());
```

1028
1029
says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than
the second argument.
1030

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1031
1032
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.
1033

1034
1035
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())`.
1036

1037
1038
You can use `Args<k1, ..., kn>(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a
tuple) against `m`. For example,
1039

1040
```cpp
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Args;
using ::testing::Lt;
...
1046
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah)
1047
1048
1049
      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));
```

1050
1051
1052
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.
1053

1054
1055
1056
As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
including the `Lt()` matcher above. See [here](#MultiArgMatchers) for the
complete list.
1057

1058
1059
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
1060
1061
take a `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected arguments
as *one* single tuple to the predicate.
1062

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1063
### Using Matchers as Predicates
1064

1065
1066
1067
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
1068
matchers were not allowed to participate.
1069

1070
1071
Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by
wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example,
1072

1073
```cpp
1074
1075
1076
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

1077
1078
1079
1080
using ::testing::Matches;
using ::testing::Ge;

vector<int> v;
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
...
// How many elements in v are >= 10?
const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));
```

1086
1087
1088
1089
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:
1090

1091
```cpp
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
using testing::AllOf;
using testing::Ge;
using testing::Le;
using testing::Matches;
using testing::Ne;
...
1098
1099
1100
Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1101
### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
1102
1103

Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe
1104
1105
themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in googletest assertions.
It's called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`:
1106

1107
```cpp
1108
1109
1110
1111
  ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);  // Asserts that value matches matcher.
  EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);  // The non-fatal version.
```

1112
For example, in a googletest test you can write:
1113

1114
```cpp
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

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

1123
...
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
  EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
  EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+"));
  ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10)));
```

1129
1130
which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and `Baz()`, and
verifies that:
1131

1132
1133
1134
*   `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].
1135

1136
1137
1138
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:
1139

1140
```cpp
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
Value of: Foo()
  Actual: "Hi, world!"
Expected: starts with "Hello"
```

1146
1147
**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was borrowed from Joe Walnes'
Hamcrest project, which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.
1148

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1149
### Using Predicates as Matchers
1150

1151
1152
1153
1154
gMock provides a [built-in set](#MatcherList) of matchers. In case you find them
lacking, you can use an arbitrary unary predicate function or functor as a
matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type you want. You do
this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` function, for example:
1155

1156
```cpp
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
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)));
```

1165
1166
1167
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) ...`.
1168

1169
1170
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0023 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1171
### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184

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:
1185

1186
```cpp
1187
using ::testing::Eq;
1188
1189
1190
using ::testing::Lt;
...
  // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1191
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(std::ref(bar))));
1192
1193

  // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1194
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(std::ref(bar))));
1195
1196
```

1197
1198
Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the `EXPECT_CALL()`, or the
result is undefined.
1199

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1200
### Validating a Member of an Object
1201

1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
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,
1207

1208
```cpp
1209
1210
1211
Field(&Foo::bar, m)
```

1212
1213
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies
matcher `m`.
1214

1215
```cpp
1216
1217
1218
Property(&Foo::baz, m)
```

1219
1220
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value
that satisfies matcher `m`.
1221
1222
1223

For example:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1224
<!-- mdformat off(github rendering does not support multiline tables) -->
1225
1226
1227
| Expression                   | Description                              |
| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`.       |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1228
1229
| `Property(&Foo::name,  StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with  `"John "`. |
<!-- mdformat on -->
1230

1231
1232
Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument
and be declared as `const`.
1233

1234
1235
BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
instance,
1236

1237
```cpp
1238
1239
1240
using ::testing::Field;
using ::testing::Ge;
...
1241
1242
1243
Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))
```

1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
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.
1253

1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
```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));
}
```
1266

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1267
### Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument
1268

1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
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.
1274

1275
`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer
1276
points to. For example:
1277

1278
```cpp
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
using ::testing::Ge;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3))));
```

1285
1286
expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value greater
than or equal to 3.
1287

1288
1289
One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as a match
failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of
1290

1291
```cpp
1292
1293
1294
1295
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
  AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m))
```

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

1301
1302
Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers **and**
smart pointers (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, etc)?
1303

1304
1305
1306
1307
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...).
1308

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1309
### Testing a Certain Property of an Object
1310

1311
1312
1313
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
1314
1315
quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function.

1316
1317
1318
1319
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:
1320

1321
```cpp
1322
using ::testing::Matcher;
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

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

1331
1332
  bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
1333
1334
1335
    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1336
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
1337
1338
1339
    *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1340
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
    *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
  }
 private:
  const int expected_sum_;
};

1347
Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
  return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum));
}

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1355
### Matching Containers
1356

1357
1358
1359
1360
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.
1361

1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
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.
1367

1368
1369
You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in such
cases:
1370

1371
```cpp
1372
1373
1374
1375
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::ElementsAre;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
1376
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1377
1378
1379
1380
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1381
1382
The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which must be 1,
greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1383
1384
1385

If you instead write:

1386
```cpp
1387
1388
1389
1390
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
...
1391
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1392
1393
1394
1395
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1396
1397
It means that the container must have 4 elements, which (under some permutation)
must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1398

1399
1400
As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use
`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead:
1401

1402
```cpp
1403
1404
1405
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values.
1406
  const int expected_vector1[] = {1, 5, 2, 4, ...};
1407
1408
1409
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1)));

  // Or, an array of element matchers.
1410
  Matcher<int> expected_vector2[] = {1, Gt(2), _, 3, ...};
1411
1412
1413
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2)));
```

1414
1415
1416
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:
1417

1418
```cpp
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];
  ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));
```

1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
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)));
```

1436
1437
**Tips:**

1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
*   `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`.
1450

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1451
### Sharing Matchers
1452

1453
1454
1455
1456
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.
1457

1458
1459
1460
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,
1461

1462
```cpp
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::Matcher;
...
1468
1469
1470
1471
  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
1472
### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483

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
1484
## Setting Expectations
1485

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1486
### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
1487

1488
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0018 DO NOT DELETE -->
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538

**`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
1539
### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551

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
1552
### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
1553
1554
1555

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

1556
```cpp
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
using ::testing::_;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .Times(0);
```

1563
1564
If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the
expected calls:
1565

1566
```cpp
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
using ::testing::AnyNumber;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))
      .Times(AnyNumber());
```

1575
1576
A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements
will be an error.
1577

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1578
### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
1579

1580
1581
*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
*Very* different.
1582

1583
1584
1585
1586
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.
1587

1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
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.
1593

1594
1595
**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
the way the test expects it to behave.
1596

1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
**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).
1602

1603
1604
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?
1605

1606
1607
1608
1609
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.
1610

1611
1612
A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
mock strict may change the test's result.
1613
1614
1615

Let's look at an example:

1616
```cpp
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
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 ...
}
```

1627
1628
1629
1630
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.*
1631

1632
1633
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`:
1634

1635
```cpp
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
  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"));
```

1642
1643
1644
1645
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.
1646

1647
1648
Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
1649

1650
1651
For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
1652

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1653
### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
1654

1655
1656
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:
1657

1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
```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
1679
### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
1680

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
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.
1686
1687
1688
1689

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`:
1690

1691
```cpp
1692
1693
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InSequence;
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704

  {
    InSequence s;

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

1705
1706
1707
1708
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.
1709

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1710
### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
1711

1712
1713
1714
1715
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.
1716

1717
gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1718
1719
calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the
[After](cheat_sheet.md#AfterClause) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`.
1720

1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
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:
1726

1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
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.
1732

1733
1734
1735
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.
1736

1737
1738
Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For
example,
1739

1740
1741
1742
```cpp
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
  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);
```

1755
specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`):
1756

1757
```text
1758
1759
1760
1761
       +---> B
       |
  A ---|
       |
1762
        +---> C ---> D
1763
1764
```

1765
1766
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.
1767

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1768
### Controlling When an Expectation Retires
1769

1770
1771
1772
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
1773

1774
```cpp
1775
1776
1777
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1778
1779
  Sequence s1, s2;

1780
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #1
1781
1782
      .Times(AnyNumber())
      .InSequence(s1, s2);
1783
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))   // #2
1784
      .InSequence(s1);
1785
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))      // #3
1786
1787
1788
      .InSequence(s2);
```

1789
1790
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.
1791

1792
1793
Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For
example,
1794

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

1802
1803
1804
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.
1805

1806
1807
If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it
becomes saturated:
1808

1809
```cpp
1810
1811
using ::testing::_;
...
1812
1813
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #2
1814
1815
1816
      .RetiresOnSaturation();
```

1817
1818
1819
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.
1820

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1821
## Using Actions
1822

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1823
### Returning References from Mock Methods
1824

1825
1826
If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()`
instead of `Return()` to return a result:
1827

1828
```cpp
1829
1830
1831
1832
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1833
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
};
...
  MockFoo foo;
  Bar bar;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));
1840
...
1841
1842
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1843
### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods
1844

1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
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.
1850
1851

If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using
1852
1853
1854
1855
`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?
1856

ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1857
Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`:
1858

1859
```cpp
1860
1861
1862
1863
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1864
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
};
...
  int x = 0;
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1870
      .WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x)));  // Wrong!
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
  x = 42;
  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
```

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

1877
```text
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
Value of: foo.GetValue()
  Actual: 0
Expected: 42
```

1883
1884
1885
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
1886
1887
1888
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.
1889

1890
1891
`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It
returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:
1892

1893
```cpp
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
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
1904
### Combining Actions
1905

1906
1907
1908
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.
1909

1910
```cpp
1911
using ::testing::_;
1912
1913
1914
1915
using ::testing::DoAll;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1916
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
};
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
                      action_2,
                      ...
                      action_n));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1926
### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932

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:
1933

1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
```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
1950
### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

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`.
1956
1957
1958
1959

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

1960
```cpp
1961
using ::testing::_;
1962
1963
1964
1965
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
1966
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
1967
  ...
1968
}
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))
      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));
```

1975
1976
In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the
`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based).
1977

1978
1979
1980
`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.
1981
1982

If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain
1983
1984
`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the
`Return()` statement last:
1985

1986
```cpp
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
  ...
1994
1995
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
}
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                      Return(true)));
```

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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:
2010

2011
```cpp
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;

class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
 public:
2017
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
2018
  ...
2019
}
2020
2021
...
  MockArrayMutator mutator;
2022
  int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));
```

This also works when the argument is an output iterator:

2029
```cpp
2030
using ::testing::_;
bartshappee's avatar
bartshappee committed
2031
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
2032
2033
2034

class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
 public:
2035
2036
  MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
              (override));
2037
  ...
2038
}
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
...
  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
2049
### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State
2050

2051
2052
2053
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:
2054

2055
```cpp
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;

...
  {
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
     InSequence seq;
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));
2067
2068
2069
2070
  }
  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();
```

2071
2072
This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called
and return `false` afterwards.
2073

2074
2075
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:
2076

2077
```cpp
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::SaveArg;
using ::testing::Return;

ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }
...
  int previous_value = 0;
2085
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue)
2086
      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));
2087
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue)
2088
2089
2090
2091
      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));
  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();
```

2092
2093
Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last
`UpdateValue()` call.
2094

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2095
### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue}
2096

2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
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.
2102

2103
2104
2105
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:
2106

2107
```cpp
2108
2109
using ::testing::DefaultValue;

2110
2111
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2112
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
2113
2114
};

2115
2116

...
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
  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();
```

2133
2134
2135
2136
Please note that changing the default value for a type can make you tests hard
to understand. We recommend you to use this feature judiciously. For example,
you may want to make sure the `Set()` and `Clear()` calls are right next to the
code that uses your mock.
2137

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2138
### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method
2139

2140
2141
2142
2143
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:
2144

2145
```cpp
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
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.
```

2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
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.
2175

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2176
### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
2177

2178
If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2179
(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda) as an action.
2180
2181
2182
2183

<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0024 DO NOT DELETE -->

```cpp
2184
using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke;
2185
2186
2187

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2188
2189
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override));
2190
2191
2192
};

int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
2193
int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; }
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199

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

2200
...
2201
2202
2203
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))
2204
2205
      .WillOnce(&CalculateSum)
      .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1)));
2206
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2207
      .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2208
      .WillOnce([] { return true; })
2209
      .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; });
2210

2211
2212
2213
2214
  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.
2215
2216
```

2217
The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible*
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
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?
2223

2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
**`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
2241
### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269

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).
}
```
2270

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2271
### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
2272

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2273
2274
2275
2276
`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.
2277

2278
Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2279
2280
2281
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.
2282

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2283
2284
2285
2286
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:
2287

2288
```cpp
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2294
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override));
2295
2296
2297
};

bool Job1() { ... }
2298
bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
2299

2300
...
2301
2302
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2303
      .WillOnce([] { Job1(); });
2304
      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
2305
2306

  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().
2307
  foo.ComplexJob(20);  // Invokes Job2(5, 'a').
2308
2309
```

2310
**`Note:`{.escaped}**
2311

2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
*   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
2328
### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
2329

2330
2331
Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other
words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g.
2332

2333
```cpp
2334
2335
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2336
2337
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1<bool, int>* callback)),
              (override));
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
};
```

and you may want to invoke this callable argument:

2343
```cpp
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
using ::testing::_;
...
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(...);
2349
2350
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2351
2352
```

2353
2354
2355
2356
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?
2357

2358
Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
2359

2360
```cpp
2361
InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)
2362
2363
```

2364
2365
2366
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.
2367
2368
2369

With that, you could write:

2370
```cpp
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
2376
2377
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2378
2379
```

2380
What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2381
inside `std::ref()`:
2382

2383
```cpp
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
              ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2392
2393
2394
2395
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2396
2397
2398
      .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.
2399
2400
```

2401
What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2402
argument in `std::ref()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the
2403
2404
2405
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:
2406

2407
```cpp
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2415
2416
2417
2418
  MockFoo foo;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
      // 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.
2424
2425
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2426
### Ignoring an Action's Result
2427

2428
2429
2430
2431
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:
2432

2433
```cpp
2434
using ::testing::_;
2435
2436
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
using ::testing::Return;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2444
2445
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
2446
2447
};

2448
  ...
2449
2450
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))
2451
2452
2453
2454
      // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));
      // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs
      // to return void.
      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process));
2455
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
2456
2457
      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething),
                      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.
2458
2459
2460
                      Return(true)));
```

2461
2462
Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns
`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors.
2463

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2464
### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs}
2465

2466
2467
2468
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:
2469

2470
```cpp
2471
2472
2473
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
...
2474
2475
2476
2477
  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));
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
...
bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {
  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;
}
...
2483
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2484
2485
2486
      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(
```

2487
2488
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:
2489

2490
```cpp
2491
2492
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
2493
...
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
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);
}
...
2500
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.
```

But isn't this awkward?

2506
2507
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:
2508

2509
```cpp
2510
WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)
2511
2512
```

2513
2514
2515
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:
2516

2517
```cpp
2518
2519
2520
2521
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::WithArgs;
...
2522
2523
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));  // No need to define your own adaptor.
2524
2525
```

2526
For better readability, gMock also gives you:
2527

2528
2529
2530
*   `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and
*   `WithArg<N>(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes
    *one* argument.
2531

2532
2533
As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for
`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`.
2534
2535
2536

Here are more tips:

2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
*   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.
2547

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2548
### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions
2549

2550
2551
2552
2553
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.
2554

2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
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
2561

2562
```cpp
2563
2564
2565
2566
 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));
2567
2568
2569
2570
```

instead of

2571
```cpp
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
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);
}
...
2582
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2583
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
2584
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
```

you could write

2590
```cpp
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::Unused;

double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
...
2599
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2600
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
2601
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2602
2603
2604
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2605
### Sharing Actions
2606

2607
2608
2609
2610
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.
2611

2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
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:
2617

2618
```cpp
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
using ::testing::Action;
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
...
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                                      Return(true));
  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...
```

2629
2630
2631
2632
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
2633
action will exhibit different behaviors. Example:
2634

2635
```cpp
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
  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

2648
```cpp
2649
2650
using ::testing::Action;
...
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
  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
2661
### Testing Asynchronous Behavior
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689

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
2690
  absl::Notification done;
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
  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
2710
## Misc Recipes on Using gMock
2711

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2712
### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types
2713

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2714
C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from
2715
2716
one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr<T>` is probably
the most commonly used move-only type.
2717

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2718
2719
2720
2721
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
2722
[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature.
2723

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2724
2725
Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
2726

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2727
```cpp
2728
2729
2730
2731
enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic };

class Buzz {
 public:
2732
  explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... }
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
  ...
};

class Buzzer {
 public:
  virtual ~Buzzer() {}
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2739
2740
  virtual std::unique_ptr<Buzz> MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0;
  virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0;
2741
2742
2743
2744
  ...
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2745
2746
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
2747
2748
`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr<Buzz>` or take a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`. Now we
need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests.
2749

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2750
2751
To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the
familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual:
2752

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2753
```cpp
2754
2755
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2756
2757
2758
  MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr<Buzz>, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp),
              (override));
2759
2760
2761
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2762
2763
2764
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_`:
2765

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2766
```cpp
2767
2768
2769
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2770
2771
First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which
returns a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`.
2772

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2773
As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or
2774
2775
2776
`.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
2777
action:
2778

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2779
```cpp
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
  // 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
2787
If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
2788
[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
2789

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2790
2791
If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
`Return(ByMove(...))` action:
2792

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2793
```cpp
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
  // 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
2804
Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is
2805
2806
2807
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
2808
2809
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.
2810

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2811
2812
2813
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:
2814

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2815
```cpp
2816
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x"))
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2817
2818
2819
      .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
        return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
      });
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824

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

2825
2826
Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr<Buzz>` will be created
and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`.
2827

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2828
2829
2830
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
2831
can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions):
2832

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2833
2834
```cpp
  using ::testing::Unused;
2835

2836
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2837
2838
2839
  EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
              0);

2840
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce(
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2841
2842
      [](std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; });
  EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0));
2843
2844
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2845
2846
2847
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.
2848

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2849
2850
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.
2851

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2852
#### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly}
2853

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
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
2860
2861
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2862
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2863
2864
  bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Time timestamp) override {
    return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp);
2865
2866
2867
2868
  }
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2869
2870
2871
2872
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:
2873

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2874
2875
2876
```cpp
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _));
2877

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2878
2879
2880
2881
  // 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);
2882
2883
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2884
### Making the Compilation Faster
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2885

2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
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.
2893

2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
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.
2899

2900
2901
Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock
class before applying this recipe:
2902

2903
```cpp
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
// 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.

2912
2913
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```

After the change, it would look like:

2920
```cpp
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
// File mock_foo.h.
...
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.
  MockFoo();
  virtual ~MockFoo();

2929
2930
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2931
2932
2933
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```
2934

2935
and
2936

2937
```cpp
2938
// File mock_foo.cc.
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
#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
2948
### Forcing a Verification
2949

2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
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.
2955

2956
2957
2958
2959
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.
2960

2961
2962
2963
2964
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)`:
2965

2966
```cpp
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
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.
```

2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
**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
2989
### Using Check Points {#UsingCheckPoints}
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007

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
3008
3009
`mock_object` too.

3010
3011
3012
3013
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:
3014

3015
```cpp
3016
3017
3018
  Foo(1);
  Foo(2);
  Foo(3);
3019
3020
```

3021
3022
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:
3023

3024
```cpp
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
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);
}
```

3048
3049
3050
3051
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()`.
3052

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3053
### Mocking Destructors
3054

3055
3056
3057
3058
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.
3059

3060
3061
3062
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:
3063

3064
```cpp
3065
MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ());  // Won't compile!
3066
3067
```

3068
3069
3070
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:
3071

3072
```cpp
3073
3074
3075
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
3076
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
3077
3078
3079
3080
  virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); }
};
```

3081
3082
3083
(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:
3084

3085
```cpp
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
  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
3101
### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
3102

3103
3104
3105
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.
3106

3107
3108
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.
3109
3110
3111

Remember the steps for using a mock:

3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
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.
3119

3120
3121
If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live
happily together:
3122

3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
*   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.
3131

3132
3133
3134
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.
3135

3136
3137
gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
that called the mock function. For example, in
3138

3139
```cpp
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))
      .WillOnce(action1);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))
      .WillOnce(action2);
```

3146
3147
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.
3148

3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
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.
3154

3155
3156
3157
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.
3158

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3159
### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints
3160

3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
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.
3167

3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
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.
3173

3174
3175
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:
3176

3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
*   `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).
3184

3185
3186
Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
so:
3187

3188
```cpp
3189
3190
3191
  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
```

3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
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!
3197

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3198
### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
3199

3200
3201
3202
3203
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?
3204

3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
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?
3210

3211
3212
You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
flag. For example, given the test program:
3213

3214
```cpp
3215
3216
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
using testing::_;
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo {
 public:
3223
  MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y));
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
};

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:

3239
3240
```shell
[ RUN       ] Foo.Bar
3241
3242

foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
3243
3244
Stack trace: ...

3245
foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
3246
3247
Stack trace: ...

3248
foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
3249
3250
Stack trace: ...

3251
foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
3252
3253
3254
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
Stack trace: ...

3255
foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
3256
3257
3258
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
Stack trace: ...

3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
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
```

3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
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.
3271

3272
3273
3274
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.
3275

3276
3277
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0025 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3278
### Running Tests in Emacs
3279

3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
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.
3285

3286
3287
3288
3289
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
3290
(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)
3291
(global-set-key [M-up]  '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))
3292
3293
```

3294
3295
3296
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.
3297

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3298
## Extending gMock
3299

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3300
### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
3301

3302
3303
3304
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.
3305

3306
3307
The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
The syntax:
3308

3309
```cpp
3310
3311
3312
MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }
```

3313
3314
3315
3316
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`.
3317

3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
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`.
3323

3324
3325
3326
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.
3327
3328

For example:
3329

3330
```cpp
3331
3332
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
```
3333

3334
allows you to write
3335

3336
```cpp
3337
3338
3339
  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3340

3341
or,
3342

3343
```cpp
3344
3345
3346
  using ::testing::Not;
  ...
  // Verifies that two values are divisible by 7.
3347
3348
3349
  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3350

3351
If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
3352
3353

```shell
3354
3355
3356
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27
3357
  ...
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
  Value of: some_other_expression
  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)
    Actual: 21
```

3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
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:

3370
```cpp
3371
3372
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
        absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) {
3373
3374
3375
3376
  return (arg % 7) == 0;
}
```

3377
3378
3379
3380
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:

3381
```cpp
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
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:
3392
3393

```shell
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
```

3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
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.
3404

3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
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.
3413

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3414
### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
3415

3416
3417
Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
use the macro:
3418

3419
```cpp
3420
3421
MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }
```
3422
3423
3424

where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that
references `negation` and `param_name`.
3425
3426

For example:
3427

3428
```cpp
3429
3430
MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
```
3431

3432
will allow you to write:
3433

3434
```cpp
3435
3436
  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
```
3437

3438
which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
3439
3440

```shell
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
  Value of: Blah("a")
  Expected: has absolute value 10
    Actual: -9
```

3446
3447
Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the
message human-friendly.
3448

3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
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:
3456

3457
```cpp
3458
3459
3460
MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }
```

3461
3462
3463
3464
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
3465
3466
3467
expression.

For example,
3468

3469
```cpp
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
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));
3478
```
3479

3480
would generate a failure that contains the message:
3481
3482

```shell
3483
3484
3485
  Expected: is in range [4, 6]
```

3486
3487
3488
3489
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,

3490
```cpp
3491
3492
3493
3494
  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
  ...
  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
```
3495

3496
would generate a failure that contains the text:
3497
3498

```shell
3499
3500
3501
3502
  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
```

For the purpose of typing, you can view
3503

3504
```cpp
3505
3506
MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
```
3507

3508
as shorthand for
3509

3510
```cpp
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>
FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>
Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }
```

3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
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.
3534
3535

You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:
3536

3537
```cpp
3538
3539
3540
3541
MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }
MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }
```

3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining a new
matcher, you should also consider implementing `MatcherInterface` or using
`MakePolymorphicMatcher()` instead (see the recipes that follow), especially if
you need to use the matcher a lot. While these approaches require more work,
they give you more control on the types of the value being matched and the
matcher parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error messages
that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading matchers based on
parameter types (as opposed to just based on the number of parameters).
3550

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3551
### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers
3552

3553
3554
3555
3556
A matcher of argument type `T` implements `::testing::MatcherInterface<T>` and
does two things: it tests whether a value of type `T` matches the matcher, and
can describe what kind of values it matches. The latter ability is used for
generating readable error messages when expectations are violated.
3557
3558
3559

The interface looks like this:

3560
```cpp
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
class MatchResultListener {
 public:
  ...
  // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream
  // is NULL.
  template <typename T>
  MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x);

  // Returns the underlying ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3570
  std::ostream* stream();
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
};

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

3578
  // Returns true if and only if the matcher matches x; also explains the match
3579
3580
3581
3582
  // result to 'listener'.
  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0;

  // Describes this matcher to an ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3583
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3584
3585

  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3586
  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const;
3587
3588
3589
};
```

3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
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:
3600

3601
```cpp
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
using ::testing::MakeMatcher;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
 public:
3609
3610
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
3611
3612
3613
    return (n % 7) == 0;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3614
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
3615
3616
3617
    *os << "is divisible by 7";
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3618
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
3619
3620
3621
3622
    *os << "is not divisible by 7";
  }
};

3623
Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
3624
3625
3626
  return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher);
}

3627
...
3628
3629
3630
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
```

3631
3632
You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
`listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
3633

3634
```cpp
3635
3636
class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
 public:
3637
3638
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
                       MatchResultListener* listener) const override {
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
    const int remainder = n % 7;
    if (remainder != 0) {
      *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder;
    }
    return remainder == 0;
  }
  ...
};
```

3649
3650
3651
Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:

```shell
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
Value of: x
Expected: is divisible by 7
  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3657
### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
3658

3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
You've learned how to write your own matchers in the previous recipe. Just one
problem: a matcher created using `MakeMatcher()` only works for one particular
type of arguments. If you want a *polymorphic* matcher that works with arguments
of several types (for instance, `Eq(x)` can be used to match a *`value`* as long
as `value == x` compiles -- *`value`* and `x` don't have to share the same
type), you can learn the trick from `testing/base/public/gmock-matchers.h` but
it's a bit involved.
3666

3667
3668
3669
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:
3670

3671
```cpp
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
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
3693
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
3694
3695

  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3696
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
3697
3698
3699
3700
};

// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class
// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.
3701
PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
3702
3703
  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
}
3704

3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
...

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

**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from
3711
3712
`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be
virtual.
3713

3714
3715
Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming
additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`.
3716

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3717
### Writing New Cardinalities
3718

3719
3720
3721
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)`.
3722

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3723
3724
3725
If the [built-in set](cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList) of cardinalities doesn't
suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following
interface (in namespace `testing`):
3726

3727
```cpp
3728
3729
3730
3731
class CardinalityInterface {
 public:
  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();

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

3735
3736
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this
  // cardinality.
3737
3738
3739
  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

  // Describes self to an ostream.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3740
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3741
3742
3743
};
```

3744
3745
For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can
write
3746

3747
```cpp
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
using ::testing::Cardinality;
using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
using ::testing::MakeCardinality;

class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
 public:
3754
  bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3755
3756
3757
    return (call_count % 2) == 0;
  }

3758
  bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3759
3760
3761
    return false;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3762
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
    *os << "called even number of times";
  }
};

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

3771
...
3772
3773
3774
3775
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))
      .Times(EvenNumber());
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3776
### Writing New Actions Quickly {#QuickNewActions}
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791

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):
3792

3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
```
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
3805
#### Legacy macro-based Actions
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811

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.
3812
3813

By writing
3814

3815
```cpp
3816
3817
ACTION(name) { statements; }
```
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824

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:

3825
```cpp
3826
3827
ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
```
3828

3829
allows you to write
3830

3831
```cpp
3832
3833
3834
... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());
```

3835
3836
3837
3838
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.
3839
3840

Another example:
3841

3842
```cpp
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
ACTION(Foo) {
  (*arg2)(5);
  Blah();
  *arg1 = 0;
  return arg0;
}
```

3851
3852
3853
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.
3854

3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
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
3864
3865

For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
3866

3867
```cpp
3868
3869
int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
```
3870

3871
we have:
3872

3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
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*)`
3883

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3884
#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
3885
3886
3887

Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
another macro
3888

3889
```cpp
3890
3891
3892
3893
ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
```

For example,
3894

3895
```cpp
3896
3897
ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
```
3898

3899
will allow you to write
3900

3901
```cpp
3902
3903
3904
3905
// Returns argument #0 + 5.
... WillOnce(Add(5));
```

3906
3907
3908
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.
3909

3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
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,
3918

3919
```cpp
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
  double dx = arg0 - x;
  double dy = arg1 - y;
  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
}
```
3926

3927
lets you write
3928

3929
```cpp
3930
3931
3932
... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
```

3933
3934
You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of
parameters is 0.
3935
3936

You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
3937

3938
```cpp
3939
3940
3941
3942
ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3943
### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION
3944
3945
3946
3947

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.
3948

3949
3950
Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. There are
several tricks to do that. For example:
3951

3952
```cpp
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
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;
}
```

3968
3969
where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that
verifies two types are the same.
3970

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3971
### Writing New Action Templates Quickly
3972
3973
3974
3975

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*()`.
3976
3977

The syntax:
3978

3979
```cpp
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,
                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),
                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }
```

3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
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.
3990
3991

Example:
3992

3993
```cpp
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
// 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
4000
  *output = T(std::get<k>(args));
4001
4002
4003
4004
}
```

To create an instance of an action template, write:
4005

4006
```cpp
4007
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
4008
```
4009
4010
4011
4012

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:

4013
```cpp
4014
4015
4016
using ::testing::_;
...
  int n;
4017
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));
4018
4019
```

4020
4021
4022
If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide
additional template arguments:

4023
```cpp
4024
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)
4025
```
4026

4027
4028
where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`.

4029
4030
4031
`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:
4032

4033
```cpp
4034
4035
4036
  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);
```

4037
4038
4039
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`?
4040

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4041
### Using the ACTION Object's Type
4042

4043
4044
4045
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:
4046

4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
| 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)`        :                       :
| ...                           | ...                 | ...                   |
4063

4064
4065
4066
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.
4067

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4068
### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions}
4069
4070

While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
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.
4076
4077

An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement
4078
4079
`::testing::ActionInterface<F>`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in
which the action will be used. For example:
4080

4081
```cpp
4082
4083
template <typename F>
class ActionInterface {
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
 public:
  virtual ~ActionInterface();

  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type
  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.
  //
4090

4091
  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4092
  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
4093
4094
  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
};
4095
```
4096

4097
```cpp
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
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
4107
4108
  int Perform(const std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
    int* p = std::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
    return *p++;
  }
};

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

4117
...
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
  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
4125
### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions}
4126

4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
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()`).
4132

4133
4134
4135
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:
4136

4137
```cpp
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
namespace testing {
template <typename Impl>
PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);
}  // namespace testing
```

4144
4145
4146
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:
4147

4148
```cpp
4149
4150
4151
4152
class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
 public:
  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4153
4154
    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args).
    return std::get<1>(args);
4155
4156
4157
4158
  }
};
```

4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
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.
4166

4167
4168
4169
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:
4170

4171
```cpp
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;
using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;

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

4180
Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones:
4181

4182
```cpp
4183
4184
4185
4186
using ::testing::_;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
4187
4188
4189
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
              (override));
4190
4191
};

4192
  ...
4193
  MockFoo foo;
4194
4195
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
4196
  ...
4197
  foo.DoThis(true, 5);  // Will return 5.
4198
4199
4200
  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4201
### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values
4202

4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
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.
4208
4209

This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other types, it
prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the user can figure it out.
[googletest's advanced guide](../../googletest/docs/advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values)
explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your
particular type than to dump the bytes.
4215

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4216
## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
4217
4218
4219
4220

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4221
### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272

`std::function` is a general function type introduced in C++11. It is a
preferred way of passing callbacks to new interfaces. Functions are copiable,
and are not usually passed around by pointer, which makes them tricky to mock.
But fear not - `MockFunction` can help you with that.

`MockFunction<R(T1, ..., Tn)>` has a mock method `Call()` with the signature:

```cpp
  R Call(T1, ..., Tn);
```

It also has a `AsStdFunction()` method, which creates a `std::function` proxy
forwarding to Call:

```cpp
  std::function<R(T1, ..., Tn)> AsStdFunction();
```

To use `MockFunction`, first create `MockFunction` object and set up
expectations on its `Call` method. Then pass proxy obtained from
`AsStdFunction()` to the code you are testing. For example:

```cpp
TEST(FooTest, RunsCallbackWithBarArgument) {
  // 1. Create a mock object.
  MockFunction<int(string)> mock_function;

  // 2. Set expectations on Call() method.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_function, Call("bar")).WillOnce(Return(1));

  // 3. Exercise code that uses std::function.
  Foo(mock_function.AsStdFunction());
  // Foo's signature can be either of:
  // void Foo(const std::function<int(string)>& fun);
  // void Foo(std::function<int(string)> fun);

  // 4. All expectations will be verified when mock_function
  //     goes out of scope and is destroyed.
}
```

Remember that function objects created with `AsStdFunction()` are just
forwarders. If you create multiple of them, they will share the same set of
expectations.

Although `std::function` supports unlimited number of arguments, `MockFunction`
implementation is limited to ten. If you ever hit that limit... well, your
callback has bigger problems than being mockable. :-)

<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0034 DO NOT DELETE -->