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
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
40
41
42
*   **`ref(...)`** - Marks the method with the reference qualification
    specified. Required if overriding a method that has reference
    qualifications. Eg `ref(&)` or `ref(&&)`.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
43

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
44
### Dealing with unprotected commas
45

46
47
48
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
49
```cpp {.bad}
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
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
59
```cpp {.good}
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
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
72
```cpp {.good}
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
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
82
### Mocking Private or Protected Methods
83
84
85
86
87
88
89

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:
90

91
```cpp
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
class Foo {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0;

 protected:
  virtual void Resume();

 private:
  virtual int GetTimeOut();
};

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  ...
107
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Transform, (Gadget* g), (override));
108
109
110

  // The following must be in the public section, even though the
  // methods are protected or private in the base class.
111
112
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Resume, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetTimeOut, (), (override));
113
114
115
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
116
### Mocking Overloaded Methods
117
118
119

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

120
```cpp
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
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 {
  ...
138
139
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override));
140

141
142
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
143
144
145
};
```

146
147
148
**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:
149

150
```cpp
151
152
153
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  using Foo::Add;
154
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
155
156
157
158
159
  // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x);
  ...
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
160
### Mocking Class Templates
161

162
You can mock class templates just like any class.
163

164
```cpp
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
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> {
  ...
178
179
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
180
181
182
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
183
### Mocking Non-virtual Methods {#MockingNonVirtualMethods}
184

185
gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in Hi-perf dependency
misterg's avatar
misterg committed
186
injection.<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0017 DO NOT DELETE -->
187

188
189
190
191
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`):
192

193
```cpp
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
// 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:
207
208
  MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
  MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
209
210
211
212
  ...
};
```

213
214
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.
215

216
217
218
219
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).
220

221
222
223
224
225
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:
226

227
```cpp
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
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
240
241
`CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
tests.
242

243
```cpp
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
  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
251
### Mocking Free Functions
252

253
254
255
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).
256

257
258
Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, introduce an
interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls the free function:
259

260
```cpp
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
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) {
271
     return OpenFile(path, mode);
272
273
274
275
  }
};
```

276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
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
287
### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
288

289
290
Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro
[was introduced in 2018](https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/c5f08bf91944ce1b19bcf414fa1760e69d20afc2),
291
292
293
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.
294

295
The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`:
296

297
298
299
300
301
302
303
*   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.
304

305
Old macros and their new equivalents:
306

307
308
309
310
311
<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>
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
344
345
346
<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
347
### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357

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.
358
359
360

Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:

361
```cpp
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
TEST(...) {
  MockFoo mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

369
370
371
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:
372

373
```cpp
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

383
384
`NiceMock<MockFoo>` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever
`MockFoo` is accepted.
385
386
387
388

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

389
```cpp
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

399
400
The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting
calls failures:
401

402
```cpp
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
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.
}
```

415
416
417
418
419
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
420
421
There are some caveats though (sadly they are side effects of C++'s
limitations):
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430

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
431
    requires cleaning up existing tests.
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443

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
444
### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
445
446
447

Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
For example:
448

449
```cpp
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
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;
};
```

460
461
462
463
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.
464

465
The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class:
466

467
```cpp
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
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);
484
485
486
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Log,
              (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,
               const string& message));
487
488
489
};
```

490
By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock
491
class more user-friendly.
492

493
494
495
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:
496

497
498
499
500
501
```cpp
class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
 public:
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
502

503
504
505
506
  // the above methods delegate to this one:
  MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
};
```
507

508
509
This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
argument matchers:
510

511
512
```cpp
ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
513
    .WillByDefault(Return(MakeMockTurtle()));
514
```
515

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
516
### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes
517

518
519
520
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.
521

522
Try not to do that.
523

524
525
526
527
528
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.
529

530
531
532
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.
533

534
535
536
537
538
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.
539

540
This technique incurs some overhead:
541

542
543
*   You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem).
*   There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn.
544

545
546
However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better
testability:
547

548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
*   `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
578
### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
579
580
581

Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
example:
582

583
```cpp
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
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:
593
  char DoThis(int n) override {
594
    return (n > 0) ? '+' :
595
           (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
596
597
  }

598
  void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
599
600
601
602
603
    *p = strlen(s);
  }
};
```

604
605
606
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.
607

608
609
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:
610

611
```cpp
612
613
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
614
615
616
  // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
617
618
619
620

  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.
  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.
  void DelegateToFake() {
621
622
623
624
625
626
    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);
    });
627
  }
628

629
630
631
632
633
 private:
  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.
};
```

634
635
636
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.:
637

638
```cpp
639
640
641
642
using ::testing::_;

TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
  MockFoo foo;
643
644

  foo.DelegateToFake();  // Enables the fake for delegation.
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653

  // 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.
654
  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);  // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
655
656
657
658
659
660
  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
}
```

**Some tips:**

661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
*   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
696
### Delegating Calls to a Real Object
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709

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:
710

711
```cpp
712
713
714
715
716
717
using ::testing::AtLeast;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  MockFoo() {
    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
718
719
720
721
722
723
    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);
    });
724
725
    ...
  }
726
727
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...);
728
729
730
731
732
  ...
 private:
  Foo real_;
};

733
...
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
  MockFoo mock;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())
      .Times(3);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))
      .Times(AtLeast(1));
  ... use mock in test ...
```

742
743
744
745
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.
746

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
747
### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class
748

749
750
751
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:
752

753
```cpp
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
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.
765
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
766
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
767
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
768
769
770
771
};
```

Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of
772
773
774
775
`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).
776

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
777
You can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by:
778

779
```cpp
780
...
781
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
782
    return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
783
  });
784
785
786
787
```

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

788
```cpp
789
...
790
  ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
791
    return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
792
  });
793
794
```

795
796
797
(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.)
798

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
799
## Using Matchers
800

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
801
### Matching Argument Values Exactly
802
803
804

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

805
```cpp
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
using ::testing::Return;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))
      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
813
### Using Simple Matchers
814
815
816

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

817
```cpp
818
819
820
821
822
823
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()));
824
      // The second argument must not be NULL.
825
826
827
828
```

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

829
```cpp
830
831
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
```
832
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0022 DO NOT DELETE -->
833

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
834
### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
835
836

You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
837
`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
838

839
```cpp
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
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
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
Matchers are function objects, and parametrized matchers can be composed just
like any other function. However because their types can be long and rarely
provide meaningful information, it can be easier to express them with C++14
generic lambdas to avoid specifying types. For example,

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
871
### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
872

873
874
875
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!
876

877
878
879
880
881
882
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.
883

884
885
886
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 :
887

888
889
890
891
892
893
894
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).
895

896
The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.
897
898
899

Here's one example:

900
```cpp
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
909
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
910
911
};

912
...
913
914
915
916
917
  MockFoo foo;
  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));
```

918
919
920
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`.
921

922
923
924
`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.
925

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
926
### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload}
927

928
929
If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some
help on which overloaded version it is.
930

931
932
To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the
`Const()` argument wrapper.
933

934
```cpp
935
936
937
938
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
939
940
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
941
942
};

943
...
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
  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));
```

952
(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.)
953

954
955
956
957
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):
958

959
```cpp
960
961
962
963
964
965
using ::testing::An;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::TypedEq;

class MockPrinter : public Printer {
 public:
966
967
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
};

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
983
### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments
984

985
986
987
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:
988

989
```cpp
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
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'));
```

1002
1003
Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be
returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned.
1004

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1005
### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole
1006

1007
1008
1009
1010
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,
1011

1012
```cpp
1013
1014
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Ne;
1015
using ::testing::Lt;
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))
      .With(Lt());
```

1021
1022
says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than
the second argument.
1023

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1024
1025
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.
1026

1027
1028
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())`.
1029

1030
1031
You can use `Args<k1, ..., kn>(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a
tuple) against `m`. For example,
1032

1033
```cpp
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Args;
using ::testing::Lt;
...
1039
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah)
1040
1041
1042
      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));
```

1043
1044
1045
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.
1046

1047
1048
1049
As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
including the `Lt()` matcher above. See [here](#MultiArgMatchers) for the
complete list.
1050

1051
1052
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
1053
1054
take a `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected arguments
as *one* single tuple to the predicate.
1055

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1056
### Using Matchers as Predicates
1057

1058
1059
1060
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
1061
matchers were not allowed to participate.
1062

1063
1064
Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by
wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example,
1065

1066
```cpp
1067
1068
1069
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

1070
1071
1072
1073
using ::testing::Matches;
using ::testing::Ge;

vector<int> v;
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
...
// How many elements in v are >= 10?
const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));
```

1079
1080
1081
1082
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:
1083

1084
```cpp
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
using testing::AllOf;
using testing::Ge;
using testing::Le;
using testing::Matches;
using testing::Ne;
...
1091
1092
1093
Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1094
### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
1095
1096

Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe
1097
1098
themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in googletest assertions.
It's called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`:
1099

1100
```cpp
1101
1102
1103
1104
  ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);  // Asserts that value matches matcher.
  EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);  // The non-fatal version.
```

1105
For example, in a googletest test you can write:
1106

1107
```cpp
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

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

1116
...
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
  EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
  EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+"));
  ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10)));
```

1122
1123
which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and `Baz()`, and
verifies that:
1124

1125
1126
1127
*   `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].
1128

1129
1130
1131
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:
1132

1133
```cpp
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
Value of: Foo()
  Actual: "Hi, world!"
Expected: starts with "Hello"
```

1139
1140
**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was borrowed from Joe Walnes'
Hamcrest project, which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.
1141

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1142
### Using Predicates as Matchers
1143

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
gMock provides a [built-in set](cheat_sheet.md#MatcherList) of matchers. In case
you find them lacking, you can use an arbitrary unary predicate function or
functor as a matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type you
want. You do this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` function, for
example:
1149

1150
```cpp
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
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)));
```

1159
1160
1161
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) ...`.
1162

1163
1164
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0023 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1165
### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178

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:
1179

1180
```cpp
1181
using ::testing::Eq;
1182
1183
1184
using ::testing::Lt;
...
  // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1185
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(std::ref(bar))));
1186
1187

  // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1188
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(std::ref(bar))));
1189
1190
```

1191
1192
Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the `EXPECT_CALL()`, or the
result is undefined.
1193

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1194
### Validating a Member of an Object
1195

1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
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,
1201

1202
```cpp
1203
1204
1205
Field(&Foo::bar, m)
```

1206
1207
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies
matcher `m`.
1208

1209
```cpp
1210
1211
1212
Property(&Foo::baz, m)
```

1213
1214
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value
that satisfies matcher `m`.
1215
1216
1217

For example:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1218
<!-- mdformat off(github rendering does not support multiline tables) -->
1219
1220
1221
| Expression                   | Description                              |
| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`.       |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1222
1223
| `Property(&Foo::name,  StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with  `"John "`. |
<!-- mdformat on -->
1224

1225
1226
Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument
and be declared as `const`.
1227

1228
1229
BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
instance,
1230

1231
```cpp
1232
1233
1234
using ::testing::Field;
using ::testing::Ge;
...
1235
1236
1237
Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))
```

1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
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.
1247

1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
```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));
}
```
1260

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1261
### Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument
1262

1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
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.
1268

1269
`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer
1270
points to. For example:
1271

1272
```cpp
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
using ::testing::Ge;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3))));
```

1279
1280
expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value greater
than or equal to 3.
1281

1282
1283
One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as a match
failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of
1284

1285
```cpp
1286
1287
1288
1289
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
  AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m))
```

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

1295
1296
Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers **and**
smart pointers (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, etc)?
1297

1298
1299
1300
1301
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...).
1302

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1303
### Testing a Certain Property of an Object
1304

1305
1306
1307
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
1308
1309
quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function.

1310
1311
1312
1313
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:
1314

1315
```cpp
1316
using ::testing::Matcher;
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

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

1325
1326
  bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
1327
1328
1329
    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1330
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
1331
1332
1333
    *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1334
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
    *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
  }
 private:
  const int expected_sum_;
};

1341
Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
  return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum));
}

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1349
### Matching Containers
1350

1351
1352
1353
1354
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.
1355

1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
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.
1361

1362
1363
You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in such
cases:
1364

1365
```cpp
1366
1367
1368
1369
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::ElementsAre;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
1370
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1371
1372
1373
1374
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1375
1376
The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which must be 1,
greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1377
1378
1379

If you instead write:

1380
```cpp
1381
1382
1383
1384
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
...
1385
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1386
1387
1388
1389
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1390
1391
It means that the container must have 4 elements, which (under some permutation)
must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1392

1393
1394
As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use
`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead:
1395

1396
```cpp
1397
1398
1399
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values.
1400
  const int expected_vector1[] = {1, 5, 2, 4, ...};
1401
1402
1403
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1)));

  // Or, an array of element matchers.
1404
  Matcher<int> expected_vector2[] = {1, Gt(2), _, 3, ...};
1405
1406
1407
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2)));
```

1408
1409
1410
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:
1411

1412
```cpp
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];
  ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));
```

1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
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)));
```

1430
1431
**Tips:**

1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
*   `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`.
1444

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1445
### Sharing Matchers
1446

1447
1448
1449
1450
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.
1451

1452
1453
1454
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,
1455

1456
```cpp
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::Matcher;
...
1462
1463
1464
1465
  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
1466
### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477

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
1478
## Setting Expectations
1479

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1480
### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
1481

1482
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0018 DO NOT DELETE -->
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532

**`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
1533
### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545

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
1546
### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
1547
1548
1549

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

1550
```cpp
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
using ::testing::_;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .Times(0);
```

1557
1558
If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the
expected calls:
1559

1560
```cpp
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
using ::testing::AnyNumber;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))
      .Times(AnyNumber());
```

1569
1570
A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements
will be an error.
1571

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1572
### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
1573

1574
1575
*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
*Very* different.
1576

1577
1578
1579
1580
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.
1581

1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
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.
1587

1588
1589
**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
the way the test expects it to behave.
1590

1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
**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).
1596

1597
1598
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?
1599

1600
1601
1602
1603
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.
1604

1605
1606
A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
mock strict may change the test's result.
1607
1608
1609

Let's look at an example:

1610
```cpp
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
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 ...
}
```

1621
1622
1623
1624
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.*
1625

1626
1627
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`:
1628

1629
```cpp
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
  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"));
```

1636
1637
1638
1639
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.
1640

1641
1642
Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
1643

1644
1645
For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
1646

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1647
### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
1648

1649
1650
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:
1651

1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
```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
1673
### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
1674

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
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.
1680
1681
1682
1683

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`:
1684

1685
```cpp
1686
1687
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InSequence;
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698

  {
    InSequence s;

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

1699
1700
1701
1702
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.
1703

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1704
### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
1705

1706
1707
1708
1709
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.
1710

1711
gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1712
1713
calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the
[After](cheat_sheet.md#AfterClause) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`.
1714

1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
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:
1720

1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
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.
1726

1727
1728
1729
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.
1730

1731
1732
Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For
example,
1733

1734
1735
1736
```cpp
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
  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);
```

1749
specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`):
1750

1751
```text
1752
1753
1754
1755
       +---> B
       |
  A ---|
       |
1756
        +---> C ---> D
1757
1758
```

1759
1760
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.
1761

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1762
### Controlling When an Expectation Retires
1763

1764
1765
1766
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
1767

1768
```cpp
1769
1770
1771
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1772
1773
  Sequence s1, s2;

1774
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #1
1775
1776
      .Times(AnyNumber())
      .InSequence(s1, s2);
1777
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))   // #2
1778
      .InSequence(s1);
1779
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))      // #3
1780
1781
1782
      .InSequence(s2);
```

1783
1784
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.
1785

1786
1787
Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For
example,
1788

1789
```cpp
1790
1791
using ::testing::_;
...
1792
1793
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."));     // #2
1794
1795
```

1796
1797
1798
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.
1799

1800
1801
If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it
becomes saturated:
1802

1803
```cpp
1804
1805
using ::testing::_;
...
1806
1807
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #2
1808
1809
1810
      .RetiresOnSaturation();
```

1811
1812
1813
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.
1814

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1815
## Using Actions
1816

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1817
### Returning References from Mock Methods
1818

1819
1820
If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()`
instead of `Return()` to return a result:
1821

1822
```cpp
1823
1824
1825
1826
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1827
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
};
...
  MockFoo foo;
  Bar bar;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));
1834
...
1835
1836
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1837
### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods
1838

1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
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.
1844
1845

If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using
1846
1847
1848
1849
`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?
1850

ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1851
Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`:
1852

1853
```cpp
1854
1855
1856
1857
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1858
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
};
...
  int x = 0;
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1864
      .WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x)));  // Wrong!
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
  x = 42;
  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
```

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

1871
```text
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
Value of: foo.GetValue()
  Actual: 0
Expected: 42
```

1877
1878
1879
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
1880
1881
1882
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.
1883

1884
1885
`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It
returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:
1886

1887
```cpp
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
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
1898
### Combining Actions
1899

1900
1901
1902
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.
1903

1904
```cpp
1905
using ::testing::_;
1906
1907
1908
1909
using ::testing::DoAll;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1910
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
};
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
                      action_2,
                      ...
                      action_n));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1920
### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926

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:
1927

1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
```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
1944
### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949

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`.
1950
1951
1952
1953

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

1954
```cpp
1955
using ::testing::_;
1956
1957
1958
1959
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
1960
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
1961
  ...
1962
}
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))
      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));
```

1969
1970
In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the
`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based).
1971

1972
1973
1974
`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.
1975
1976

If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain
1977
1978
`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the
`Return()` statement last:
1979

1980
```cpp
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
  ...
1988
1989
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
}
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                      Return(true)));
```

1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
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:
2004

2005
```cpp
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;

class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
 public:
2011
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
2012
  ...
2013
}
2014
2015
...
  MockArrayMutator mutator;
2016
  int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));
```

This also works when the argument is an output iterator:

2023
```cpp
2024
using ::testing::_;
bartshappee's avatar
bartshappee committed
2025
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
2026
2027
2028

class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
 public:
2029
2030
  MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
              (override));
2031
  ...
2032
}
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
...
  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
2043
### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State
2044

2045
2046
2047
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:
2048

2049
```cpp
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;

...
  {
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
     InSequence seq;
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));
2061
2062
2063
2064
  }
  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();
```

2065
2066
This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called
and return `false` afterwards.
2067

2068
2069
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:
2070

2071
```cpp
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::SaveArg;
using ::testing::Return;

ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }
...
  int previous_value = 0;
2079
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue)
2080
      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));
2081
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue)
2082
2083
2084
2085
      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));
  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();
```

2086
2087
Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last
`UpdateValue()` call.
2088

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2089
### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue}
2090

2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
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.
2096

2097
2098
2099
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:
2100

2101
```cpp
2102
2103
using ::testing::DefaultValue;

2104
2105
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2106
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
2107
2108
};

2109
2110

...
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
  Bar default_bar;
  // Sets the default return value for type Bar.
  DefaultValue<Bar>::Set(default_bar);

  MockFoo foo;

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

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

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

keshavgbpecdelhi's avatar
keshavgbpecdelhi committed
2127
Please note that changing the default value for a type can make your tests hard
2128
2129
2130
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.
2131

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2132
### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method
2133

2134
2135
2136
2137
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:
2138

2139
```cpp
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
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.
```

2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
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.
2169

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2170
### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
2171

2172
If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2173
(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda) as an action.
2174
2175
2176
2177

<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0024 DO NOT DELETE -->

```cpp
2178
using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke;
2179
2180
2181

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2182
2183
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override));
2184
2185
2186
};

int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
2187
int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; }
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193

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

2194
...
2195
2196
2197
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))
2198
2199
      .WillOnce(&CalculateSum)
      .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1)));
2200
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2201
      .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2202
      .WillOnce([] { return true; })
2203
      .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; });
2204

2205
2206
2207
2208
  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.
2209
2210
```

2211
The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible*
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
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?
2217

2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
**`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
2235
### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263

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).
}
```
2264

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2265
### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
2266

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2267
2268
2269
2270
`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.
2271

2272
Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2273
2274
2275
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.
2276

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2277
2278
2279
2280
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:
2281

2282
```cpp
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2288
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override));
2289
2290
2291
};

bool Job1() { ... }
2292
bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
2293

2294
...
2295
2296
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2297
      .WillOnce([] { Job1(); });
2298
      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
2299
2300

  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().
2301
  foo.ComplexJob(20);  // Invokes Job2(5, 'a').
2302
2303
```

2304
**`Note:`{.escaped}**
2305

2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
*   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
2322
### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
2323

2324
2325
Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other
words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g.
2326

2327
```cpp
2328
2329
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2330
2331
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1<bool, int>* callback)),
              (override));
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
};
```

and you may want to invoke this callable argument:

2337
```cpp
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
using ::testing::_;
...
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(...);
2343
2344
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2345
2346
```

2347
2348
2349
2350
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?
2351

2352
Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
2353

2354
```cpp
2355
InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)
2356
2357
```

2358
2359
2360
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.
2361
2362
2363

With that, you could write:

2364
```cpp
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
2370
2371
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2372
2373
```

2374
What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2375
inside `std::ref()`:
2376

2377
```cpp
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
              ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2386
2387
2388
2389
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2390
2391
2392
      .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.
2393
2394
```

2395
What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2396
argument in `std::ref()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the
2397
2398
2399
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:
2400

2401
```cpp
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2409
2410
2411
2412
  MockFoo foo;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
      // 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.
2418
2419
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2420
### Ignoring an Action's Result
2421

2422
2423
2424
2425
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:
2426

2427
```cpp
2428
using ::testing::_;
2429
2430
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
using ::testing::Return;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2438
2439
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
2440
2441
};

2442
  ...
2443
2444
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))
2445
2446
2447
2448
      // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));
      // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs
      // to return void.
      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process));
2449
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
2450
2451
      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething),
                      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.
2452
2453
2454
                      Return(true)));
```

2455
2456
Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns
`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors.
2457

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2458
### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs}
2459

2460
2461
2462
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:
2463

2464
```cpp
2465
2466
2467
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
...
2468
2469
2470
2471
  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));
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
...
bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {
  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;
}
...
2477
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2478
2479
2480
      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(
```

2481
2482
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:
2483

2484
```cpp
2485
2486
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
2487
...
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
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);
}
...
2494
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.
```

But isn't this awkward?

2500
2501
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:
2502

2503
```cpp
2504
WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)
2505
2506
```

2507
2508
2509
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:
2510

2511
```cpp
2512
2513
2514
2515
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::WithArgs;
...
2516
2517
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));  // No need to define your own adaptor.
2518
2519
```

2520
For better readability, gMock also gives you:
2521

2522
2523
2524
*   `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and
*   `WithArg<N>(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes
    *one* argument.
2525

2526
2527
As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for
`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`.
2528
2529
2530

Here are more tips:

2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
*   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.
2541

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2542
### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions
2543

2544
2545
2546
2547
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.
2548

2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
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
2555

2556
```cpp
2557
2558
2559
2560
 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));
2561
2562
2563
2564
```

instead of

2565
```cpp
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
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);
}
...
2576
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2577
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
2578
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
```

you could write

2584
```cpp
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::Unused;

double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
...
2593
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2594
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
2595
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2596
2597
2598
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2599
### Sharing Actions
2600

2601
2602
2603
2604
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.
2605

2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
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:
2611

2612
```cpp
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
using ::testing::Action;
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
...
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                                      Return(true));
  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...
```

2623
2624
2625
2626
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
2627
action will exhibit different behaviors. Example:
2628

2629
```cpp
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
  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

2642
```cpp
2643
2644
using ::testing::Action;
...
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
  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
2655
### Testing Asynchronous Behavior
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683

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
2684
  absl::Notification done;
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
  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
2704
## Misc Recipes on Using gMock
2705

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2706
### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types
2707

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2708
C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from
2709
2710
one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr<T>` is probably
the most commonly used move-only type.
2711

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2712
2713
2714
2715
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
2716
[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature.
2717

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2718
2719
Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
2720

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2721
```cpp
2722
2723
2724
2725
enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic };

class Buzz {
 public:
2726
  explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... }
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
  ...
};

class Buzzer {
 public:
  virtual ~Buzzer() {}
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2733
2734
  virtual std::unique_ptr<Buzz> MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0;
  virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0;
2735
2736
2737
2738
  ...
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2739
2740
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
2741
2742
`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr<Buzz>` or take a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`. Now we
need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests.
2743

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2744
2745
To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the
familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual:
2746

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2747
```cpp
2748
2749
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2750
2751
2752
  MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr<Buzz>, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp),
              (override));
2753
2754
2755
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2756
2757
2758
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_`:
2759

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2760
```cpp
2761
2762
2763
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2764
2765
First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which
returns a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`.
2766

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2767
As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or
2768
2769
2770
`.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
2771
action:
2772

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2773
```cpp
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
  // 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
2781
If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
2782
[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
2783

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2784
2785
If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
`Return(ByMove(...))` action:
2786

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2787
```cpp
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
  // 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
2798
Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is
2799
2800
2801
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
2802
2803
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.
2804

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2805
2806
2807
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:
2808

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2809
```cpp
2810
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x"))
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2811
2812
2813
      .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
        return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
      });
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818

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

2819
2820
Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr<Buzz>` will be created
and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`.
2821

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2822
2823
2824
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
2825
can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions):
2826

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2827
2828
```cpp
  using ::testing::Unused;
2829

2830
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2831
2832
2833
  EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
              0);

2834
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce(
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2835
2836
      [](std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; });
  EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0));
2837
2838
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2839
2840
2841
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.
2842

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2843
2844
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.
2845

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2846
#### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly}
2847

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
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
2854
2855
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2856
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2857
2858
  bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Time timestamp) override {
    return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp);
2859
2860
2861
2862
  }
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2863
2864
2865
2866
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:
2867

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2868
2869
2870
```cpp
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _));
2871

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2872
2873
2874
2875
  // 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);
2876
2877
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2878
### Making the Compilation Faster
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2879

2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
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.
2887

2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
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.
2893

2894
2895
Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock
class before applying this recipe:
2896

2897
```cpp
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
// 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.

2906
2907
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```

After the change, it would look like:

2914
```cpp
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
// File mock_foo.h.
...
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.
  MockFoo();
  virtual ~MockFoo();

2923
2924
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2925
2926
2927
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```
2928

2929
and
2930

2931
```cpp
2932
// File mock_foo.cc.
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
#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
2942
### Forcing a Verification
2943

2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
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.
2949

2950
2951
2952
2953
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.
2954

2955
2956
2957
2958
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)`:
2959

2960
```cpp
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
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.
```

2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
**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
2983
### Using Check Points {#UsingCheckPoints}
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001

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
3002
3003
`mock_object` too.

3004
3005
3006
3007
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:
3008

3009
```cpp
3010
3011
3012
  Foo(1);
  Foo(2);
  Foo(3);
3013
3014
```

3015
3016
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:
3017

3018
```cpp
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
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);
}
```

3042
3043
3044
3045
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()`.
3046

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3047
### Mocking Destructors
3048

3049
3050
3051
3052
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.
3053

3054
3055
3056
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:
3057

3058
```cpp
3059
MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ());  // Won't compile!
3060
3061
```

3062
3063
3064
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:
3065

3066
```cpp
3067
3068
3069
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
3070
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3071
  ~MockFoo() override { Die(); }
3072
3073
3074
};
```

3075
3076
3077
(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:
3078

3079
```cpp
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
  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
3095
### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
3096

3097
3098
3099
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.
3100

3101
3102
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.
3103
3104
3105

Remember the steps for using a mock:

3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
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.
3113

3114
3115
If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live
happily together:
3116

3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
*   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.
3125

3126
3127
3128
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.
3129

3130
3131
gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
that called the mock function. For example, in
3132

3133
```cpp
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))
      .WillOnce(action1);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))
      .WillOnce(action2);
```

3140
3141
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.
3142

3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
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.
3148

3149
3150
3151
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.
3152

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3153
### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints
3154

3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
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.
3161

3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
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.
3167

3168
3169
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:
3170

3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
*   `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).
3178

3179
3180
Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
so:
3181

3182
```cpp
3183
3184
3185
  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
```

3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
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!
3191

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3192
### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
3193

3194
3195
3196
3197
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?
3198

3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
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?
3204

3205
3206
You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
flag. For example, given the test program:
3207

3208
```cpp
3209
3210
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
using testing::_;
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo {
 public:
3217
  MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y));
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
};

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:

3233
3234
```shell
[ RUN       ] Foo.Bar
3235
3236

foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
3237
3238
Stack trace: ...

3239
foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
3240
3241
Stack trace: ...

3242
foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
3243
3244
Stack trace: ...

3245
foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
3246
3247
3248
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
Stack trace: ...

3249
foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
3250
3251
3252
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
Stack trace: ...

3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
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
```

3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
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.
3265

3266
3267
3268
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.
3269

3270
3271
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0025 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3272
### Running Tests in Emacs
3273

3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
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.
3279

3280
3281
3282
3283
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
3284
(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)
3285
(global-set-key [M-up]  '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))
3286
3287
```

3288
3289
3290
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.
3291

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3292
## Extending gMock
3293

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3294
### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
3295

3296
3297
3298
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.
3299

3300
3301
The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
The syntax:
3302

3303
```cpp
3304
3305
3306
MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }
```

3307
3308
3309
3310
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`.
3311

3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
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`.
3317

3318
3319
3320
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.
3321
3322

For example:
3323

3324
```cpp
3325
3326
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
```
3327

3328
allows you to write
3329

3330
```cpp
3331
3332
3333
  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3334

3335
or,
3336

3337
```cpp
3338
3339
3340
  using ::testing::Not;
  ...
  // Verifies that two values are divisible by 7.
3341
3342
3343
  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3344

3345
If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
3346
3347

```shell
3348
3349
3350
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27
3351
  ...
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
  Value of: some_other_expression
  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)
    Actual: 21
```

3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
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:

3364
```cpp
3365
3366
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
        absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) {
3367
3368
3369
3370
  return (arg % 7) == 0;
}
```

3371
3372
3373
3374
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:

3375
```cpp
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
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:
3386
3387

```shell
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
```

3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
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.
3398

3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
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.
3407

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3408
### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
3409

3410
3411
Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
use the macro:
3412

3413
```cpp
3414
3415
MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }
```
3416
3417
3418

where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that
references `negation` and `param_name`.
3419
3420

For example:
3421

3422
```cpp
3423
3424
MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
```
3425

3426
will allow you to write:
3427

3428
```cpp
3429
3430
  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
```
3431

3432
which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
3433
3434

```shell
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
  Value of: Blah("a")
  Expected: has absolute value 10
    Actual: -9
```

3440
3441
Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the
message human-friendly.
3442

3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
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:
3450

3451
```cpp
3452
3453
3454
MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }
```

3455
3456
3457
3458
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
3459
3460
3461
expression.

For example,
3462

3463
```cpp
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
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));
3472
```
3473

3474
would generate a failure that contains the message:
3475
3476

```shell
3477
3478
3479
  Expected: is in range [4, 6]
```

3480
3481
3482
3483
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,

3484
```cpp
3485
3486
3487
3488
  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
  ...
  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
```
3489

3490
would generate a failure that contains the text:
3491
3492

```shell
3493
3494
3495
3496
  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
```

For the purpose of typing, you can view
3497

3498
```cpp
3499
3500
MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
```
3501

3502
as shorthand for
3503

3504
```cpp
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>
FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>
Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }
```

3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
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.
3528
3529

You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:
3530

3531
```cpp
3532
3533
3534
3535
MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }
MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }
```

3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
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).
3544

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3545
### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers
3546

3547
3548
3549
3550
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.
3551
3552
3553

The interface looks like this:

3554
```cpp
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
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
3564
  std::ostream* stream();
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
};

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

3572
  // Returns true if and only if the matcher matches x; also explains the match
3573
3574
3575
3576
  // result to 'listener'.
  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0;

  // Describes this matcher to an ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3577
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3578
3579

  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3580
  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const;
3581
3582
3583
};
```

3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
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:
3594

3595
```cpp
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
using ::testing::MakeMatcher;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
 public:
3603
3604
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
3605
3606
3607
    return (n % 7) == 0;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3608
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
3609
3610
3611
    *os << "is divisible by 7";
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3612
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
3613
3614
3615
3616
    *os << "is not divisible by 7";
  }
};

3617
Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
3618
3619
3620
  return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher);
}

3621
...
3622
3623
3624
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
```

3625
3626
You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
`listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
3627

3628
```cpp
3629
3630
class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
 public:
3631
3632
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
                       MatchResultListener* listener) const override {
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
    const int remainder = n % 7;
    if (remainder != 0) {
      *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder;
    }
    return remainder == 0;
  }
  ...
};
```

3643
3644
3645
Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:

```shell
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
Value of: x
Expected: is divisible by 7
  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3651
### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
3652

3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
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.
3660

3661
3662
3663
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:
3664

3665
```cpp
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
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
3687
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
3688
3689

  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3690
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
3691
3692
3693
3694
};

// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class
// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.
3695
PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
3696
3697
  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
}
3698

3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
...

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

**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from
3705
3706
`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be
virtual.
3707

3708
3709
Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming
additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`.
3710

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3711
### Writing New Cardinalities
3712

3713
3714
3715
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)`.
3716

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3717
3718
3719
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`):
3720

3721
```cpp
3722
3723
3724
3725
class CardinalityInterface {
 public:
  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();

3726
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality.
3727
3728
  virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

3729
3730
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this
  // cardinality.
3731
3732
3733
  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

  // Describes self to an ostream.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3734
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3735
3736
3737
};
```

3738
3739
For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can
write
3740

3741
```cpp
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
using ::testing::Cardinality;
using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
using ::testing::MakeCardinality;

class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
 public:
3748
  bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3749
3750
3751
    return (call_count % 2) == 0;
  }

3752
  bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3753
3754
3755
    return false;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3756
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
    *os << "called even number of times";
  }
};

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

3765
...
3766
3767
3768
3769
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))
      .Times(EvenNumber());
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3770
### Writing New Actions Quickly {#QuickNewActions}
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785

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):
3786

3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
```
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
3799
#### Legacy macro-based Actions
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805

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.
3806
3807

By writing
3808

3809
```cpp
3810
3811
ACTION(name) { statements; }
```
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818

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:

3819
```cpp
3820
3821
ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
```
3822

3823
allows you to write
3824

3825
```cpp
3826
3827
3828
... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());
```

3829
3830
3831
3832
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.
3833
3834

Another example:
3835

3836
```cpp
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
ACTION(Foo) {
  (*arg2)(5);
  Blah();
  *arg1 = 0;
  return arg0;
}
```

3845
3846
3847
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.
3848

3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
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
3858
3859

For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
3860

3861
```cpp
3862
3863
int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
```
3864

3865
we have:
3866

3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
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*)`
3877

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3878
#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
3879
3880
3881

Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
another macro
3882

3883
```cpp
3884
3885
3886
3887
ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
```

For example,
3888

3889
```cpp
3890
3891
ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
```
3892

3893
will allow you to write
3894

3895
```cpp
3896
3897
3898
3899
// Returns argument #0 + 5.
... WillOnce(Add(5));
```

3900
3901
3902
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.
3903

3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
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,
3912

3913
```cpp
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
  double dx = arg0 - x;
  double dy = arg1 - y;
  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
}
```
3920

3921
lets you write
3922

3923
```cpp
3924
3925
3926
... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
```

3927
3928
You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of
parameters is 0.
3929
3930

You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
3931

3932
```cpp
3933
3934
3935
3936
ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3937
### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION
3938
3939
3940
3941

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.
3942

3943
3944
Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. There are
several tricks to do that. For example:
3945

3946
```cpp
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
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;
}
```

3962
3963
where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that
verifies two types are the same.
3964

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3965
### Writing New Action Templates Quickly
3966
3967
3968
3969

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*()`.
3970
3971

The syntax:
3972

3973
```cpp
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,
                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),
                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }
```

3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
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.
3984
3985

Example:
3986

3987
```cpp
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
// 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
3994
  *output = T(std::get<k>(args));
3995
3996
3997
3998
}
```

To create an instance of an action template, write:
3999

4000
```cpp
4001
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
4002
```
4003
4004
4005
4006

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:

4007
```cpp
4008
4009
4010
using ::testing::_;
...
  int n;
4011
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));
4012
4013
```

4014
4015
4016
If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide
additional template arguments:

4017
```cpp
4018
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)
4019
```
4020

4021
4022
where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`.

4023
4024
4025
`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:
4026

4027
```cpp
4028
4029
4030
  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);
```

4031
4032
4033
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`?
4034

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4035
### Using the ACTION Object's Type
4036

4037
4038
4039
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:
4040

4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
| 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)`        :                       :
| ...                           | ...                 | ...                   |
4057

4058
4059
4060
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.
4061

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4062
### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions}
4063
4064

While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
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.
4070
4071

An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement
4072
4073
`::testing::ActionInterface<F>`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in
which the action will be used. For example:
4074

4075
```cpp
4076
4077
template <typename F>
class ActionInterface {
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
 public:
  virtual ~ActionInterface();

  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type
  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.
  //
4084

4085
  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4086
  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
4087
4088
  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
};
4089
```
4090

4091
```cpp
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
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
4101
4102
  int Perform(const std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
    int* p = std::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
    return *p++;
  }
};

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

4111
...
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
  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
4119
### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions}
4120

4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
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()`).
4126

4127
4128
4129
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:
4130

4131
```cpp
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
namespace testing {
template <typename Impl>
PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);
}  // namespace testing
```

4138
4139
4140
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:
4141

4142
```cpp
4143
4144
4145
4146
class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
 public:
  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4147
4148
    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args).
    return std::get<1>(args);
4149
4150
4151
4152
  }
};
```

4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
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.
4160

4161
4162
4163
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:
4164

4165
```cpp
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;
using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;

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

4174
Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones:
4175

4176
```cpp
4177
4178
4179
4180
using ::testing::_;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
4181
4182
4183
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
              (override));
4184
4185
};

4186
  ...
4187
  MockFoo foo;
4188
4189
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
4190
  ...
4191
  foo.DoThis(true, 5);  // Will return 5.
4192
4193
4194
  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4195
### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values
4196

4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
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.
4202
4203

This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
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.
4209

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4210
## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
4211
4212
4213
4214

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4215
### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266

`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 -->