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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
7
{: .callout .note}
8
9
10
11
**Note:** gMock lives in the `testing` name space. For readability, it is
recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in your file before using the
name `Foo` defined by gMock. We omit such `using` statements in this section for
brevity, but you should do it in your own code.
12

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
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
38
39
40
*   **`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
41

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
42
### Dealing with unprotected commas
43

44
45
46
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
47
48
{: .bad}
```cpp
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
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
58
59
{: .good}
```cpp
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
73
{: .good}
```cpp
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
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
83
### Mocking Private or Protected Methods
84
85
86
87
88
89
90

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:
91

92
```cpp
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
class Foo {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0;

 protected:
  virtual void Resume();

 private:
  virtual int GetTimeOut();
};

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  ...
108
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Transform, (Gadget* g), (override));
109
110
111

  // The following must be in the public section, even though the
  // methods are protected or private in the base class.
112
113
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Resume, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetTimeOut, (), (override));
114
115
116
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
117
### Mocking Overloaded Methods
118
119
120

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

121
```cpp
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
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 {
  ...
139
140
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override));
141

142
143
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
144
145
146
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
147
{: .callout .note}
148
149
150
**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:
151

152
```cpp
153
154
155
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  using Foo::Add;
156
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
157
158
159
160
161
  // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x);
  ...
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
162
### Mocking Class Templates
163

164
You can mock class templates just like any class.
165

166
```cpp
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
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> {
  ...
180
181
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
182
183
184
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
185
### Mocking Non-virtual Methods {#MockingNonVirtualMethods}
186

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
187
gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in Hi-perf dependency injection.
188

189
190
191
192
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`):
193

194
```cpp
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
// 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:
208
209
  MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
  MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
210
211
212
213
  ...
};
```

214
215
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.
216

217
218
219
220
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).
221

222
223
224
225
226
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:
227

228
```cpp
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
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
241
242
`CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
tests.
243

244
```cpp
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
  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
252
### Mocking Free Functions
253

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
254
255
256
It is not possible to directly mock a free function (i.e. a C-style function or
a static method). If you need to, you can rewrite your code to use an interface
(abstract class).
257

258
259
Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, introduce an
interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls the free function:
260

261
```cpp
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:
  ...
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
271
  bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) override {
272
     return OpenFile(path, mode);
273
274
275
276
  }
};
```

277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
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).

288
289
290
291
Alternatively, instead of introducing a new interface, you can rewrite your code
to accept a std::function instead of the free function, and then use
[MockFunction](#MockFunction) to mock the std::function.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
292
### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
293

294
295
Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro
[was introduced in 2018](https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/c5f08bf91944ce1b19bcf414fa1760e69d20afc2),
296
297
298
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.
299

300
The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`:
301

302
303
304
305
306
307
308
*   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.
309

310
Old macros and their new equivalents:
311

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
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
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
<table>
  <tr><th colspan=2>Simple</th></tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Old</td>
    <td><code>MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>New</td>
    <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))</code></td>
  </tr>

  <tr><th colspan=2>Const Method</th></tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Old</td>
    <td><code>MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>New</td>
    <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))</code></td>
  </tr>

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

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

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

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

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

  <tr><th colspan=2>Const Method with Call Type in a Class Template</th></tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Old</td>
    <td><code>MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>New</td>
    <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))</code></td>
  </tr>
392
393
</table>

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
394
### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
395
396
397
398

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
399
also by default cause gMock to print a warning.
400
401
402
403

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.
404
405
406

Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:

407
```cpp
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
TEST(...) {
  MockFoo mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

415
416
417
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:
418

419
```cpp
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

429
430
`NiceMock<MockFoo>` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever
`MockFoo` is accepted.
431
432
433
434

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

435
```cpp
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

445
446
The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting
calls failures:
447

448
```cpp
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
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.
}
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
461
{: .callout .note}
462
463
464
465
466
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
467
468
There are some caveats though (sadly they are side effects of C++'s
limitations):
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477

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
478
    requires cleaning up existing tests.
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490

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
491
### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
492
493
494

Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
For example:
495

496
```cpp
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
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;
};
```

507
508
509
510
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.
511

512
The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class:
513

514
```cpp
515
516
517
class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink {
 public:
  ...
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
518
  void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename,
519
                    const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time,
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
520
                    const char* message, size_t message_len) override {
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
    // 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);
531
532
533
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Log,
              (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,
               const string& message));
534
535
536
};
```

537
By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock
538
class more user-friendly.
539

540
541
542
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:
543

544
545
546
547
548
```cpp
class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
 public:
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
549

550
551
552
553
  // the above methods delegate to this one:
  MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
};
```
554

555
556
This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
argument matchers:
557

558
559
```cpp
ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
560
    .WillByDefault(Return(MakeMockTurtle()));
561
```
562

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
563
### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes
564

565
566
567
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.
568

569
Try not to do that.
570

571
572
573
574
575
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.
576

577
578
579
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.
580

581
582
583
584
585
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.
586

587
This technique incurs some overhead:
588

589
590
*   You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem).
*   There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn.
591

592
593
However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better
testability:
594

595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
*   `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
625
### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
626
627
628

Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
example:
629

630
```cpp
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
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:
640
  char DoThis(int n) override {
641
    return (n > 0) ? '+' :
642
           (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
643
644
  }

645
  void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
646
647
648
649
650
    *p = strlen(s);
  }
};
```

651
652
653
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.
654

655
656
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:
657

658
```cpp
659
660
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
661
662
663
  // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
664
665
666
667

  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.
  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.
  void DelegateToFake() {
668
669
670
671
672
673
    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);
    });
674
  }
675

676
677
678
679
680
 private:
  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.
};
```

681
682
683
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.:
684

685
```cpp
686
687
688
689
using ::testing::_;

TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
  MockFoo foo;
690
691

  foo.DelegateToFake();  // Enables the fake for delegation.
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700

  // 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.
701
  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);  // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
702
703
704
705
706
707
  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
}
```

**Some tips:**

708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
*   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
743
### Delegating Calls to a Real Object
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756

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:
757

758
```cpp
759
760
761
762
763
764
using ::testing::AtLeast;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  MockFoo() {
    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
765
766
767
768
769
770
    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);
    });
771
772
    ...
  }
773
774
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...);
775
776
777
778
779
  ...
 private:
  Foo real_;
};

780
...
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
  MockFoo mock;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())
      .Times(3);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))
      .Times(AtLeast(1));
  ... use mock in test ...
```

789
790
791
792
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.
793

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
794
### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class
795

796
797
798
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:
799

800
```cpp
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
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.
812
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
813
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
814
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
815
816
817
818
};
```

Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of
819
820
821
822
`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).
823

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
824
You can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by:
825

826
```cpp
827
...
828
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
829
    return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
830
  });
831
832
833
834
```

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

835
```cpp
836
...
837
  ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
838
    return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
839
  });
840
841
```

842
843
844
(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.)
845

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
846
## Using Matchers
847

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
848
### Matching Argument Values Exactly
849
850
851

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

852
```cpp
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
using ::testing::Return;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))
      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
860
### Using Simple Matchers
861
862
863

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

864
```cpp
865
866
867
868
869
870
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()));
871
      // The second argument must not be NULL.
872
873
874
875
```

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

876
```cpp
877
878
879
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
880
### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
881
882

You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
883
`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
884

885
```cpp
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
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
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
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) {
911
  return Property("foo", &MyClass::foo, Contains(f));
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
912
913
914
915
916
};
...
  EXPECT_THAT(x, HasFoo("blah"));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
917
### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
918

919
920
921
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!
922

923
924
925
926
927
928
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.
929

930
931
932
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 :
933

934
935
936
937
938
939
940
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).
941

942
The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.
943
944
945

Here's one example:

946
```cpp
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
955
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
956
957
};

958
...
959
960
961
962
963
  MockFoo foo;
  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));
```

964
965
966
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`.
967

968
969
970
`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.
971

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
972
### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload}
973

974
975
If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some
help on which overloaded version it is.
976

977
978
To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the
`Const()` argument wrapper.
979

980
```cpp
981
982
983
984
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
985
986
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
987
988
};

989
...
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
  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));
```

998
(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.)
999

1000
1001
1002
1003
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):
1004

1005
```cpp
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
using ::testing::An;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::TypedEq;

class MockPrinter : public Printer {
 public:
1012
1013
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
};

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
1029
### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments
1030

1031
1032
1033
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:
1034

1035
```cpp
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
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'));
```

1048
1049
Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be
returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned.
1050

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1051
### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole
1052

1053
1054
1055
1056
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,
1057

1058
```cpp
1059
1060
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Ne;
1061
using ::testing::Lt;
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))
      .With(Lt());
```

1067
1068
says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than
the second argument.
1069

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1070
1071
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.
1072

1073
1074
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())`.
1075

1076
1077
You can use `Args<k1, ..., kn>(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a
tuple) against `m`. For example,
1078

1079
```cpp
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Args;
using ::testing::Lt;
...
1085
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah)
1086
1087
1088
      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));
```

1089
says that `Blah` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where `x < y <
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1090
z`. Note that in this example, it wasn't necessary to specify the positional
1091
matchers.
1092

1093
As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1094
1095
including the `Lt()` matcher above. See
[Multi-argument Matchers](reference/matchers.md#MultiArgMatchers) for the
1096
complete list.
1097

1098
1099
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
1100
1101
take a `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected arguments
as *one* single tuple to the predicate.
1102

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1103
### Using Matchers as Predicates
1104

1105
1106
1107
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
1108
matchers were not allowed to participate.
1109

1110
1111
Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by
wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example,
1112

1113
```cpp
1114
1115
1116
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

1117
1118
1119
1120
using ::testing::Matches;
using ::testing::Ge;

vector<int> v;
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
...
// How many elements in v are >= 10?
const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));
```

1126
1127
1128
1129
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:
1130

1131
```cpp
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
using testing::AllOf;
using testing::Ge;
using testing::Le;
using testing::Matches;
using testing::Ne;
...
1138
1139
1140
Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1141
### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
1142

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1143
1144
See [`EXPECT_THAT`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_THAT) in the Assertions
Reference.
1145

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1146
### Using Predicates as Matchers
1147

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
gMock provides a set of built-in matchers for matching arguments with expected
values—see the [Matchers Reference](reference/matchers.md) for more information.
In case you find the built-in set 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:
1154

1155
```cpp
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
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)));
```

1164
Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return `bool`. It
1165
works as long as the return value can be used as the condition in the statement
1166
`if (condition) ...`.
1167

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1168
### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181

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:
1182

1183
```cpp
1184
using ::testing::Eq;
1185
1186
1187
using ::testing::Lt;
...
  // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1188
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(std::ref(bar))));
1189
1190

  // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1191
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(std::ref(bar))));
1192
1193
```

1194
1195
Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the `EXPECT_CALL()`, or the
result is undefined.
1196

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1197
### Validating a Member of an Object
1198

1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
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,
1204

1205
```cpp
1206
1207
1208
Field(&Foo::bar, m)
```

1209
1210
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies
matcher `m`.
1211

1212
```cpp
1213
1214
1215
Property(&Foo::baz, m)
```

1216
1217
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value
that satisfies matcher `m`.
1218
1219
1220

For example:

1221
1222
1223
| Expression                   | Description                              |
| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`.       |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1224
| `Property(&Foo::name,  StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with  `"John "`. |
1225

1226
Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1227
1228
1229
and be declared as `const`. Don't use `Property()` against member functions that
you do not own, because taking addresses of functions is fragile and generally
not part of the contract of the function.
1230

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1231
`Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
1232
instance,
1233

1234
```cpp
1235
1236
1237
using ::testing::Field;
using ::testing::Ge;
...
1238
1239
1240
Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))
```

1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
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.
1250

1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
```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));
}
```
1263

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1264
### Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument
1265

1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
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.
1271

1272
`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer
1273
points to. For example:
1274

1275
```cpp
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
using ::testing::Ge;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3))));
```

1282
1283
expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value greater
than or equal to 3.
1284

1285
1286
One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as a match
failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of
1287

1288
```cpp
1289
1290
1291
1292
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
  AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m))
```

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

1298
1299
Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers **and**
smart pointers (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, etc)?
1300

1301
1302
1303
1304
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...).
1305

1306
### Defining a Custom Matcher Class {#CustomMatcherClass}
1307

1308
1309
1310
1311
Most matchers can be simply defined using [the MATCHER* macros](#NewMatchers),
which are terse and flexible, and produce good error messages. However, these
macros are not very explicit about the interfaces they create and are not always
suitable, especially for matchers that will be widely reused.
1312

1313
1314
1315
For more advanced cases, you may need to define your own matcher class. A custom
matcher allows you to test a specific invariant property of that object. Let's
take a look at how to do so.
1316

1317
1318
1319
1320
Imagine you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, which has
an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method. You want to constrain that the
argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` value is a given number. (This is an
invariant.) Here's how we can write and use a matcher class to do so:
1321

1322
```cpp
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1323
class BarPlusBazEqMatcher {
1324
 public:
1325
1326
  using is_gtest_matcher = void;

1327
1328
1329
  explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum)
      : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {}

1330
  bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1331
                       std::ostream* /* listener */) const {
1332
1333
1334
    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
  }

1335
1336
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
    *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
1337
1338
  }

1339
1340
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const {
    *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
  }
 private:
  const int expected_sum_;
};

1346
::testing::Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1347
  return BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum);
1348
1349
1350
}

...
1351
  Foo foo;
1352
  EXPECT_THAT(foo, BarPlusBazEq(5))...;
1353
1354
```

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

1357
1358
1359
1360
Sometimes an STL container (e.g. list, vector, map, ...) is passed to a mock
function and you may want to validate it. Since most STL containers support the
`==` operator, you can write `Eq(expected_container)` or simply
`expected_container` to match a container exactly.
1361

1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
Sometimes, though, you may want to be more flexible (for example, the first
element must be an exact match, but the second element can be any positive
number, and so on). Also, containers used in tests often have a small number of
elements, and having to define the expected container out-of-line is a bit of a
hassle.
1367

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

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

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

If you instead write:

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

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

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

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

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

1414
1415
1416
In case the array needs to be dynamically created (and therefore the array size
cannot be inferred by the compiler), you can give `ElementsAreArray()` an
additional argument to specify the array size:
1417

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

1426
1427
Use `Pair` when comparing maps or other associative containers.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1428
1429
{% raw %}

1430
```cpp
1431
1432
using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
using ::testing::Pair;
1433
...
1434
1435
1436
  absl::flat_hash_map<string, int> m = {{"a", 1}, {"b", 2}, {"c", 3}};
  EXPECT_THAT(m, UnorderedElementsAre(
      Pair("a", 1), Pair("b", 2), Pair("c", 3)));
1437
1438
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1439
1440
{% endraw %}

1441
1442
**Tips:**

1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
*   `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
1453
1454
    with containers whose element order are undefined (such as a
    `std::unordered_map`) you should use `UnorderedElementsAre`.
1455

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1456
### Sharing Matchers
1457

1458
1459
1460
1461
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.
1462

1463
Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again and
1464
again, there is no need to build it every time. Just assign it to a matcher
1465
variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example,
1466

1467
```cpp
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::Matcher;
...
1473
1474
1475
1476
  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
1477
### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
1478

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1479
{: .callout .warning}
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
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
1490
## Setting Expectations
1491

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1492
### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542

**`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
1543
### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555

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
1556
### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
1557
1558
1559

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

1560
```cpp
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
using ::testing::_;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .Times(0);
```

1567
1568
If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the
expected calls:
1569

1570
```cpp
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
using ::testing::AnyNumber;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))
      .Times(AnyNumber());
```

1579
1580
A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements
will be an error.
1581

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1582
### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
1583

1584
1585
*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
*Very* different.
1586

1587
1588
1589
1590
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.
1591

1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
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.
1597

1598
1599
**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
the way the test expects it to behave.
1600

1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
**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).
1606

1607
1608
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?
1609

1610
1611
1612
1613
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.
1614

1615
1616
A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
mock strict may change the test's result.
1617
1618
1619

Let's look at an example:

1620
```cpp
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
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 ...
}
```

1631
1632
1633
1634
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.*
1635

1636
1637
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`:
1638

1639
```cpp
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
  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"));
```

1646
1647
1648
1649
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.
1650

1651
1652
Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
1653

1654
1655
For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
1656

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1657
### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
1658

1659
1660
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:
1661

1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
```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
1683
### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
1684

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
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.
1690
1691
1692
1693

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`:
1694

1695
```cpp
1696
1697
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InSequence;
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708

  {
    InSequence s;

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

1709
1710
1711
1712
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.
1713

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1714
### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
1715

1716
1717
1718
1719
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.
1720

1721
gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1722
calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1723
[`After` clause](reference/mocking.md#EXPECT_CALL.After) of `EXPECT_CALL`.
1724

1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
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:
1730

1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
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.
1736

1737
1738
1739
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.
1740

1741
1742
Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For
example,
1743

1744
1745
1746
```cpp
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
  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);
```

1759
specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`):
1760

1761
```text
1762
1763
1764
1765
       +---> B
       |
  A ---|
       |
Berke's avatar
Berke committed
1766
       +---> C ---> D
1767
1768
```

1769
1770
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.
1771

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1772
### Controlling When an Expectation Retires
1773

1774
1775
1776
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
1777

1778
```cpp
1779
1780
1781
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1782
1783
  Sequence s1, s2;

1784
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #1
1785
1786
      .Times(AnyNumber())
      .InSequence(s1, s2);
1787
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))   // #2
1788
      .InSequence(s1);
1789
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))      // #3
1790
1791
1792
      .InSequence(s2);
```

1793
1794
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.
1795

1796
1797
Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For
example,
1798

1799
```cpp
1800
1801
using ::testing::_;
...
1802
1803
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."));     // #2
1804
1805
```

1806
1807
1808
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.
1809

1810
1811
If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it
becomes saturated:
1812

1813
```cpp
1814
1815
using ::testing::_;
...
1816
1817
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #2
1818
1819
1820
      .RetiresOnSaturation();
```

1821
1822
1823
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.
1824

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1825
## Using Actions
1826

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1827
### Returning References from Mock Methods
1828

1829
1830
If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()`
instead of `Return()` to return a result:
1831

1832
```cpp
1833
1834
1835
1836
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1837
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
};
...
  MockFoo foo;
  Bar bar;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));
1844
...
1845
1846
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1847
### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods
1848

1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
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.
1854
1855

If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using
1856
1857
1858
1859
`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?
1860

ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1861
Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`:
1862

1863
```cpp
1864
1865
1866
1867
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1868
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
};
...
  int x = 0;
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1874
      .WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x)));  // Wrong!
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
  x = 42;
  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
```

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

1881
```text
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
Value of: foo.GetValue()
  Actual: 0
Expected: 42
```

1887
1888
1889
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
1890
1891
1892
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.
1893

1894
1895
`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It
returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:
1896

1897
```cpp
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
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
1908
### Combining Actions
1909

1910
Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's fine. `DoAll()`
1911
allows you to do a sequence of actions every time. Only the return value of the
1912
last action in the sequence will be used.
1913

1914
```cpp
1915
using ::testing::_;
1916
1917
1918
1919
using ::testing::DoAll;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1920
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
};
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
                      action_2,
                      ...
                      action_n));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1930
### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936

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:
1937

1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
```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
1954
### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959

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`.
1960
1961
1962
1963

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

1964
```cpp
1965
using ::testing::_;
1966
1967
1968
1969
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
1970
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
1971
  ...
1972
}
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))
      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));
```

1979
1980
In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the
`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based).
1981

1982
1983
1984
`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.
1985
1986

If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain
1987
1988
`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the
`Return()` statement last:
1989

1990
```cpp
1991
using ::testing::_;
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1992
using ::testing::DoAll;
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
  ...
1999
2000
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
}
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                      Return(true)));
```

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
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:
2015

2016
```cpp
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;

class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
 public:
2022
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
2023
  ...
2024
}
2025
2026
...
  MockArrayMutator mutator;
2027
  int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));
```

This also works when the argument is an output iterator:

2034
```cpp
2035
using ::testing::_;
bartshappee's avatar
bartshappee committed
2036
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
2037
2038
2039

class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
 public:
2040
2041
  MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
              (override));
2042
  ...
2043
}
2044
2045
...
  MockRolodex rolodex;
2046
  vector<string> names = {"George", "John", "Thomas"};
2047
2048
2049
2050
  EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end()));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2051
### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State
2052

2053
2054
2055
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:
2056

2057
```cpp
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;

...
  {
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
     InSequence seq;
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));
2069
2070
2071
2072
  }
  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();
```

2073
2074
This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called
and return `false` afterwards.
2075

2076
2077
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:
2078

2079
```cpp
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::SaveArg;
using ::testing::Return;

ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }
...
  int previous_value = 0;
2087
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue)
2088
      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));
2089
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue)
2090
2091
2092
2093
      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));
  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();
```

2094
2095
Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last
`UpdateValue()` call.
2096

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2097
### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue}
2098

2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
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.
2104

2105
2106
2107
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:
2108

2109
```cpp
2110
2111
using ::testing::DefaultValue;

2112
2113
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2114
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
2115
2116
};

2117
2118

...
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
  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
2135
Please note that changing the default value for a type can make your tests hard
2136
2137
2138
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.
2139

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2140
### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method
2141

2142
2143
2144
2145
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:
2146

2147
```cpp
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
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.
```

2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
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.
2177

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2178
### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
2179

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

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

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

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

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

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

2211
2212
2213
2214
  foo.Sum(5, 6);         // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6).
  foo.Sum(2, 3);         // Invokes Sum3(1, 2, 3).
  foo.ComplexJob(10);    // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10).
  foo.ComplexJob(-1);    // Invokes the inline lambda.
2215
2216
```

2217
The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible*
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the latter's arguments (if
it takes any) can be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the
former, and the former's return type can be implicitly converted to that of the
latter. So, you can invoke something whose type is *not* exactly the same as the
mock function, as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh?
2223

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2224
Note that:
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240

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

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2241
### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269

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

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

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

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

TEST_F(FooTest, Test) {
  MockFoo foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(2))
      .WillOnce(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(SignOfSum, 5)));
  EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(2));  // Invokes SignOfSum(5, 2).
}
```
2270

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2273
2274
2275
2276
`Invoke()` passes the mock function's arguments to the function, etc being
invoked such that the callee has the full context of the call to work with. If
the invoked function is not interested in some or all of the arguments, it can
simply ignore them.
2277

2278
Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2279
2280
2281
the arguments of the mock function. She could do that using a wrapper function
that throws away the arguments before invoking an underlining nullary function.
Needless to say, this can be tedious and obscures the intent of the test.
2282

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2283
2284
2285
2286
There are two solutions to this problem. First, you can pass any callable of
zero args as an action. Alternatively, use `InvokeWithoutArgs()`, which is like
`Invoke()` except that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the
callee. Here's an example of each:
2287

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

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

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

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2310
Note that:
2311

2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
*   The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the
    action itself is destructed.
*   If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need
    to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g.

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2328
### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
2329

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

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

and you may want to invoke this callable argument:

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2353
{: .callout .note}
2354
2355
2356
2357
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?
2358

2359
Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
2360

2361
```cpp
2362
InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)
2363
2364
```

2365
2366
2367
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.
2368
2369
2370

With that, you could write:

2371
```cpp
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
2377
2378
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2379
2380
```

2381
What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2382
inside `std::ref()`:
2383

2384
```cpp
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
              ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2393
2394
2395
2396
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2397
2398
2399
      .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.
2400
2401
```

2402
What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2403
argument in `std::ref()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the
2404
2405
2406
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:
2407

2408
```cpp
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2416
2417
2418
2419
  MockFoo foo;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
      // 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.
2425
2426
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2427
### Ignoring an Action's Result
2428

2429
2430
2431
2432
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:
2433

2434
```cpp
2435
using ::testing::_;
2436
2437
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
using ::testing::Return;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2445
2446
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
2447
2448
};

2449
  ...
2450
2451
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))
2452
2453
2454
2455
      // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));
      // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs
      // to return void.
      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process));
2456
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
2457
2458
      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething),
                      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.
2459
2460
2461
                      Return(true)));
```

2462
2463
Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns
`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors.
2464

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2465
### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs}
2466

2467
2468
2469
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:
2470

2471
```cpp
2472
2473
2474
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
...
2475
2476
2477
2478
  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));
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
...
bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {
  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;
}
...
2484
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2485
2486
2487
      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(
```

2488
2489
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:
2490

2491
```cpp
2492
2493
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
2494
...
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
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);
}
...
2501
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.
```

But isn't this awkward?

2507
2508
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:
2509

2510
```cpp
2511
WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)
2512
2513
```

2514
2515
2516
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:
2517

2518
```cpp
2519
2520
2521
2522
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::WithArgs;
...
2523
2524
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));  // No need to define your own adaptor.
2525
2526
```

2527
For better readability, gMock also gives you:
2528

2529
2530
2531
*   `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and
*   `WithArg<N>(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes
    *one* argument.
2532

2533
2534
As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for
`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`.
2535
2536
2537

Here are more tips:

2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
*   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.
2548

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2549
### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions
2550

2551
2552
2553
2554
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.
2555

2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
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
2562

2563
```cpp
2564
2565
2566
2567
 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));
2568
2569
2570
2571
```

instead of

2572
```cpp
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
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);
}
...
2583
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2584
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
2585
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
```

you could write

2591
```cpp
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::Unused;

double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
...
2600
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2601
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
2602
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2603
2604
2605
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2606
### Sharing Actions
2607

2608
2609
2610
2611
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.
2612

2613
If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, you may
2614
not have to build it from scratch every time. If the action doesn't have an
2615
2616
2617
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:
2618

2619
```cpp
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
using ::testing::Action;
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
...
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                                      Return(true));
  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...
```

2630
2631
2632
2633
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
2634
action will exhibit different behaviors. Example:
2635

2636
```cpp
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
  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

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

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

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

  const int32 kEventId = 321;
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2683
  absl::Notification done;
2684
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_event_dispatcher, DispatchEvent(kEventId))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2685
      .WillOnce([&done] { done.Notify(); });
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697

  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.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2698
{: .callout .note}
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
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
  // When this fires, the unique_ptr<> specified by ByMove(...) will
  // be returned.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("world"))
2791
      .WillOnce(Return(ByMove(std::make_unique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal))));
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797

  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
      .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
2812
        return std::make_unique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2813
      });
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));
2831
  EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(std::make_unique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2832
2833
              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
Support for move-only function arguments was only introduced to gMock in April
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2849
2850
of 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
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2851
2852
2853
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
  // 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.
2875
  mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(std::make_unique<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.
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2978
{: .callout .tip}
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
**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
2984
2985
2986
2987
Do not set new expectations after verifying and clearing a mock after its use.
Setting expectations after code that exercises the mock has undefined behavior.
See [Using Mocks in Tests](gmock_for_dummies.md#using-mocks-in-tests) for more
information.
2988

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2989
### Using Checkpoints {#UsingCheckPoints}
2990

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2991
2992
2993
Sometimes you might want to test a mock object's behavior in phases whose sizes
are each manageable, or you might want to set more detailed expectations about
which API calls invoke which mock functions.
2994

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2995
2996
2997
2998
A technique you can use is to put the expectations in a sequence and insert
calls to a dummy "checkpoint" 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 the code:
2999

3000
```cpp
3001
3002
3003
  Foo(1);
  Foo(2);
  Foo(3);
3004
3005
```

3006
and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke `mock.Bar("a")`, but
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3007
`Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything, you can write:
3008

3009
```cpp
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
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);
}
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3033
3034
3035
3036
The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` call must happen before
checkpoint "1", the second `Bar("a")` call must happen after checkpoint "2", and
nothing should happen between the two checkpoints. The explicit checkpoints make
it clear which `Bar("a")` is called by which call to `Foo()`.
3037

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3038
### Mocking Destructors
3039

3040
3041
3042
3043
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.
3044

3045
3046
3047
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:
3048

3049
```cpp
3050
MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ());  // Won't compile!
3051
3052
```

3053
3054
3055
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:
3056

3057
```cpp
3058
3059
3060
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
3061
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3062
  ~MockFoo() override { Die(); }
3063
3064
3065
};
```

3066
3067
3068
(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:
3069

3070
```cpp
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
  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
3086
### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
3087

3088
3089
3090
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.
3091

3092
3093
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.
3094
3095
3096

Remember the steps for using a mock:

3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
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.
3104

3105
3106
If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live
happily together:
3107

3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
*   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.
3116

3117
3118
3119
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.
3120

3121
3122
gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
that called the mock function. For example, in
3123

3124
```cpp
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))
      .WillOnce(action1);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))
      .WillOnce(action2);
```

3131
3132
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.
3133

3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
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.
3139

3140
3141
3142
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.
3143

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3144
### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints
3145

3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
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.
3152

3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
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.
3158

3159
3160
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:
3161

3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
*   `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).
3169

3170
3171
Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
so:
3172

3173
```cpp
3174
3175
3176
  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
```

3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
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!
3182

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3183
### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
3184

3185
3186
3187
3188
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?
3189

3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
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?
3195

3196
3197
You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
flag. For example, given the test program:
3198

3199
```cpp
3200
3201
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
using testing::_;
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo {
 public:
3208
  MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y));
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
};

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:

3224
3225
```shell
[ RUN       ] Foo.Bar
3226
3227

foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
3228
3229
Stack trace: ...

3230
foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
3231
3232
Stack trace: ...

3233
foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
3234
3235
Stack trace: ...

3236
foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
3237
3238
3239
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
Stack trace: ...

3240
foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
3241
3242
3243
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
Stack trace: ...

3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
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
```

3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
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.
3256

3257
3258
3259
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.
3260

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3261
### Running Tests in Emacs
3262

3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
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.
3268

3269
3270
3271
3272
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
3273
(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)
3274
(global-set-key [M-up]  '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))
3275
3276
```

3277
3278
3279
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.
3280

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3281
## Extending gMock
3282

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3283
### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
3284

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3285
{: .callout .warning}
3286
3287
3288
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.
3289

3290
3291
The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
The syntax:
3292

3293
```cpp
3294
3295
3296
MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }
```

3297
3298
3299
3300
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`.
3301

3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
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`.
3307

3308
3309
3310
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.
3311
3312

For example:
3313

3314
```cpp
3315
3316
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
```
3317

3318
allows you to write
3319

3320
```cpp
3321
3322
3323
  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3324

3325
or,
3326

3327
```cpp
3328
3329
  using ::testing::Not;
  ...
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3330
  // Verifies that a value is divisible by 7 and the other is not.
3331
3332
3333
  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3334

3335
If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
3336
3337

```shell
3338
3339
3340
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27
3341
  ...
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
  Value of: some_other_expression
  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)
    Actual: 21
```

3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
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:

3354
```cpp
3355
3356
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
        absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) {
3357
3358
3359
3360
  return (arg % 7) == 0;
}
```

3361
3362
3363
3364
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:

3365
```cpp
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
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:
3376
3377

```shell
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
```

3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
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.
3388

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3389
{: .callout .note}
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
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.
3398

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3399
### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
3400

3401
3402
Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
use the macro:
3403

3404
```cpp
3405
3406
MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }
```
3407
3408
3409

where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that
references `negation` and `param_name`.
3410
3411

For example:
3412

3413
```cpp
3414
3415
MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
```
3416

3417
will allow you to write:
3418

3419
```cpp
3420
3421
  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
```
3422

3423
which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
3424
3425

```shell
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
  Value of: Blah("a")
  Expected: has absolute value 10
    Actual: -9
```

3431
3432
Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the
message human-friendly.
3433

3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
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:
3441

3442
```cpp
3443
3444
3445
MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }
```

3446
3447
3448
3449
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
3450
3451
3452
expression.

For example,
3453

3454
```cpp
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
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));
3463
```
3464

3465
would generate a failure that contains the message:
3466
3467

```shell
3468
3469
3470
  Expected: is in range [4, 6]
```

3471
3472
3473
3474
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,

3475
```cpp
3476
3477
3478
3479
  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
  ...
  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
```
3480

3481
would generate a failure that contains the text:
3482
3483

```shell
3484
3485
3486
3487
  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
```

For the purpose of typing, you can view
3488

3489
```cpp
3490
3491
MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
```
3492

3493
as shorthand for
3494

3495
```cpp
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>
FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>
Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }
```

3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
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.
3519
3520

You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:
3521

3522
```cpp
3523
3524
3525
3526
MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }
MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }
```

3527
While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining a new
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
matcher, you should also consider implementing the matcher interface directly
instead (see the recipes that follow), especially if you need to use the matcher
a lot. While these approaches require more work, they give you more control on
the types of the value being matched and the matcher parameters, which in
general leads to better compiler error messages that pay off in the long run.
They also allow overloading matchers based on parameter types (as opposed to
just based on the number of parameters).
3535

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3536
### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers
3537

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3538
3539
3540
A matcher of argument type `T` implements the matcher interface for `T` and does
two things: it tests whether a value of type `T` matches the matcher, and can
describe what kind of values it matches. The latter ability is used for
3541
generating readable error messages when expectations are violated.
3542

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3543
A matcher of `T` must declare a typedef like:
3544

3545
```cpp
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3546
3547
using is_gtest_matcher = void;
```
3548

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3549
and supports the following operations:
3550

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
```cpp
// Match a value and optionally explain into an ostream.
bool matched = matcher.MatchAndExplain(value, maybe_os);
// where `value` is of type `T` and
// `maybe_os` is of type `std::ostream*`, where it can be null if the caller
// is not interested in there textual explanation.
3557

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3558
3559
3560
matcher.DescribeTo(os);
matcher.DescribeNegationTo(os);
// where `os` is of type `std::ostream*`.
3561
3562
```

3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
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:
3573

3574
```cpp
3575
3576
using ::testing::Matcher;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3577
class DivisibleBy7Matcher {
3578
 public:
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3579
3580
  using is_gtest_matcher = void;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3581
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream*) const {
3582
3583
3584
    return (n % 7) == 0;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3585
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3586
3587
3588
    *os << "is divisible by 7";
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3589
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3590
3591
3592
3593
    *os << "is not divisible by 7";
  }
};

3594
Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3595
  return DivisibleBy7Matcher();
3596
3597
}

3598
...
3599
3600
3601
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
```

3602
You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3603
`os` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
3604

3605
```cpp
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3606
class DivisibleBy7Matcher {
3607
 public:
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3608
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream* os) const {
3609
    const int remainder = n % 7;
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3610
3611
    if (remainder != 0 && os != nullptr) {
      *os << "the remainder is " << remainder;
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
    }
    return remainder == 0;
  }
  ...
};
```

3619
3620
3621
Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:

```shell
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
Value of: x
Expected: is divisible by 7
  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3627
{: .callout .tip}
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3628
3629
3630
Tip: for convenience, `MatchAndExplain()` can take a `MatchResultListener*`
instead of `std::ostream*`.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3631
### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
3632

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
Expanding what we learned above to *polymorphic* matchers is now just as simple
as adding templates in the right place.

```cpp

class NotNullMatcher {
 public:
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3640
3641
  using is_gtest_matcher = void;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
  // To implement a polymorphic matcher, we just need to make MatchAndExplain a
  // template on its first argument.

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

  // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3655
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707

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

NotNullMatcher NotNull() {
  return NotNullMatcher();
}

...

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

### Legacy Matcher Implementation

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

The interface looks like this:

```cpp
class MatchResultListener {
 public:
  ...
  // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream
  // is NULL.
  template <typename T>
  MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x);

  // Returns the underlying ostream.
  std::ostream* stream();
};

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

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

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

  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.
  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const;
};
```
3708

3709
3710
3711
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:
3712

3713
```cpp
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
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
3735
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
3736
3737

  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3738
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
3739
3740
3741
3742
};

// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class
// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.
3743
PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
3744
3745
  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
}
3746

3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
...

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3752
{: .callout .note}
3753
**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from
3754
3755
`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be
virtual.
3756

3757
3758
Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming
additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`.
3759

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3760
### Writing New Cardinalities
3761

3762
3763
3764
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)`.
3765

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3766
3767
If the [built-in set](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList) of cardinalities
doesn't suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3768
interface (in namespace `testing`):
3769

3770
```cpp
3771
3772
3773
3774
class CardinalityInterface {
 public:
  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();

3775
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality.
3776
3777
  virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

3778
3779
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this
  // cardinality.
3780
3781
3782
  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

  // Describes self to an ostream.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3783
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3784
3785
3786
};
```

3787
3788
For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can
write
3789

3790
```cpp
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
using ::testing::Cardinality;
using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
using ::testing::MakeCardinality;

class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
 public:
3797
  bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3798
3799
3800
    return (call_count % 2) == 0;
  }

3801
  bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3802
3803
3804
    return false;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3805
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
    *os << "called even number of times";
  }
};

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

3814
...
3815
3816
3817
3818
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))
      .Times(EvenNumber());
```

3819
### Writing New Actions {#QuickNewActions}
3820
3821

If the built-in actions don't work for you, you can easily define your own one.
3822
3823
All you need is a call operator with a signature compatible with the mocked
function. So you can use a lambda:
3824

3825
3826
3827
3828
```
MockFunction<int(int)> mock;
EXPECT_CALL(mock, Call).WillOnce([](const int input) { return input * 7; });
EXPECT_EQ(14, mock.AsStdFunction()(2));
3829
3830
```

3831
Or a struct with a call operator (even a templated one):
3832

3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
```
struct MultiplyBy {
  template <typename T>
  T operator()(T arg) { return arg * multiplier; }

  int multiplier;
3839
};
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844

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

3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
It's also fine for the callable to take no arguments, ignoring the arguments
supplied to the mock function:

```
MockFunction<int(int)> mock;
EXPECT_CALL(mock, Call).WillOnce([] { return 17; });
EXPECT_EQ(17, mock.AsStdFunction()(0));
```

When used with `WillOnce`, the callable can assume it will be called at most
once and is allowed to be a move-only type:

```
// An action that contains move-only types and has an &&-qualified operator,
// demanding in the type system that it be called at most once. This can be
// used with WillOnce, but the compiler will reject it if handed to
// WillRepeatedly.
struct MoveOnlyAction {
  std::unique_ptr<int> move_only_state;
  std::unique_ptr<int> operator()() && { return std::move(move_only_state); }
};

MockFunction<std::unique_ptr<int>()> mock;
EXPECT_CALL(mock, Call).WillOnce(MoveOnlyAction{std::make_unique<int>(17)});
EXPECT_THAT(mock.AsStdFunction()(), Pointee(Eq(17)));
```

More generally, to use with a mock function whose signature is `R(Args...)` the
object can be anything convertible to `OnceAction<R(Args...)>` or
`Action<R(Args...)`>. The difference between the two is that `OnceAction` has
weaker requirements (`Action` requires a copy-constructible input that can be
called repeatedly whereas `OnceAction` requires only move-constructible and
supports `&&`-qualified call operators), but can be used only with `WillOnce`.
`OnceAction` is typically relevant only when supporting move-only types or
actions that want a type-system guarantee that they will be called at most once.

Typically the `OnceAction` and `Action` templates need not be referenced
directly in your actions: a struct or class with a call operator is sufficient,
as in the examples above. But fancier polymorphic actions that need to know the
specific return type of the mock function can define templated conversion
operators to make that possible. See `gmock-actions.h` for examples.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3887
#### Legacy macro-based Actions
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893

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.
3894
3895

By writing
3896

3897
```cpp
3898
3899
ACTION(name) { statements; }
```
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906

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:

3907
```cpp
3908
3909
ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
```
3910

3911
allows you to write
3912

3913
```cpp
3914
3915
3916
... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());
```

3917
3918
3919
3920
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.
3921
3922

Another example:
3923

3924
```cpp
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
ACTION(Foo) {
  (*arg2)(5);
  Blah();
  *arg1 = 0;
  return arg0;
}
```

3933
3934
3935
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.
3936

3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
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
3946
3947

For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
3948

3949
```cpp
3950
3951
int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
```
3952

3953
we have:
3954

3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
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*)`
3965

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3966
#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
3967
3968
3969

Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
another macro
3970

3971
```cpp
3972
3973
3974
3975
ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
```

For example,
3976

3977
```cpp
3978
3979
ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
```
3980

3981
will allow you to write
3982

3983
```cpp
3984
3985
3986
3987
// Returns argument #0 + 5.
... WillOnce(Add(5));
```

3988
3989
3990
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.
3991

3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
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,
4000

4001
```cpp
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
  double dx = arg0 - x;
  double dy = arg1 - y;
  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
}
```
4008

4009
lets you write
4010

4011
```cpp
4012
4013
4014
... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
```

4015
4016
You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of
parameters is 0.
4017
4018

You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
4019

4020
```cpp
4021
4022
4023
4024
ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4025
### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION
4026
4027
4028
4029

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.
4030

4031
4032
Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. There are
several tricks to do that. For example:
4033

4034
```cpp
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
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;
}
```

4050
4051
where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that
verifies two types are the same.
4052

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4053
### Writing New Action Templates Quickly
4054
4055
4056
4057

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*()`.
4058
4059

The syntax:
4060

4061
```cpp
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,
                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),
                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }
```

4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
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.
4072
4073

Example:
4074

4075
```cpp
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
// 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
4082
  *output = T(std::get<k>(args));
4083
4084
4085
4086
}
```

To create an instance of an action template, write:
4087

4088
```cpp
4089
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
4090
```
4091
4092
4093
4094

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:

4095
```cpp
4096
4097
4098
using ::testing::_;
...
  int n;
4099
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));
4100
4101
```

4102
4103
4104
If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide
additional template arguments:

4105
```cpp
4106
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)
4107
```
4108

4109
4110
where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`.

4111
4112
4113
`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:
4114

4115
```cpp
4116
4117
4118
  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);
```

4119
4120
4121
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`?
4122

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4123
### Using the ACTION Object's Type
4124

4125
4126
4127
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:
4128

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4129

4130
4131
4132
| Given Definition              | Expression          | Has Type              |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------- |
| `ACTION(Foo)`                 | `Foo()`             | `FooAction`           |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4133
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())` | `Foo<t1, ..., t_m>()` | `FooAction<t1, ..., t_m>` |
4134
| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)`        | `Bar(int_value)`    | `BarActionP<int>`     |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4135
4136
4137
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))` | `Bar<t1, ..., t_m>(int_value)` | `BarActionP<t1, ..., t_m, int>` |
| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)`      | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2<bool, int>` |
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` | `Baz<t1, ..., t_m>(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2<t1, ..., t_m, bool, int>` |
4138
| ...                           | ...                 | ...                   |
4139

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4140

4141
4142
4143
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.
4144

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4145
### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions}
4146
4147

While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
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.
4153
4154

An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement
4155
4156
`::testing::ActionInterface<F>`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in
which the action will be used. For example:
4157

4158
```cpp
4159
4160
template <typename F>
class ActionInterface {
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
 public:
  virtual ~ActionInterface();

  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type
  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.
  //
4167

4168
  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4169
  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
4170
4171
  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
};
4172
```
4173

4174
```cpp
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
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
4184
4185
  int Perform(const std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
    int* p = std::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
    return *p++;
  }
};

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

4194
...
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
  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
4202
### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions}
4203

4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
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()`).
4209

4210
4211
4212
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:
4213

4214
```cpp
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
namespace testing {
template <typename Impl>
PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);
}  // namespace testing
```

4221
4222
4223
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:
4224

4225
```cpp
4226
4227
4228
4229
class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
 public:
  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4230
4231
    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args).
    return std::get<1>(args);
4232
4233
4234
4235
  }
};
```

4236
4237
4238
4239
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,
4240
but must be invocable with exactly one template argument, which is the result
4241
4242
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.
4243

4244
4245
4246
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:
4247

4248
```cpp
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;
using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;

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

4257
Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones:
4258

4259
```cpp
4260
4261
4262
4263
using ::testing::_;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
4264
4265
4266
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
              (override));
4267
4268
};

4269
  ...
4270
  MockFoo foo;
4271
4272
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
4273
  ...
4274
  foo.DoThis(true, 5);  // Will return 5.
4275
4276
4277
  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4278
### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values
4279

4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
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.
4285
4286

This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL
4287
4288
containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other types, it
prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the user can figure it out.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4289
[The GoogleTest advanced guide](advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values)
4290
4291
explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your
particular type than to dump the bytes.
4292

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4293
## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
4294
4295
4296
4297

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4298
### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347

`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. :-)