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

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

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Mock classes are defined as normal classes, using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro to
generate mocked methods. The macro gets 3 or 4 parameters:

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

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

*   **`const`** - Makes the mocked method a `const` method. Required if
    overriding a `const` method.
*   **`override`** - Marks the method with `override`. Recommended if overriding
    a `virtual` method.
*   **`noexcept`** - Marks the method with `noexcept`. Required if overriding a
    `noexcept` method.
*   **`Calltype(...)`** - Sets the call type for the method (e.g. to
    `STDMETHODCALLTYPE`), useful in Windows.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
37
38
39
*   **`ref(...)`** - Marks the method with the reference qualification
    specified. Required if overriding a method that has reference
    qualifications. Eg `ref(&)` or `ref(&&)`.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
40

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

43
44
45
Unprotected commas, i.e. commas which are not surrounded by parentheses, prevent
`MOCK_METHOD` from parsing its arguments correctly:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
46
```cpp {.bad}
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
class MockFoo {
 public:
  MOCK_METHOD(std::pair<bool, int>, GetPair, ());  // Won't compile!
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (std::map<int, double>, bool));  // Won't compile!
};
```

Solution 1 - wrap with parentheses:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
56
```cpp {.good}
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
class MockFoo {
 public:
  MOCK_METHOD((std::pair<bool, int>), GetPair, ());
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, ((std::map<int, double>), bool));
};
```

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

Solution 2 - define an alias:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
69
```cpp {.good}
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
class MockFoo {
 public:
  using BoolAndInt = std::pair<bool, int>;
  MOCK_METHOD(BoolAndInt, GetPair, ());
  using MapIntDouble = std::map<int, double>;
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (MapIntDouble, bool));
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
79
### Mocking Private or Protected Methods
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

You must always put a mock method definition (`MOCK_METHOD`) in a `public:`
section of the mock class, regardless of the method being mocked being `public`,
`protected`, or `private` in the base class. This allows `ON_CALL` and
`EXPECT_CALL` to reference the mock function from outside of the mock class.
(Yes, C++ allows a subclass to change the access level of a virtual function in
the base class.) Example:
87

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

 protected:
  virtual void Resume();

 private:
  virtual int GetTimeOut();
};

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

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

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

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

117
```cpp
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
class Foo {
  ...

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

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

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
135
136
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override));
137

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

143
144
145
**Note:** if you don't mock all versions of the overloaded method, the compiler
will give you a warning about some methods in the base class being hidden. To
fix that, use `using` to bring them in scope:
146

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

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

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

161
```cpp
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
template <typename Elem>
class StackInterface {
  ...
  // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from StackInterface.
  virtual ~StackInterface();

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

template <typename Elem>
class MockStack : public StackInterface<Elem> {
  ...
175
176
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
177
178
179
};
```

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

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

184
185
186
187
In this case, instead of sharing a common base class with the real class, your
mock class will be *unrelated* to the real class, but contain methods with the
same signatures. The syntax for mocking non-virtual methods is the *same* as
mocking virtual methods (just don't add `override`):
188

189
```cpp
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
// A simple packet stream class.  None of its members is virtual.
class ConcretePacketStream {
 public:
  void AppendPacket(Packet* new_packet);
  const Packet* GetPacket(size_t packet_number) const;
  size_t NumberOfPackets() const;
  ...
};

// A mock packet stream class.  It inherits from no other, but defines
// GetPacket() and NumberOfPackets().
class MockPacketStream {
 public:
203
204
  MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
  MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
205
206
207
208
  ...
};
```

209
210
Note that the mock class doesn't define `AppendPacket()`, unlike the real class.
That's fine as long as the test doesn't need to call it.
211

212
213
214
215
Next, you need a way to say that you want to use `ConcretePacketStream` in
production code, and use `MockPacketStream` in tests. Since the functions are
not virtual and the two classes are unrelated, you must specify your choice at
*compile time* (as opposed to run time).
216

217
218
219
220
221
One way to do it is to templatize your code that needs to use a packet stream.
More specifically, you will give your code a template type argument for the type
of the packet stream. In production, you will instantiate your template with
`ConcretePacketStream` as the type argument. In tests, you will instantiate the
same template with `MockPacketStream`. For example, you may write:
222

223
```cpp
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
template <class PacketStream>
void CreateConnection(PacketStream* stream) { ... }

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

Then you can use `CreateConnection<ConcretePacketStream>()` and
`PacketReader<ConcretePacketStream>` in production code, and use
236
237
`CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
tests.
238

239
```cpp
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
  MockPacketStream mock_stream;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...;
  .. set more expectations on mock_stream ...
  PacketReader<MockPacketStream> reader(&mock_stream);
  ... exercise reader ...
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
247
### Mocking Free Functions
248

249
250
251
It's possible to use gMock to mock a free function (i.e. a C-style function or a
static method). You just need to rewrite your code to use an interface (abstract
class).
252

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

256
```cpp
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
class FileInterface {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0;
};

class File : public FileInterface {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) {
267
     return OpenFile(path, mode);
268
269
270
271
  }
};
```

272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
Your code should talk to `FileInterface` to open a file. Now it's easy to mock
out the function.

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
283
### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
284

285
286
Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro
[was introduced in 2018](https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/c5f08bf91944ce1b19bcf414fa1760e69d20afc2),
287
288
289
mocks where created using a family of macros collectively called `MOCK_METHODn`.
These macros are still supported, though migration to the new `MOCK_METHOD` is
recommended.
290

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

293
294
295
296
297
298
299
*   The general structure is `MOCK_METHODn(MethodName, ReturnType(Args))`,
    instead of `MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args))`.
*   The number `n` must equal the number of arguments.
*   When mocking a const method, one must use `MOCK_CONST_METHODn`.
*   When mocking a class template, the macro name must be suffixed with `_T`.
*   In order to specify the call type, the macro name must be suffixed with
    `_WITH_CALLTYPE`, and the call type is the first macro argument.
300

301
Old macros and their new equivalents:
302

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
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
<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>
383
384
</table>

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
385
### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395

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

However, sometimes you may want to ignore these uninteresting calls, and
sometimes you may want to treat them as errors. gMock lets you make the decision
on a per-mock-object basis.
396
397
398

Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:

399
```cpp
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
TEST(...) {
  MockFoo mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

407
408
409
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:
410

411
```cpp
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

421
422
`NiceMock<MockFoo>` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever
`MockFoo` is accepted.
423
424
425
426

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

427
```cpp
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

437
438
The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting
calls failures:
439

440
```cpp
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
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.
}
```

453
454
455
456
457
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
458
459
There are some caveats though (sadly they are side effects of C++'s
limitations):
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468

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
469
    requires cleaning up existing tests.
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481

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
482
### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
483
484
485

Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
For example:
486

487
```cpp
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
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;
};
```

498
499
500
501
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.
502

503
The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class:
504

505
```cpp
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink {
 public:
  ...
  virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename,
                    const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time,
                    const char* message, size_t message_len) {
    // We are only interested in the log severity, full file name, and
    // log message.
    Log(severity, full_filename, std::string(message, message_len));
  }

  // Implements the mock method:
  //
  //   void Log(LogSeverity severity,
  //            const string& file_path,
  //            const string& message);
522
523
524
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Log,
              (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,
               const string& message));
525
526
527
};
```

528
By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock
529
class more user-friendly.
530

531
532
533
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:
534

535
536
537
538
539
```cpp
class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
 public:
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
540

541
542
543
544
  // the above methods delegate to this one:
  MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
};
```
545

546
547
This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
argument matchers:
548

549
550
```cpp
ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
551
    .WillByDefault(Return(MakeMockTurtle()));
552
```
553

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
554
### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes
555

556
557
558
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.
559

560
Try not to do that.
561

562
563
564
565
566
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.
567

568
569
570
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.
571

572
573
574
575
576
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.
577

578
This technique incurs some overhead:
579

580
581
*   You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem).
*   There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn.
582

583
584
However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better
testability:
585

586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
*   `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
616
### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
617
618
619

Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
example:
620

621
```cpp
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
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:
631
  char DoThis(int n) override {
632
    return (n > 0) ? '+' :
633
           (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
634
635
  }

636
  void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
637
638
639
640
641
    *p = strlen(s);
  }
};
```

642
643
644
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.
645

646
647
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:
648

649
```cpp
650
651
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
652
653
654
  // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
655
656
657
658

  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.
  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.
  void DelegateToFake() {
659
660
661
662
663
664
    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);
    });
665
  }
666

667
668
669
670
671
 private:
  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.
};
```

672
673
674
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.:
675

676
```cpp
677
678
679
680
using ::testing::_;

TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
  MockFoo foo;
681
682

  foo.DelegateToFake();  // Enables the fake for delegation.
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691

  // 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.
692
  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);  // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
693
694
695
696
697
698
  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
}
```

**Some tips:**

699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
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
*   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
734
### Delegating Calls to a Real Object
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747

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:
748

749
```cpp
750
751
752
753
754
755
using ::testing::AtLeast;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  MockFoo() {
    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
756
757
758
759
760
761
    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);
    });
762
763
    ...
  }
764
765
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...);
766
767
768
769
770
  ...
 private:
  Foo real_;
};

771
...
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
  MockFoo mock;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())
      .Times(3);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))
      .Times(AtLeast(1));
  ... use mock in test ...
```

780
781
782
783
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.
784

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
785
### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class
786

787
788
789
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:
790

791
```cpp
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
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.
803
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
804
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
805
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
806
807
808
809
};
```

Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of
810
811
812
813
`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).
814

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
815
You can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by:
816

817
```cpp
818
...
819
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
820
    return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
821
  });
822
823
824
825
```

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

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

833
834
835
(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.)
836

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
837
## Using Matchers
838

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
839
### Matching Argument Values Exactly
840
841
842

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

843
```cpp
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
using ::testing::Return;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))
      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
851
### Using Simple Matchers
852
853
854

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

855
```cpp
856
857
858
859
860
861
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()));
862
      // The second argument must not be NULL.
863
864
865
866
```

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

867
```cpp
868
869
870
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
871
### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
872
873

You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
874
`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
875

876
```cpp
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
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
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
Matchers are function objects, and parametrized matchers can be composed just
like any other function. However because their types can be long and rarely
provide meaningful information, it can be easier to express them with C++14
generic lambdas to avoid specifying types. For example,

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
908
### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
909

910
911
912
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!
913

914
915
916
917
918
919
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.
920

921
922
923
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 :
924

925
926
927
928
929
930
931
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).
932

933
The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.
934
935
936

Here's one example:

937
```cpp
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
946
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
947
948
};

949
...
950
951
952
953
954
  MockFoo foo;
  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));
```

955
956
957
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`.
958

959
960
961
`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.
962

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
963
### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload}
964

965
966
If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some
help on which overloaded version it is.
967

968
969
To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the
`Const()` argument wrapper.
970

971
```cpp
972
973
974
975
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
976
977
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
978
979
};

980
...
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
  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));
```

989
(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.)
990

991
992
993
994
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):
995

996
```cpp
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
using ::testing::An;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::TypedEq;

class MockPrinter : public Printer {
 public:
1003
1004
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
};

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
1020
### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments
1021

1022
1023
1024
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:
1025

1026
```cpp
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
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'));
```

1039
1040
Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be
returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned.
1041

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1042
### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole
1043

1044
1045
1046
1047
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,
1048

1049
```cpp
1050
1051
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Ne;
1052
using ::testing::Lt;
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))
      .With(Lt());
```

1058
1059
says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than
the second argument.
1060

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1061
1062
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.
1063

1064
1065
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())`.
1066

1067
1068
You can use `Args<k1, ..., kn>(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a
tuple) against `m`. For example,
1069

1070
```cpp
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Args;
using ::testing::Lt;
...
1076
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah)
1077
1078
1079
      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));
```

1080
1081
1082
says that `Blah` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where `x < y <
z`. Note that in this example, it wasn't necessary specify the positional
matchers.
1083

1084
1085
1086
As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
including the `Lt()` matcher above. See [here](#MultiArgMatchers) for the
complete list.
1087

1088
1089
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
1090
1091
take a `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected arguments
as *one* single tuple to the predicate.
1092

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1093
### Using Matchers as Predicates
1094

1095
1096
1097
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
1098
matchers were not allowed to participate.
1099

1100
1101
Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by
wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example,
1102

1103
```cpp
1104
1105
1106
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

1107
1108
1109
1110
using ::testing::Matches;
using ::testing::Ge;

vector<int> v;
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
...
// How many elements in v are >= 10?
const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));
```

1116
1117
1118
1119
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:
1120

1121
```cpp
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
using testing::AllOf;
using testing::Ge;
using testing::Le;
using testing::Matches;
using testing::Ne;
...
1128
1129
1130
Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1131
### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
1132
1133

Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe
1134
1135
themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in googletest assertions.
It's called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`:
1136

1137
```cpp
1138
1139
1140
1141
  ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);  // Asserts that value matches matcher.
  EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);  // The non-fatal version.
```

1142
For example, in a googletest test you can write:
1143

1144
```cpp
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

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

1153
...
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
  EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
  EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+"));
  ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10)));
```

1159
1160
which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and `Baz()`, and
verifies that:
1161

1162
1163
1164
*   `Foo()` returns a string that starts with `"Hello"`.
*   `Bar()` returns a string that matches regular expression `"Line \\d+"`.
*   `Baz()` returns a number in the range [5, 10].
1165

1166
1167
1168
The nice thing about these macros is that *they read like English*. They
generate informative messages too. For example, if the first `EXPECT_THAT()`
above fails, the message will be something like:
1169

1170
```cpp
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
Value of: Foo()
  Actual: "Hi, world!"
Expected: starts with "Hello"
```

1176
1177
**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was borrowed from Joe Walnes'
Hamcrest project, which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.
1178

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1179
### Using Predicates as Matchers
1180

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
gMock provides a [built-in set](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#MatcherList) of matchers.
In case you find them lacking, you can use an arbitrary unary predicate function
or functor as a matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type
you want. You do this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` function,
for example:
1186

1187
```cpp
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
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)));
```

1196
1197
1198
Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return `bool`. It
works as long as the return value can be used as the condition in in statement
`if (condition) ...`.
1199

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1200
### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213

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:
1214

1215
```cpp
1216
using ::testing::Eq;
1217
1218
1219
using ::testing::Lt;
...
  // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1220
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(std::ref(bar))));
1221
1222

  // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1223
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(std::ref(bar))));
1224
1225
```

1226
1227
Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the `EXPECT_CALL()`, or the
result is undefined.
1228

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1229
### Validating a Member of an Object
1230

1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
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,
1236

1237
```cpp
1238
1239
1240
Field(&Foo::bar, m)
```

1241
1242
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies
matcher `m`.
1243

1244
```cpp
1245
1246
1247
Property(&Foo::baz, m)
```

1248
1249
is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value
that satisfies matcher `m`.
1250
1251
1252

For example:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1253
<!-- mdformat off(github rendering does not support multiline tables) -->
1254
1255
1256
| Expression                   | Description                              |
| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`.       |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1257
1258
| `Property(&Foo::name,  StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with  `"John "`. |
<!-- mdformat on -->
1259

1260
Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1261
1262
1263
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.
1264

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1265
`Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
1266
instance,
1267

1268
```cpp
1269
1270
1271
using ::testing::Field;
using ::testing::Ge;
...
1272
1273
1274
Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))
```

1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
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.
1284

1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
```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));
}
```
1297

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1298
### Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument
1299

1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
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.
1305

1306
`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer
1307
points to. For example:
1308

1309
```cpp
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
using ::testing::Ge;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3))));
```

1316
1317
expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value greater
than or equal to 3.
1318

1319
1320
One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as a match
failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of
1321

1322
```cpp
1323
1324
1325
1326
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::Pointee;
...
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
  AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m))
```

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

1332
1333
Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers **and**
smart pointers (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, etc)?
1334

1335
1336
1337
1338
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...).
1339

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1340
### Testing a Certain Property of an Object
1341

1342
1343
1344
Sometimes you want to specify that an object argument has a certain property,
but there is no existing matcher that does this. If you want good error
messages, you should [define a matcher](#NewMatchers). If you want to do it
1345
1346
quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function.

1347
1348
1349
1350
Let's say you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, which has
an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method, and you want to constrain that
the argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` value is a given number. Here's
how you can define a matcher to do it:
1351

1352
```cpp
1353
using ::testing::Matcher;
1354

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1355
class BarPlusBazEqMatcher {
1356
1357
1358
1359
 public:
  explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum)
      : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {}

1360
  bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1361
                       std::ostream* /* listener */) const {
1362
1363
1364
    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1365
1366
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream& os) const {
    os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
1367
1368
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1369
1370
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream& os) const {
    os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
  }
 private:
  const int expected_sum_;
};

1376
Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1377
  return BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum);
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
}

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1384
### Matching Containers
1385

1386
1387
1388
1389
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.
1390

1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
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.
1396

1397
1398
You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in such
cases:
1399

1400
```cpp
1401
1402
1403
1404
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::ElementsAre;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
1405
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1406
1407
1408
1409
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1410
1411
The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which must be 1,
greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1412
1413
1414

If you instead write:

1415
```cpp
1416
1417
1418
1419
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
...
1420
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1421
1422
1423
1424
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1425
1426
It means that the container must have 4 elements, which (under some permutation)
must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1427

1428
1429
As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use
`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead:
1430

1431
```cpp
1432
1433
1434
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values.
1435
  const int expected_vector1[] = {1, 5, 2, 4, ...};
1436
1437
1438
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1)));

  // Or, an array of element matchers.
1439
  Matcher<int> expected_vector2[] = {1, Gt(2), _, 3, ...};
1440
1441
1442
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2)));
```

1443
1444
1445
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:
1446

1447
```cpp
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];
  ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));
```

1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
Use `Pair` when comparing maps or other associative containers.

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

1465
1466
**Tips:**

1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
*   `ElementsAre*()` can be used to match *any* container that implements the
    STL iterator pattern (i.e. it has a `const_iterator` type and supports
    `begin()/end()`), not just the ones defined in STL. It will even work with
    container types yet to be written - as long as they follows the above
    pattern.
*   You can use nested `ElementsAre*()` to match nested (multi-dimensional)
    containers.
*   If the container is passed by pointer instead of by reference, just write
    `Pointee(ElementsAre*(...))`.
*   The order of elements *matters* for `ElementsAre*()`. If you are using it
    with containers whose element order are undefined (e.g. `hash_map`) you
    should use `WhenSorted` around `ElementsAre`.
1479

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1480
### Sharing Matchers
1481

1482
1483
1484
1485
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.
1486

1487
1488
1489
Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again and
again, there is no need to build it everytime. Just assign it to a matcher
variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example,
1490

1491
```cpp
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::Matcher;
...
1497
1498
1499
1500
  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
1501
### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512

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
1513
## Setting Expectations
1514

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1515
### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
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
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565

**`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
1566
### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578

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
1579
### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
1580
1581
1582

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

1583
```cpp
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
using ::testing::_;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .Times(0);
```

1590
1591
If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the
expected calls:
1592

1593
```cpp
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
using ::testing::AnyNumber;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))
      .Times(AnyNumber());
```

1602
1603
A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements
will be an error.
1604

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1605
### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
1606

1607
1608
*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
*Very* different.
1609

1610
1611
1612
1613
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.
1614

1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
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.
1620

1621
1622
**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
the way the test expects it to behave.
1623

1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
**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).
1629

1630
1631
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?
1632

1633
1634
1635
1636
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.
1637

1638
1639
A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
mock strict may change the test's result.
1640
1641
1642

Let's look at an example:

1643
```cpp
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
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 ...
}
```

1654
1655
1656
1657
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.*
1658

1659
1660
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`:
1661

1662
```cpp
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
  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"));
```

1669
1670
1671
1672
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.
1673

1674
1675
Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
1676

1677
1678
For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
1679

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1680
### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
1681

1682
1683
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:
1684

1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
```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
1706
### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
1707

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
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.
1713
1714
1715
1716

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`:
1717

1718
```cpp
1719
1720
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InSequence;
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731

  {
    InSequence s;

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

1732
1733
1734
1735
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.
1736

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1737
### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
1738

1739
1740
1741
1742
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.
1743

1744
gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1745
calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1746
[After](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#AfterClause) clause of `EXPECT_CALL`.
1747

1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
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:
1753

1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
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.
1759

1760
1761
1762
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.
1763

1764
1765
Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For
example,
1766

1767
1768
1769
```cpp
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
  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);
```

1782
specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`):
1783

1784
```text
1785
1786
1787
1788
       +---> B
       |
  A ---|
       |
1789
        +---> C ---> D
1790
1791
```

1792
1793
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.
1794

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1795
### Controlling When an Expectation Retires
1796

1797
1798
1799
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
1800

1801
```cpp
1802
1803
1804
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1805
1806
  Sequence s1, s2;

1807
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #1
1808
1809
      .Times(AnyNumber())
      .InSequence(s1, s2);
1810
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))   // #2
1811
      .InSequence(s1);
1812
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))      // #3
1813
1814
1815
      .InSequence(s2);
```

1816
1817
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.
1818

1819
1820
Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For
example,
1821

1822
```cpp
1823
1824
using ::testing::_;
...
1825
1826
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."));     // #2
1827
1828
```

1829
1830
1831
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.
1832

1833
1834
If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it
becomes saturated:
1835

1836
```cpp
1837
1838
using ::testing::_;
...
1839
1840
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #2
1841
1842
1843
      .RetiresOnSaturation();
```

1844
1845
1846
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.
1847

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1848
## Using Actions
1849

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1850
### Returning References from Mock Methods
1851

1852
1853
If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()`
instead of `Return()` to return a result:
1854

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1860
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
};
...
  MockFoo foo;
  Bar bar;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));
1867
...
1868
1869
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1870
### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods
1871

1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
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.
1877
1878

If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using
1879
1880
1881
1882
`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?
1883

ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1884
Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`:
1885

1886
```cpp
1887
1888
1889
1890
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1891
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
};
...
  int x = 0;
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
1897
      .WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x)));  // Wrong!
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
  x = 42;
  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
```

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

1904
```text
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
Value of: foo.GetValue()
  Actual: 0
Expected: 42
```

1910
1911
1912
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
1913
1914
1915
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.
1916

1917
1918
`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It
returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:
1919

1920
```cpp
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
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
1931
### Combining Actions
1932

1933
1934
1935
Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's fine. `DoAll()`
allow you to do sequence of actions every time. Only the return value of the
last action in the sequence will be used.
1936

1937
```cpp
1938
using ::testing::_;
1939
1940
1941
1942
using ::testing::DoAll;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1943
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
};
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
                      action_2,
                      ...
                      action_n));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1953
### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959

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:
1960

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
```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
1977
### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982

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`.
1983
1984
1985
1986

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

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

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
1993
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
1994
  ...
1995
}
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))
      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));
```

2002
2003
In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the
`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based).
2004

2005
2006
2007
`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.
2008
2009

If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain
2010
2011
`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the
`Return()` statement last:
2012

2013
```cpp
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
  ...
2021
2022
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
}
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                      Return(true)));
```

2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
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:
2037

2038
```cpp
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;

class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
 public:
2044
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
2045
  ...
2046
}
2047
2048
...
  MockArrayMutator mutator;
2049
  int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));
```

This also works when the argument is an output iterator:

2056
```cpp
2057
using ::testing::_;
bartshappee's avatar
bartshappee committed
2058
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
2059
2060
2061

class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
 public:
2062
2063
  MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
              (override));
2064
  ...
2065
}
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
...
  MockRolodex rolodex;
  vector<string> names;
  names.push_back("George");
  names.push_back("John");
  names.push_back("Thomas");
  EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end()));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2076
### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State
2077

2078
2079
2080
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:
2081

2082
```cpp
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;

...
  {
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
     InSequence seq;
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));
2094
2095
2096
2097
  }
  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();
```

2098
2099
This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called
and return `false` afterwards.
2100

2101
2102
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:
2103

2104
```cpp
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::SaveArg;
using ::testing::Return;

ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }
...
  int previous_value = 0;
2112
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue)
2113
      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));
2114
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue)
2115
2116
2117
2118
      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));
  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();
```

2119
2120
Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last
`UpdateValue()` call.
2121

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2122
### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue}
2123

2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
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.
2129

2130
2131
2132
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:
2133

2134
```cpp
2135
2136
using ::testing::DefaultValue;

2137
2138
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2139
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
2140
2141
};

2142
2143

...
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
  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
2160
Please note that changing the default value for a type can make your tests hard
2161
2162
2163
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.
2164

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2165
### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method
2166

2167
2168
2169
2170
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:
2171

2172
```cpp
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
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.
```

2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
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.
2202

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2203
### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
2204

2205
If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2206
(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda) as an action.
2207
2208

```cpp
2209
using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke;
2210
2211
2212

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2213
2214
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override));
2215
2216
2217
};

int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
2218
int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; }
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224

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

2225
...
2226
2227
2228
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))
2229
2230
      .WillOnce(&CalculateSum)
      .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1)));
2231
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2232
      .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2233
      .WillOnce([] { return true; })
2234
      .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; });
2235

2236
2237
2238
2239
  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.
2240
2241
```

2242
The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible*
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
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?
2248

2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
**`Note:`{.escaped}**

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

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2266
### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294

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).
}
```
2295

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2296
### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
2297

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2298
2299
2300
2301
`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.
2302

2303
Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2304
2305
2306
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.
2307

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2308
2309
2310
2311
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:
2312

2313
```cpp
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2319
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override));
2320
2321
2322
};

bool Job1() { ... }
2323
bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
2324

2325
...
2326
2327
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2328
      .WillOnce([] { Job1(); });
2329
      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
2330
2331

  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().
2332
  foo.ComplexJob(20);  // Invokes Job2(5, 'a').
2333
2334
```

2335
**`Note:`{.escaped}**
2336

2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
*   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
2353
### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
2354

2355
2356
Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other
words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g.
2357

2358
```cpp
2359
2360
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2361
2362
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1<bool, int>* callback)),
              (override));
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
};
```

and you may want to invoke this callable argument:

2368
```cpp
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
using ::testing::_;
...
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(...);
2374
2375
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2376
2377
```

2378
2379
2380
2381
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?
2382

2383
Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
2384

2385
```cpp
2386
InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)
2387
2388
```

2389
2390
2391
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.
2392
2393
2394

With that, you could write:

2395
```cpp
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
2401
2402
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2403
2404
```

2405
What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2406
inside `std::ref()`:
2407

2408
```cpp
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
              ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2417
2418
2419
2420
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2421
2422
2423
      .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.
2424
2425
```

2426
What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
ofats's avatar
ofats committed
2427
argument in `std::ref()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the
2428
2429
2430
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:
2431

2432
```cpp
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2440
2441
2442
2443
  MockFoo foo;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
      // 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.
2449
2450
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2451
### Ignoring an Action's Result
2452

2453
2454
2455
2456
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:
2457

2458
```cpp
2459
using ::testing::_;
2460
2461
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
using ::testing::Return;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2469
2470
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
2471
2472
};

2473
  ...
2474
2475
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))
2476
2477
2478
2479
      // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));
      // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs
      // to return void.
      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process));
2480
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
2481
2482
      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething),
                      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.
2483
2484
2485
                      Return(true)));
```

2486
2487
Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns
`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors.
2488

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2489
### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs}
2490

2491
2492
2493
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:
2494

2495
```cpp
2496
2497
2498
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
...
2499
2500
2501
2502
  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));
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
...
bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {
  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;
}
...
2508
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2509
2510
2511
      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(
```

2512
2513
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:
2514

2515
```cpp
2516
2517
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
2518
...
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
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);
}
...
2525
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.
```

But isn't this awkward?

2531
2532
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:
2533

2534
```cpp
2535
WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)
2536
2537
```

2538
2539
2540
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:
2541

2542
```cpp
2543
2544
2545
2546
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::WithArgs;
...
2547
2548
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));  // No need to define your own adaptor.
2549
2550
```

2551
For better readability, gMock also gives you:
2552

2553
2554
2555
*   `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and
*   `WithArg<N>(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes
    *one* argument.
2556

2557
2558
As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for
`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`.
2559
2560
2561

Here are more tips:

2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
*   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.
2572

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2573
### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions
2574

2575
2576
2577
2578
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.
2579

2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
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
2586

2587
```cpp
2588
2589
2590
2591
 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));
2592
2593
2594
2595
```

instead of

2596
```cpp
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
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);
}
...
2607
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2608
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
2609
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
```

you could write

2615
```cpp
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::Unused;

double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
...
2624
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2625
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
2626
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2627
2628
2629
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2630
### Sharing Actions
2631

2632
2633
2634
2635
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.
2636

2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, you may
not have to build it from scratch everytime. If the action doesn't have an
internal state (i.e. if it always does the same thing no matter how many times
it has been called), you can assign it to an action variable and use that
variable repeatedly. For example:
2642

2643
```cpp
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
using ::testing::Action;
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
...
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                                      Return(true));
  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...
```

2654
2655
2656
2657
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
2658
action will exhibit different behaviors. Example:
2659

2660
```cpp
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
  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

2673
```cpp
2674
2675
using ::testing::Action;
...
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
  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
2686
### Testing Asynchronous Behavior
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714

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

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

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

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

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

  const int32 kEventId = 321;
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2715
  absl::Notification done;
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_event_dispatcher, DispatchEvent(kEventId))
      .WillOnce(Notify(&done));

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

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

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2735
## Misc Recipes on Using gMock
2736

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2737
### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types
2738

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2739
C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from
2740
2741
one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr<T>` is probably
the most commonly used move-only type.
2742

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2743
2744
2745
2746
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
2747
[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature.
2748

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2749
2750
Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
2751

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2752
```cpp
2753
2754
2755
2756
enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic };

class Buzz {
 public:
2757
  explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... }
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
  ...
};

class Buzzer {
 public:
  virtual ~Buzzer() {}
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2764
2765
  virtual std::unique_ptr<Buzz> MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0;
  virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0;
2766
2767
2768
2769
  ...
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2770
2771
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
2772
2773
`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr<Buzz>` or take a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`. Now we
need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests.
2774

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2775
2776
To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the
familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual:
2777

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2778
```cpp
2779
2780
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2781
2782
2783
  MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr<Buzz>, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp),
              (override));
2784
2785
2786
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2787
2788
2789
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_`:
2790

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2791
```cpp
2792
2793
2794
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2795
2796
First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which
returns a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`.
2797

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2798
As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or
2799
2800
2801
`.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
2802
action:
2803

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2804
```cpp
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
  // 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
2812
If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
2813
[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
2814

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2815
2816
If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
`Return(ByMove(...))` action:
2817

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2818
```cpp
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
  // When this fires, the unique_ptr<> specified by ByMove(...) will
  // be returned.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("world"))
      .WillOnce(Return(ByMove(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal))));

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

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

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2829
Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is
2830
2831
2832
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
2833
2834
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.
2835

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2836
2837
2838
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:
2839

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2840
```cpp
2841
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x"))
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2842
2843
2844
      .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
        return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
      });
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849

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

2850
2851
Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr<Buzz>` will be created
and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`.
2852

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2853
2854
2855
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
2856
can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions):
2857

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2858
2859
```cpp
  using ::testing::Unused;
2860

2861
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2862
2863
2864
  EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
              0);

2865
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce(
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2866
2867
      [](std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; });
  EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0));
2868
2869
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2870
2871
2872
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.
2873

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2874
2875
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.
2876

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2877
#### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly}
2878

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
Support for move-only function arguments was only introduced to gMock in April
2017. In older code, you may encounter the following workaround for the lack of
this feature (it is no longer necessary - we're including it just for
reference):

```cpp
2885
2886
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2887
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2888
2889
  bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Time timestamp) override {
    return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp);
2890
2891
2892
2893
  }
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2894
2895
2896
2897
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:
2898

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2899
2900
2901
```cpp
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _));
2902

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2903
2904
2905
2906
  // When one calls ShareBuzz() on the MockBuzzer like this, the call is
  // forwarded to DoShareBuzz(), which is mocked.  Therefore this statement
  // will trigger the above EXPECT_CALL.
  mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal), 0);
2907
2908
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2909
### Making the Compilation Faster
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2910

2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
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.
2918

2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
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.
2924

2925
2926
Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock
class before applying this recipe:
2927

2928
```cpp
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
// 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.

2937
2938
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```

After the change, it would look like:

2945
```cpp
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
// File mock_foo.h.
...
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.
  MockFoo();
  virtual ~MockFoo();

2954
2955
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2956
2957
2958
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```
2959

2960
and
2961

2962
```cpp
2963
// File mock_foo.cc.
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
#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
2973
### Forcing a Verification
2974

2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
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.
2980

2981
2982
2983
2984
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.
2985

2986
2987
2988
2989
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)`:
2990

2991
```cpp
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
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.
```

3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
**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
3014
### Using Check Points {#UsingCheckPoints}
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032

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

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

As you may have figured out, the `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function
we saw in the previous recipe can help you here. Or, if you are using
`ON_CALL()` to set default actions on the mock object and want to clear the
default actions as well, use `Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_object)` instead. This
function does what `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)` does and
returns the same `bool`, **plus** it clears the `ON_CALL()` statements on
3033
3034
`mock_object` too.

3035
3036
3037
3038
Another trick you can use to achieve the same effect is to put the expectations
in sequences and insert calls to a dummy "check-point" function at specific
places. Then you can verify that the mock function calls do happen at the right
time. For example, if you are exercising code:
3039

3040
```cpp
3041
3042
3043
  Foo(1);
  Foo(2);
  Foo(3);
3044
3045
```

3046
3047
and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke `mock.Bar("a")`, but
`Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything. You can write:
3048

3049
```cpp
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
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);
}
```

3073
3074
3075
3076
The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` must happen before check
point "1", the second `Bar("a")` must happen after check point "2", and nothing
should happen between the two check points. The explicit check points make it
easy to tell which `Bar("a")` is called by which call to `Foo()`.
3077

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3078
### Mocking Destructors
3079

3080
3081
3082
3083
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.
3084

3085
3086
3087
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:
3088

3089
```cpp
3090
MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ());  // Won't compile!
3091
3092
```

3093
3094
3095
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:
3096

3097
```cpp
3098
3099
3100
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
3101
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3102
  ~MockFoo() override { Die(); }
3103
3104
3105
};
```

3106
3107
3108
(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:
3109

3110
```cpp
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
  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
3126
### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
3127

3128
3129
3130
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.
3131

3132
3133
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.
3134
3135
3136

Remember the steps for using a mock:

3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
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.
3144

3145
3146
If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live
happily together:
3147

3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
*   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.
3156

3157
3158
3159
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.
3160

3161
3162
gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
that called the mock function. For example, in
3163

3164
```cpp
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))
      .WillOnce(action1);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))
      .WillOnce(action2);
```

3171
3172
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.
3173

3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
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.
3179

3180
3181
3182
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.
3183

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3184
### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints
3185

3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
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.
3192

3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
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.
3198

3199
3200
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:
3201

3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
*   `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).
3209

3210
3211
Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
so:
3212

3213
```cpp
3214
3215
3216
  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
```

3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
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!
3222

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3223
### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
3224

3225
3226
3227
3228
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?
3229

3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
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?
3235

3236
3237
You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
flag. For example, given the test program:
3238

3239
```cpp
3240
3241
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
using testing::_;
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo {
 public:
3248
  MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y));
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
};

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:

3264
3265
```shell
[ RUN       ] Foo.Bar
3266
3267

foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
3268
3269
Stack trace: ...

3270
foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
3271
3272
Stack trace: ...

3273
foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
3274
3275
Stack trace: ...

3276
foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
3277
3278
3279
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
Stack trace: ...

3280
foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
3281
3282
3283
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
Stack trace: ...

3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
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
```

3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
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.
3296

3297
3298
3299
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.
3300

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3301
### Running Tests in Emacs
3302

3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
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.
3308

3309
3310
3311
3312
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
3313
(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)
3314
(global-set-key [M-up]  '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))
3315
3316
```

3317
3318
3319
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.
3320

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3321
## Extending gMock
3322

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3323
### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
3324

3325
3326
3327
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.
3328

3329
3330
The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
The syntax:
3331

3332
```cpp
3333
3334
3335
MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }
```

3336
3337
3338
3339
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`.
3340

3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
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`.
3346

3347
3348
3349
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.
3350
3351

For example:
3352

3353
```cpp
3354
3355
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
```
3356

3357
allows you to write
3358

3359
```cpp
3360
3361
3362
  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3363

3364
or,
3365

3366
```cpp
3367
3368
3369
  using ::testing::Not;
  ...
  // Verifies that two values are divisible by 7.
3370
3371
3372
  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3373

3374
If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
3375
3376

```shell
3377
3378
3379
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27
3380
  ...
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
  Value of: some_other_expression
  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)
    Actual: 21
```

3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
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:

3393
```cpp
3394
3395
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
        absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) {
3396
3397
3398
3399
  return (arg % 7) == 0;
}
```

3400
3401
3402
3403
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:

3404
```cpp
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
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:
3415
3416

```shell
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
```

3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
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.
3427

3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
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.
3436

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3437
### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
3438

3439
3440
Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
use the macro:
3441

3442
```cpp
3443
3444
MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }
```
3445
3446
3447

where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that
references `negation` and `param_name`.
3448
3449

For example:
3450

3451
```cpp
3452
3453
MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
```
3454

3455
will allow you to write:
3456

3457
```cpp
3458
3459
  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
```
3460

3461
which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
3462
3463

```shell
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
  Value of: Blah("a")
  Expected: has absolute value 10
    Actual: -9
```

3469
3470
Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the
message human-friendly.
3471

3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
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:
3479

3480
```cpp
3481
3482
3483
MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }
```

3484
3485
3486
3487
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
3488
3489
3490
expression.

For example,
3491

3492
```cpp
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
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));
3501
```
3502

3503
would generate a failure that contains the message:
3504
3505

```shell
3506
3507
3508
  Expected: is in range [4, 6]
```

3509
3510
3511
3512
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,

3513
```cpp
3514
3515
3516
3517
  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
  ...
  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
```
3518

3519
would generate a failure that contains the text:
3520
3521

```shell
3522
3523
3524
3525
  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
```

For the purpose of typing, you can view
3526

3527
```cpp
3528
3529
MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
```
3530

3531
as shorthand for
3532

3533
```cpp
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>
FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>
Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }
```

3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
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.
3557
3558

You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:
3559

3560
```cpp
3561
3562
3563
3564
MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }
MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }
```

3565
While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining a new
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
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).
3573

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3574
### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers
3575

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3576
3577
3578
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
3579
generating readable error messages when expectations are violated.
3580

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3581
A matcher of `T` must declare a typedef like:
3582

3583
```cpp
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3584
3585
using is_gtest_matcher = void;
```
3586

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3587
and supports the following operations:
3588

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
```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.
3595

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3596
3597
3598
matcher.DescribeTo(os);
matcher.DescribeNegationTo(os);
// where `os` is of type `std::ostream*`.
3599
3600
```

3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
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:
3611

3612
```cpp
3613
3614
using ::testing::Matcher;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3615
class DivisibleBy7Matcher {
3616
 public:
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3617
3618
  using is_gtest_matcher = void;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3619
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream*) const {
3620
3621
3622
    return (n % 7) == 0;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3623
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3624
3625
3626
    *os << "is divisible by 7";
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3627
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3628
3629
3630
3631
    *os << "is not divisible by 7";
  }
};

3632
Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3633
  return DivisibleBy7Matcher();
3634
3635
}

3636
...
3637
3638
3639
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
```

3640
You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3641
`os` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
3642

3643
```cpp
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3644
class DivisibleBy7Matcher {
3645
 public:
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3646
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream* os) const {
3647
    const int remainder = n % 7;
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3648
3649
    if (remainder != 0 && os != nullptr) {
      *os << "the remainder is " << remainder;
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
    }
    return remainder == 0;
  }
  ...
};
```

3657
3658
3659
Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:

```shell
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
Value of: x
Expected: is divisible by 7
  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3665
3666
3667
Tip: for convenience, `MatchAndExplain()` can take a `MatchResultListener*`
instead of `std::ostream*`.

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3668
### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
3669

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
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
3677
3678
  using is_gtest_matcher = void;

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
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
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
  // To implement a polymorphic matcher, we just need to make MatchAndExplain a
  // template on its first argument.

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

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

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

NotNullMatcher NotNull() {
  return NotNullMatcher();
}

...

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

### Legacy Matcher Implementation

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

The interface looks like this:

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

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

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

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

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

  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.
  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const;
};
```
3745

3746
3747
3748
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:
3749

3750
```cpp
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
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
3772
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
3773
3774

  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3775
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
3776
3777
3778
3779
};

// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class
// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.
3780
PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
3781
3782
  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
}
3783

3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
...

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

**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from
3790
3791
`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be
virtual.
3792

3793
3794
Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming
additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`.
3795

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3796
### Writing New Cardinalities
3797

3798
3799
3800
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)`.
3801

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3802
3803
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
3804
interface (in namespace `testing`):
3805

3806
```cpp
3807
3808
3809
3810
class CardinalityInterface {
 public:
  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();

3811
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality.
3812
3813
  virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

3814
3815
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this
  // cardinality.
3816
3817
3818
  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

  // Describes self to an ostream.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3819
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3820
3821
3822
};
```

3823
3824
For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can
write
3825

3826
```cpp
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
using ::testing::Cardinality;
using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
using ::testing::MakeCardinality;

class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
 public:
3833
  bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3834
3835
3836
    return (call_count % 2) == 0;
  }

3837
  bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3838
3839
3840
    return false;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3841
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
    *os << "called even number of times";
  }
};

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

3850
...
3851
3852
3853
3854
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))
      .Times(EvenNumber());
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3855
### Writing New Actions Quickly {#QuickNewActions}
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870

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

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

The same approach works with stateful functors (or any callable, really):
3871

3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
```
struct MultiplyBy {
  template <typename T>
  T operator()(T arg) { return arg * multiplier; }

  int multiplier;
}

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3884
#### Legacy macro-based Actions
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890

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.
3891
3892

By writing
3893

3894
```cpp
3895
3896
ACTION(name) { statements; }
```
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903

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:

3904
```cpp
3905
3906
ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
```
3907

3908
allows you to write
3909

3910
```cpp
3911
3912
3913
... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());
```

3914
3915
3916
3917
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.
3918
3919

Another example:
3920

3921
```cpp
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
ACTION(Foo) {
  (*arg2)(5);
  Blah();
  *arg1 = 0;
  return arg0;
}
```

3930
3931
3932
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.
3933

3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
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
3943
3944

For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
3945

3946
```cpp
3947
3948
int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
```
3949

3950
we have:
3951

3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
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*)`
3962

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3963
#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
3964
3965
3966

Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
another macro
3967

3968
```cpp
3969
3970
3971
3972
ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
```

For example,
3973

3974
```cpp
3975
3976
ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
```
3977

3978
will allow you to write
3979

3980
```cpp
3981
3982
3983
3984
// Returns argument #0 + 5.
... WillOnce(Add(5));
```

3985
3986
3987
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.
3988

3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
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,
3997

3998
```cpp
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
  double dx = arg0 - x;
  double dy = arg1 - y;
  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
}
```
4005

4006
lets you write
4007

4008
```cpp
4009
4010
4011
... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
```

4012
4013
You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of
parameters is 0.
4014
4015

You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
4016

4017
```cpp
4018
4019
4020
4021
ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4022
### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION
4023
4024
4025
4026

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.
4027

4028
4029
Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. There are
several tricks to do that. For example:
4030

4031
```cpp
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
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;
}
```

4047
4048
where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that
verifies two types are the same.
4049

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4050
### Writing New Action Templates Quickly
4051
4052
4053
4054

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*()`.
4055
4056

The syntax:
4057

4058
```cpp
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,
                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),
                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }
```

4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
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.
4069
4070

Example:
4071

4072
```cpp
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
// 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
4079
  *output = T(std::get<k>(args));
4080
4081
4082
4083
}
```

To create an instance of an action template, write:
4084

4085
```cpp
4086
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
4087
```
4088
4089
4090
4091

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:

4092
```cpp
4093
4094
4095
using ::testing::_;
...
  int n;
4096
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));
4097
4098
```

4099
4100
4101
If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide
additional template arguments:

4102
```cpp
4103
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)
4104
```
4105

4106
4107
where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`.

4108
4109
4110
`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:
4111

4112
```cpp
4113
4114
4115
  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);
```

4116
4117
4118
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`?
4119

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4120
### Using the ACTION Object's Type
4121

4122
4123
4124
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:
4125

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4126
4127
<!-- mdformat off(GitHub does not support multiline tables) -->

4128
4129
4130
| Given Definition              | Expression          | Has Type              |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------- |
| `ACTION(Foo)`                 | `Foo()`             | `FooAction`           |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4131
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())` | `Foo<t1, ..., t_m>()` | `FooAction<t1, ..., t_m>` |
4132
| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)`        | `Bar(int_value)`    | `BarActionP<int>`     |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4133
4134
4135
| `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>` |
4136
| ...                           | ...                 | ...                   |
4137

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4138
4139
<!-- mdformat on -->

4140
4141
4142
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.
4143

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4144
### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions}
4145
4146

While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
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.
4152
4153

An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement
4154
4155
`::testing::ActionInterface<F>`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in
which the action will be used. For example:
4156

4157
```cpp
4158
4159
template <typename F>
class ActionInterface {
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
 public:
  virtual ~ActionInterface();

  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type
  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.
  //
4166

4167
  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4168
  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
4169
4170
  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
};
4171
```
4172

4173
```cpp
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
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
4183
4184
  int Perform(const std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
    int* p = std::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
    return *p++;
  }
};

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

4193
...
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
  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
4201
### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions}
4202

4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
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()`).
4208

4209
4210
4211
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:
4212

4213
```cpp
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
namespace testing {
template <typename Impl>
PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);
}  // namespace testing
```

4220
4221
4222
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:
4223

4224
```cpp
4225
4226
4227
4228
class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
 public:
  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4229
4230
    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args).
    return std::get<1>(args);
4231
4232
4233
4234
  }
};
```

4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
This implementation class does *not* need to inherit from any particular class.
What matters is that it must have a `Perform()` method template. This method
template takes the mock function's arguments as a tuple in a **single**
argument, and returns the result of the action. It can be either `const` or not,
but must be invokable with exactly one template argument, which is the result
type. In other words, you must be able to call `Perform<R>(args)` where `R` is
the mock function's return type and `args` is its arguments in a tuple.
4242

4243
4244
4245
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:
4246

4247
```cpp
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;
using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;

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

4256
Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones:
4257

4258
```cpp
4259
4260
4261
4262
using ::testing::_;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
4263
4264
4265
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
              (override));
4266
4267
};

4268
  ...
4269
  MockFoo foo;
4270
4271
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
4272
  ...
4273
  foo.DoThis(true, 5);  // Will return 5.
4274
4275
4276
  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4277
### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values
4278

4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
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.
4284
4285

This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL
4286
4287
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
4288
[The GoogleTest advanced guide](advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values)
4289
4290
explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your
particular type than to dump the bytes.
4291

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4292
## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
4293
4294
4295
4296

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4297
### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
4298
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

`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. :-)