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

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

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

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

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

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

41
42
43
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
44
```cpp {.bad}
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
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
54
```cpp {.good}
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
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
67
```cpp {.good}
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
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
77
### Mocking Private or Protected Methods
78
79
80
81
82
83
84

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:
85

86
```cpp
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
class Foo {
 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0;

 protected:
  virtual void Resume();

 private:
  virtual int GetTimeOut();
};

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  ...
102
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Transform, (Gadget* g), (override));
103
104
105

  // The following must be in the public section, even though the
  // methods are protected or private in the base class.
106
107
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Resume, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetTimeOut, (), (override));
108
109
110
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
111
### Mocking Overloaded Methods
112
113
114

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

115
```cpp
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
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 {
  ...
133
134
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override));
135

136
137
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
138
139
140
};
```

141
142
143
**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:
144

145
```cpp
146
147
148
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  using Foo::Add;
149
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
150
151
152
153
154
  // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x);
  ...
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
155
### Mocking Class Templates
156

157
You can mock class templates just like any class.
158

159
```cpp
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
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> {
  ...
173
174
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
175
176
177
};
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
178
### Mocking Non-virtual Methods {#MockingNonVirtualMethods}
179

180
gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in Hi-perf dependency
misterg's avatar
misterg committed
181
injection.<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0017 DO NOT DELETE -->
182

183
184
185
186
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`):
187

188
```cpp
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
// 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:
202
203
  MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
  MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
204
205
206
207
  ...
};
```

208
209
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.
210

211
212
213
214
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).
215

216
217
218
219
220
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:
221

222
```cpp
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
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
235
236
`CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
tests.
237

238
```cpp
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
  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
246
### Mocking Free Functions
247

248
249
250
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).
251

252
253
Instead of calling a free function (say, `OpenFile`) directly, introduce an
interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls the free function:
254

255
```cpp
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
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) {
266
     return OpenFile(path, mode);
267
268
269
270
  }
};
```

271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
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
282
### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
283

284
285
286
Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro was introduced, 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.
287

288
The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`:
289

290
291
292
293
294
295
296
*   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.
297

298
Old macros and their new equivalents:
299

300
301
302
303
304
<a name="table99"></a>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1">
<tr> <th colspan=2> Simple </th></tr>
<tr> <td> Old </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr>
<tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))` </td> </tr>
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
<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old </td> <td>
`MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td>
`MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))` </td> </tr>

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

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

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

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

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

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

</table>

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
340
### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350

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.
351
352
353

Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:

354
```cpp
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
TEST(...) {
  MockFoo mock_foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
}
```

362
363
364
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:
365

366
```cpp
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

376
377
`NiceMock<MockFoo>` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever
`MockFoo` is accepted.
378
379
380
381

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

382
```cpp
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
using ::testing::NiceMock;

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

392
393
The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting
calls failures:
394

395
```cpp
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
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.
}
```

408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
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).

There are some caveats though (I dislike them just as much as the next guy, but
sadly they are side effects of C++'s limitations):

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
    requires cleaning up existing tests. http://b/28934720 tracks the issue.
3.  During the constructor or destructor of `MockFoo`, the mock object is *not*
    nice or strict. This may cause surprises if the constructor or destructor
    calls a mock method on `this` object. (This behavior, however, is consistent
    with C++'s general rule: if a constructor or destructor calls a virtual
    method of `this` object, that method is treated as non-virtual. In other
    words, to the base class's constructor or destructor, `this` object behaves
    like an instance of the base class, not the derived class. This rule is
    required for safety. Otherwise a base constructor may use members of a
    derived class before they are initialized, or a base destructor may use
    members of a derived class after they have been destroyed.)

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
447
### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
448
449
450

Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
For example:
451

452
```cpp
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
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;
};
```

463
464
465
466
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.
467

468
The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class:
469

470
```cpp
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
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);
487
488
489
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Log,
              (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,
               const string& message));
490
491
492
};
```

493
By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock
494
class more user-friendly.
495

496
497
498
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:
499

500
501
502
503
504
```cpp
class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
 public:
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
505

506
507
508
509
  // the above methods delegate to this one:
  MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
};
```
510

511
512
This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
argument matchers:
513

514
515
516
517
```cpp
ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
    .WillByDefault(MakeMockTurtle());
```
518

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
519
### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes
520

521
522
523
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.
524

525
Try not to do that.
526

527
528
529
530
531
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.
532

533
534
535
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.
536

537
538
539
540
541
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.
542

543
This technique incurs some overhead:
544

545
546
*   You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem).
*   There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn.
547

548
549
However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better
testability:
550

551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
*   `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
581
### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
582
583
584

Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
example:
585

586
```cpp
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
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:
596
  char DoThis(int n) override {
597
    return (n > 0) ? '+' :
598
           (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
599
600
  }

601
  void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
602
603
604
605
606
    *p = strlen(s);
  }
};
```

607
608
609
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.
610

611
612
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:
613

614
```cpp
615
616
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
617
618
619
  // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
620
621
622
623

  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.
  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.
  void DelegateToFake() {
624
625
626
627
628
629
    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);
    });
630
  }
631

632
633
634
635
636
 private:
  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.
};
```

637
638
639
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.:
640

641
```cpp
642
643
644
645
using ::testing::_;

TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
  MockFoo foo;
646
647

  foo.DelegateToFake();  // Enables the fake for delegation.
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656

  // 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.
657
  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);  // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
658
659
660
661
662
663
  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
}
```

**Some tips:**

664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
*   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
699
### Delegating Calls to a Real Object
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712

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:
713

714
```cpp
715
716
717
718
719
720
using ::testing::AtLeast;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  MockFoo() {
    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
721
722
723
724
725
726
    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);
    });
727
728
    ...
  }
729
730
  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...);
731
732
733
734
735
  ...
 private:
  Foo real_;
};

736
...
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
  MockFoo mock;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())
      .Times(3);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))
      .Times(AtLeast(1));
  ... use mock in test ...
```

745
746
747
748
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.
749

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
750
### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class
751

752
753
754
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:
755

756
```cpp
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
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.
768
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
769
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
770
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
771
772
773
774
};
```

Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of
775
776
777
778
`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).
779

780
781
The trick is to leave a back door in your mock class for accessing the real
methods in the base class:
782

783
```cpp
784
785
786
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // Mocking a pure method.
787
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
788
  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
789
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797

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

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

798
```cpp
799
...
800
801
802
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
    return foo.FooConcrete(str);
  });
803
804
805
806
```

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

807
```cpp
808
...
809
810
811
  ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) {
    return foo.FooConcrete(str);
  });
812
813
```

814
815
816
(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.)
817

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
818
## Using Matchers
819

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
820
### Matching Argument Values Exactly
821
822
823

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

824
```cpp
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
using ::testing::Return;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))
      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
832
### Using Simple Matchers
833
834
835

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

836
```cpp
837
838
839
840
841
842
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()));
843
      // The second argument must not be NULL.
844
845
846
847
```

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

848
```cpp
849
850
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
```
851
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0022 DO NOT DELETE -->
852

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
853
### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
854
855

You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
856
`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
857

858
```cpp
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
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
874
### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
875

876
877
878
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!
879

880
881
882
883
884
885
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.
886

887
888
889
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 :
890

891
892
893
894
895
896
897
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).
898

899
The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.
900
901
902

Here's one example:

903
```cpp
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
912
  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
913
914
};

915
...
916
917
918
919
920
  MockFoo foo;
  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));
```

921
922
923
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`.
924

925
926
927
`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.
928

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
929
### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload}
930

931
932
If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some
help on which overloaded version it is.
933

934
935
To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the
`Const()` argument wrapper.
936

937
```cpp
938
939
940
941
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
942
943
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
944
945
};

946
...
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
  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));
```

955
(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.)
956

957
958
959
960
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):
961

962
```cpp
963
964
965
966
967
968
using ::testing::An;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::TypedEq;

class MockPrinter : public Printer {
 public:
969
970
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
};

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
986
### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments
987

988
989
990
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:
991

992
```cpp
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
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'));
```

1005
1006
Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be
returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned.
1007

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1008
### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole
1009

1010
1011
1012
1013
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,
1014

1015
```cpp
1016
1017
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Ne;
1018
using ::testing::Lt;
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))
      .With(Lt());
```

1024
1025
says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than
the second argument.
1026

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1027
1028
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.
1029

1030
1031
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())`.
1032

1033
1034
You can use `Args<k1, ..., kn>(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a
tuple) against `m`. For example,
1035

1036
```cpp
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Args;
using ::testing::Lt;
...
1042
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah)
1043
1044
1045
      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));
```

1046
1047
1048
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.
1049

1050
1051
1052
As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
including the `Lt()` matcher above. See [here](#MultiArgMatchers) for the
complete list.
1053

1054
1055
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
1056
1057
take a `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected arguments
as *one* single tuple to the predicate.
1058

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1059
### Using Matchers as Predicates
1060

1061
1062
1063
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
1064
matchers were not allowed to participate.
1065

1066
1067
Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by
wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example,
1068

1069
```cpp
1070
1071
1072
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

1073
1074
1075
1076
using ::testing::Matches;
using ::testing::Ge;

vector<int> v;
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
...
// How many elements in v are >= 10?
const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));
```

1082
1083
1084
1085
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:
1086

1087
```cpp
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
using testing::AllOf;
using testing::Ge;
using testing::Le;
using testing::Matches;
using testing::Ne;
...
1094
1095
1096
Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1097
### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
1098
1099

Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe
1100
1101
themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in googletest assertions.
It's called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`:
1102

1103
```cpp
1104
1105
1106
1107
  ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);  // Asserts that value matches matcher.
  EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);  // The non-fatal version.
```

1108
For example, in a googletest test you can write:
1109

1110
```cpp
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

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

1119
...
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
  EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
  EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+"));
  ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10)));
```

1125
1126
which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and `Baz()`, and
verifies that:
1127

1128
1129
1130
*   `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].
1131

1132
1133
1134
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:
1135

1136
```cpp
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
Value of: Foo()
  Actual: "Hi, world!"
Expected: starts with "Hello"
```

1142
1143
**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was borrowed from Joe Walnes'
Hamcrest project, which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.
1144

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1145
### Using Predicates as Matchers
1146

1147
1148
1149
1150
gMock provides a [built-in set](#MatcherList) of matchers. In case you find them
lacking, you can use an arbitrary unary predicate function or functor as a
matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type you want. You do
this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` function, for example:
1151

1152
```cpp
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
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)));
```

1161
1162
1163
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) ...`.
1164

1165
1166
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0023 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1167
### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180

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:
1181

1182
```cpp
1183
using ::testing::ByRef;
1184
using ::testing::Eq;
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
using ::testing::Lt;
...
  // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(ByRef(bar))));

  // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(ByRef(bar))));
```

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

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

1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
Often a mock function takes a reference to object as an argument. When matching
the argument, you may not want to compare the entire object against a fixed
object, as that may be over-specification. Instead, you may need to validate a
certain member variable or the result of a certain getter method of the object.
You can do this with `Field()` and `Property()`. More specifically,
1204

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

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

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

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

For example:

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1221
<!-- mdformat off(github rendering does not support multiline tables) -->
1222
1223
1224
| Expression                   | Description                              |
| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`.       |
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1225
1226
| `Property(&Foo::name,  StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with  `"John "`. |
<!-- mdformat on -->
1227

1228
1229
Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument
and be declared as `const`.
1230

1231
1232
BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
instance,
1233

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

1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
matches a plain pointer `p` where `p->number >= 3`. If `p` is `NULL`, the match
will always fail regardless of the inner matcher.

What if you want to validate more than one members at the same time? Remember
that there are [`AllOf()` and `AllOfArray()`](#CombiningMatchers).

Finally `Field()` and `Property()` provide overloads that take the field or
property names as the first argument to include it in the error message. This
can be useful when creating combined matchers.
1250

1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
```cpp
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Field;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;

Matcher<Foo> IsFoo(const Foo& foo) {
  return AllOf(Field("some_field", &Foo::some_field, foo.some_field),
               Field("other_field", &Foo::other_field, foo.other_field),
               Field("last_field", &Foo::last_field, foo.last_field));
}
```
1263

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

1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
C++ functions often take pointers as arguments. You can use matchers like
`IsNull()`, `NotNull()`, and other comparison matchers to match a pointer, but
what if you want to make sure the value *pointed to* by the pointer, instead of
the pointer itself, has a certain property? Well, you can use the `Pointee(m)`
matcher.
1271

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1301
1302
1303
1304
What if you have a pointer to pointer? You guessed it - you can use nested
`Pointee()` to probe deeper inside the value. For example,
`Pointee(Pointee(Lt(3)))` matches a pointer that points to a pointer that points
to a number less than 3 (what a mouthful...).
1305

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1306
### Testing a Certain Property of an Object
1307

1308
1309
1310
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
1311
1312
quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function.

1313
1314
1315
1316
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:
1317

1318
```cpp
1319
using ::testing::Matcher;
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

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

1328
1329
  bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
1330
1331
1332
    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1333
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
1334
1335
1336
    *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
1337
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
    *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
  }
 private:
  const int expected_sum_;
};

1344
Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
  return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum));
}

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1352
### Matching Containers
1353

1354
1355
1356
1357
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.
1358

1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
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.
1364

1365
1366
You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in such
cases:
1367

1368
```cpp
1369
1370
1371
1372
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::ElementsAre;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
1373
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1374
1375
1376
1377
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1378
1379
The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which must be 1,
greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1380
1381
1382

If you instead write:

1383
```cpp
1384
1385
1386
1387
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
...
1388
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
1389
1390
1391
1392
...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
```

1393
1394
It means that the container must have 4 elements, which (under some permutation)
must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
1395

1396
1397
As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use
`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead:
1398

1399
```cpp
1400
1401
1402
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values.
1403
  const int expected_vector1[] = {1, 5, 2, 4, ...};
1404
1405
1406
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1)));

  // Or, an array of element matchers.
1407
  Matcher<int> expected_vector2[] = {1, Gt(2), _, 3, ...};
1408
1409
1410
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2)));
```

1411
1412
1413
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:
1414

1415
```cpp
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
...
  int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];
  ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));
```

1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
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)));
```

1433
1434
**Tips:**

1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
*   `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`.
1447

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1448
### Sharing Matchers
1449

1450
1451
1452
1453
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.
1454

1455
1456
1457
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,
1458

1459
```cpp
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Gt;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::Matcher;
...
1465
1466
1467
1468
  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
1469
### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480

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
1481
## Setting Expectations
1482

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1483
### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
1484

1485
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0018 DO NOT DELETE -->
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535

**`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
1536
### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548

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
1549
### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
1550
1551
1552

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

1553
```cpp
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
using ::testing::_;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .Times(0);
```

1560
1561
If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the
expected calls:
1562

1563
```cpp
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
using ::testing::AnyNumber;
using ::testing::Gt;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))
      .Times(AnyNumber());
```

1572
1573
A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements
will be an error.
1574

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1575
### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
1576

1577
1578
*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
*Very* different.
1579

1580
1581
1582
1583
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.
1584

1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
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.
1590

1591
1592
**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
the way the test expects it to behave.
1593

1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
**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).
1599

1600
1601
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?
1602

1603
1604
1605
1606
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.
1607

1608
1609
A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
mock strict may change the test's result.
1610
1611
1612

Let's look at an example:

1613
```cpp
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
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 ...
}
```

1624
1625
1626
1627
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.*
1628

1629
1630
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`:
1631

1632
```cpp
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
  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"));
```

1639
1640
1641
1642
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.
1643

1644
1645
Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
1646

1647
1648
For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
1649

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1650
### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
1651

1652
1653
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:
1654

1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
```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
1676
### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686

Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined earlier 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 third `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those
in the first two, then the third expectation will be used.

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`:
1687

1688
```cpp
1689
1690
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InSequence;
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701

  {
    InSequence s;

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

1702
1703
1704
1705
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.
1706

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1707
### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
1708

1709
1710
1711
1712
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.
1713

1714
1715
1716
gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the [After](#AfterClause) clause of
`EXPECT_CALL`.
1717

1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
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:
1723

1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
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.
1729

1730
1731
1732
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.
1733

1734
1735
Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For
example,
1736

1737
1738
1739
```cpp
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
  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);
```

1752
specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`):
1753

1754
```text
1755
1756
1757
1758
       +---> B
       |
  A ---|
       |
1759
        +---> C ---> D
1760
1761
```

1762
1763
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.
1764

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1765
### Controlling When an Expectation Retires
1766

1767
1768
1769
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
1770

1771
```cpp
1772
1773
1774
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Sequence;
...
1775
1776
  Sequence s1, s2;

1777
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #1
1778
1779
      .Times(AnyNumber())
      .InSequence(s1, s2);
1780
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))   // #2
1781
      .InSequence(s1);
1782
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))      // #3
1783
1784
1785
      .InSequence(s2);
```

1786
1787
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.
1788

1789
1790
Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For
example,
1791

1792
```cpp
1793
1794
using ::testing::_;
...
1795
1796
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."));     // #2
1797
1798
```

1799
1800
1801
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.
1802

1803
1804
If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it
becomes saturated:
1805

1806
```cpp
1807
1808
using ::testing::_;
...
1809
1810
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #2
1811
1812
1813
      .RetiresOnSaturation();
```

1814
1815
1816
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.
1817

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1818
## Using Actions
1819

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1820
### Returning References from Mock Methods
1821

1822
1823
If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()`
instead of `Return()` to return a result:
1824

1825
```cpp
1826
1827
1828
1829
using ::testing::ReturnRef;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1830
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
};
...
  MockFoo foo;
  Bar bar;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())
      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));
1837
...
1838
1839
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1840
### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods
1841

1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
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.
1847
1848

If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using
1849
1850
1851
1852
`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?
1853

1854
Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `ByRef()`:
1855

1856
```cpp
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
using testing::ByRef;
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1862
  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
};
...
  int x = 0;
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
1868
      .WillRepeatedly(Return(ByRef(x)));  // Wrong!
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
  x = 42;
  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
```

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

1875
```text
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
Value of: foo.GetValue()
  Actual: 0
Expected: 42
```

1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
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
a proxy object that references some temporary objects.) As a result, `ByRef(x)`
is converted to an `int` value (instead of a `const int&`) when the expectation
is set, and `Return(ByRef(x))` will always return 0.
1887

1888
1889
`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It
returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:
1890

1891
```cpp
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
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
1902
### Combining Actions
1903

1904
1905
1906
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.
1907

1908
```cpp
1909
using ::testing::_;
1910
1911
1912
1913
using ::testing::DoAll;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
1914
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
};
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
                      action_2,
                      ...
                      action_n));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
1924
### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930

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:
1931

1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
```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
1948
### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953

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`.
1954
1955
1956
1957

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

1958
```cpp
1959
using ::testing::_;
1960
1961
1962
1963
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
1964
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
1965
  ...
1966
}
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))
      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));
```

1973
1974
In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the
`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based).
1975

1976
1977
1978
`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.
1979
1980

If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain
1981
1982
`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the
`Return()` statement last:
1983

1984
```cpp
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;

class MockMutator : public Mutator {
 public:
  ...
1992
1993
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
}
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
...
  MockMutator mutator;
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                      Return(true)));
```

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
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:
2008

2009
```cpp
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
using ::testing::NotNull;
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;

class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
 public:
2015
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
2016
  ...
2017
}
2018
2019
...
  MockArrayMutator mutator;
2020
  int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))
      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));
```

This also works when the argument is an output iterator:

2027
```cpp
2028
using ::testing::_;
bartshappee's avatar
bartshappee committed
2029
using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
2030
2031
2032

class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
 public:
2033
2034
  MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
              (override));
2035
  ...
2036
}
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
...
  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
2047
### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State
2048

2049
2050
2051
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:
2052

2053
```cpp
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
using ::testing::InSequence;
using ::testing::Return;

...
  {
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
     InSequence seq;
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());
     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
         .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));
2065
2066
2067
2068
  }
  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();
```

2069
2070
This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called
and return `false` afterwards.
2071

2072
2073
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:
2074

2075
```cpp
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::SaveArg;
using ::testing::Return;

ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }
...
  int previous_value = 0;
2083
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue)
2084
      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));
2085
  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue)
2086
2087
2088
2089
      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));
  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();
```

2090
2091
Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last
`UpdateValue()` call.
2092

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2093
### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue}
2094

2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
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.
2100

2101
2102
2103
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:
2104

2105
```cpp
2106
2107
using ::testing::DefaultValue;

2108
2109
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2110
  MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
2111
2112
};

2113
2114

...
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
  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();
```

2131
2132
2133
2134
Please note that changing the default value for a type can make you tests hard
to understand. We recommend you to use this feature judiciously. For example,
you may want to make sure the `Set()` and `Clear()` calls are right next to the
code that uses your mock.
2135

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2136
### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method
2137

2138
2139
2140
2141
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:
2142

2143
```cpp
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
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.
```

2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
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.
2173

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2174
### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
2175

2176
If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2177
(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda) as an action.
2178
2179
2180
2181

<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0024 DO NOT DELETE -->

```cpp
2182
using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke;
2183
2184
2185

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2186
2187
  MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override));
2188
2189
2190
};

int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
2191
int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; }
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197

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

2198
...
2199
2200
2201
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))
2202
2203
      .WillOnce(&CalculateSum)
      .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1)));
2204
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2205
      .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2206
      .WillOnce([] { return true; })
2207
      .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; });
2208

2209
2210
2211
2212
  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.
2213
2214
```

2215
The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible*
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
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?
2221

2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
**`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
2239
### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267

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).
}
```
2268

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2269
### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
2270

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2271
2272
2273
2274
`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.
2275

2276
Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2277
2278
2279
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.
2280

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2281
2282
2283
2284
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:
2285

2286
```cpp
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2292
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override));
2293
2294
2295
};

bool Job1() { ... }
2296
bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
2297

2298
...
2299
2300
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2301
      .WillOnce([] { Job1(); });
2302
      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
2303
2304

  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().
2305
  foo.ComplexJob(20);  // Invokes Job2(5, 'a').
2306
2307
```

2308
**`Note:`{.escaped}**
2309

2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
*   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
2326
### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
2327

2328
2329
Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other
words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g.
2330

2331
```cpp
2332
2333
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2334
2335
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1<bool, int>* callback)),
              (override));
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
};
```

and you may want to invoke this callable argument:

2341
```cpp
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
using ::testing::_;
...
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(...);
2347
2348
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2349
2350
```

2351
2352
2353
2354
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?
2355

2356
Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
2357

2358
```cpp
2359
InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)
2360
2361
```

2362
2363
2364
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.
2365
2366
2367

With that, you could write:

2368
```cpp
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
2374
2375
      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
      // second argument DoThis() receives.
2376
2377
```

2378
2379
What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
inside `ByRef()`:
2380

2381
```cpp
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
              ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::ByRef;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
  MockFoo foo;
  Helper helper;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, ByRef(helper)));
2396
2397
      // ByRef(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of it,
      // will be passed to the callback.
2398
2399
```

2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
argument in `ByRef()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the
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:
2405

2406
```cpp
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
  ...
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
              (override));
  ...
  using ::testing::_;
  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
  ...
2414
2415
2416
2417
  MockFoo foo;
  ...
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))
      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
      // 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.
2423
2424
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2425
### Ignoring an Action's Result
2426

2427
2428
2429
2430
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:
2431

2432
```cpp
2433
using ::testing::_;
2434
2435
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
using ::testing::Return;

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
2443
2444
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
2445
2446
};

2447
  ...
2448
2449
  MockFoo foo;
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))
2450
2451
2452
2453
      // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));
      // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs
      // to return void.
      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process));
2454
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
2455
2456
      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething),
                      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.
2457
2458
2459
                      Return(true)));
```

2460
2461
Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns
`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors.
2462

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2463
### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs}
2464

2465
2466
2467
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:
2468

2469
```cpp
2470
2471
2472
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
...
2473
2474
2475
2476
  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));
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
...
bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {
  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;
}
...
2482
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2483
2484
2485
      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(
```

2486
2487
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:
2488

2489
```cpp
2490
2491
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
2492
...
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
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);
}
...
2499
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.
```

But isn't this awkward?

2505
2506
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:
2507

2508
```cpp
2509
WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)
2510
2511
```

2512
2513
2514
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:
2515

2516
```cpp
2517
2518
2519
2520
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::WithArgs;
...
2521
2522
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));  // No need to define your own adaptor.
2523
2524
```

2525
For better readability, gMock also gives you:
2526

2527
2528
2529
*   `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and
*   `WithArg<N>(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes
    *one* argument.
2530

2531
2532
As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for
`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`.
2533
2534
2535

Here are more tips:

2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
*   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.
2546

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2547
### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions
2548

2549
2550
2551
2552
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.
2553

2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
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
2560

2561
```cpp
2562
2563
2564
2565
 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));
2566
2567
2568
2569
```

instead of

2570
```cpp
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
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);
}
...
2581
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2582
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
2583
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
```

you could write

2589
```cpp
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::Invoke;
using ::testing::Unused;

double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
}
...
2598
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
2599
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
2600
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
2601
2602
2603
      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2604
### Sharing Actions
2605

2606
2607
2608
2609
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.
2610

2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
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:
2616

2617
```cpp
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
using ::testing::Action;
using ::testing::DoAll;
using ::testing::Return;
using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
...
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
                                      Return(true));
  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...
```

2628
2629
2630
2631
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
2632
action will exhibit different behaviors. Example:
2633

2634
```cpp
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
  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

2647
```cpp
2648
2649
using ::testing::Action;
...
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
  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
2660
### Testing Asynchronous Behavior
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708

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;
  Notification done;
  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
2709
## Misc Recipes on Using gMock
2710

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2711
### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types
2712

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2713
C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from
2714
2715
one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr<T>` is probably
the most commonly used move-only type.
2716

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2717
2718
2719
2720
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
2721
[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature.
2722

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2723
2724
Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
2725

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2726
```cpp
2727
2728
2729
2730
enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic };

class Buzz {
 public:
2731
  explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... }
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
  ...
};

class Buzzer {
 public:
  virtual ~Buzzer() {}
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2738
2739
  virtual std::unique_ptr<Buzz> MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0;
  virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0;
2740
2741
2742
2743
  ...
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2744
2745
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
2746
2747
`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr<Buzz>` or take a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`. Now we
need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests.
2748

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2749
2750
To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the
familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual:
2751

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2752
```cpp
2753
2754
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2755
2756
2757
  MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr<Buzz>, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp),
              (override));
2758
2759
2760
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2761
2762
2763
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_`:
2764

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2765
```cpp
2766
2767
2768
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2769
2770
First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which
returns a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`.
2771

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2772
As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or
2773
2774
2775
`.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
2776
action:
2777

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2778
```cpp
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
  // 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
2786
If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
2787
[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
2788

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2789
2790
If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
`Return(ByMove(...))` action:
2791

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2792
```cpp
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
  // 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
2803
Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is
2804
2805
2806
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
2807
2808
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.
2809

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2810
2811
2812
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:
2813

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2814
```cpp
2815
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x"))
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2816
2817
2818
      .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
        return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
      });
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823

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

2824
2825
Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr<Buzz>` will be created
and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`.
2826

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2827
2828
2829
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
2830
can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions):
2831

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2832
2833
```cpp
  using ::testing::Unused;
2834

2835
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2836
2837
2838
  EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
              0);

2839
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce(
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2840
2841
      [](std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; });
  EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0));
2842
2843
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2844
2845
2846
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.
2847

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2848
2849
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.
2850

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2851
#### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly}
2852

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
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
2859
2860
class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
 public:
2861
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp));
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2862
2863
  bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Time timestamp) override {
    return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp);
2864
2865
2866
2867
  }
};
```

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2868
2869
2870
2871
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:
2872

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2873
2874
2875
```cpp
  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _));
2876

Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2877
2878
2879
2880
  // 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);
2881
2882
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
2883
### Making the Compilation Faster
Gennadiy Civil's avatar
 
Gennadiy Civil committed
2884

2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
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.
2892

2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
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.
2898

2899
2900
Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock
class before applying this recipe:
2901

2902
```cpp
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
// 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.

2911
2912
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```

After the change, it would look like:

2919
```cpp
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
// File mock_foo.h.
...
class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
  // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.
  MockFoo();
  virtual ~MockFoo();

2928
2929
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
2930
2931
2932
  ... more mock methods ...
};
```
2933

2934
and
2935

2936
```cpp
2937
// File mock_foo.cc.
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
#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
2947
### Forcing a Verification
2948

2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
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.
2954

2955
2956
2957
2958
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.
2959

2960
2961
2962
2963
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)`:
2964

2965
```cpp
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
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.
```

2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
**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
2988
### Using Check Points {#UsingCheckPoints}
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006

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
3007
3008
`mock_object` too.

3009
3010
3011
3012
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:
3013

3014
```cpp
3015
3016
3017
  Foo(1);
  Foo(2);
  Foo(3);
3018
3019
```

3020
3021
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:
3022

3023
```cpp
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
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);
}
```

3047
3048
3049
3050
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()`.
3051

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3052
### Mocking Destructors
3053

3054
3055
3056
3057
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.
3058

3059
3060
3061
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:
3062

3063
```cpp
3064
MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ());  // Won't compile!
3065
3066
```

3067
3068
3069
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:
3070

3071
```cpp
3072
3073
3074
class MockFoo : public Foo {
  ...
  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
3075
  MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
3076
3077
3078
3079
  virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); }
};
```

3080
3081
3082
(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:
3083

3084
```cpp
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
  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
3100
### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
3101

3102
3103
3104
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.
3105

3106
3107
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.
3108
3109
3110

Remember the steps for using a mock:

3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
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.
3118

3119
3120
If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live
happily together:
3121

3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
*   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.
3130

3131
3132
3133
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.
3134

3135
3136
gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
that called the mock function. For example, in
3137

3138
```cpp
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))
      .WillOnce(action1);
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))
      .WillOnce(action2);
```

3145
3146
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.
3147

3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
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.
3153

3154
3155
3156
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.
3157

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3158
### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints
3159

3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
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.
3166

3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
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.
3172

3173
3174
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:
3175

3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
*   `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).
3183

3184
3185
Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
so:
3186

3187
```cpp
3188
3189
3190
  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
```

3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
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!
3196

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3197
### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
3198

3199
3200
3201
3202
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?
3203

3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
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?
3209

3210
3211
You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
flag. For example, given the test program:
3212

3213
```cpp
3214
3215
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
using testing::_;
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::Return;

class MockFoo {
 public:
3222
  MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y));
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
};

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:

3238
3239
```shell
[ RUN       ] Foo.Bar
3240
3241

foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
3242
3243
Stack trace: ...

3244
foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
3245
3246
Stack trace: ...

3247
foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
3248
3249
Stack trace: ...

3250
foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
3251
3252
3253
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
Stack trace: ...

3254
foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
3255
3256
3257
    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
Stack trace: ...

3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
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
```

3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
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.
3270

3271
3272
3273
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.
3274

3275
3276
<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0025 DO NOT DELETE -->

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3277
### Running Tests in Emacs
3278

3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
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.
3284

3285
3286
3287
3288
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
3289
(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)
3290
(global-set-key [M-up]  '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))
3291
3292
```

3293
3294
3295
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.
3296

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3297
## Extending gMock
3298

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3299
### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
3300

3301
3302
3303
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.
3304

3305
3306
The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
The syntax:
3307

3308
```cpp
3309
3310
3311
MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }
```

3312
3313
3314
3315
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`.
3316

3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
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`.
3322

3323
3324
3325
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.
3326
3327

For example:
3328

3329
```cpp
3330
3331
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
```
3332

3333
allows you to write
3334

3335
```cpp
3336
3337
3338
  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3339

3340
or,
3341

3342
```cpp
3343
3344
3345
  using ::testing::Not;
  ...
  // Verifies that two values are divisible by 7.
3346
3347
3348
  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
```
3349

3350
If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
3351
3352

```shell
3353
3354
3355
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27
3356
  ...
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
  Value of: some_other_expression
  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)
    Actual: 21
```

3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
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:

3369
```cpp
3370
3371
MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
        absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) {
3372
3373
3374
3375
  return (arg % 7) == 0;
}
```

3376
3377
3378
3379
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:

3380
```cpp
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
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:
3391
3392

```shell
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
  Value of: some_expression
  Expected: is divisible by 7
    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
```

3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
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.
3403

3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
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.
3412

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3413
### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
3414

3415
3416
Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
use the macro:
3417

3418
```cpp
3419
3420
MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }
```
3421
3422
3423

where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that
references `negation` and `param_name`.
3424
3425

For example:
3426

3427
```cpp
3428
3429
MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
```
3430

3431
will allow you to write:
3432

3433
```cpp
3434
3435
  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
```
3436

3437
which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
3438
3439

```shell
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
  Value of: Blah("a")
  Expected: has absolute value 10
    Actual: -9
```

3445
3446
Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the
message human-friendly.
3447

3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
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:
3455

3456
```cpp
3457
3458
3459
MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }
```

3460
3461
3462
3463
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
3464
3465
3466
expression.

For example,
3467

3468
```cpp
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
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));
3477
```
3478

3479
would generate a failure that contains the message:
3480
3481

```shell
3482
3483
3484
  Expected: is in range [4, 6]
```

3485
3486
3487
3488
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,

3489
```cpp
3490
3491
3492
3493
  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
  ...
  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
```
3494

3495
would generate a failure that contains the text:
3496
3497

```shell
3498
3499
3500
3501
  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
```

For the purpose of typing, you can view
3502

3503
```cpp
3504
3505
MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
```
3506

3507
as shorthand for
3508

3509
```cpp
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>
FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>
Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }
```

3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
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.
3533
3534

You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:
3535

3536
```cpp
3537
3538
3539
3540
MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }
MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }
```

3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining a new
matcher, you should also consider implementing `MatcherInterface` or using
`MakePolymorphicMatcher()` instead (see the recipes that follow), especially if
you need to use the matcher a lot. While these approaches require more work,
they give you more control on the types of the value being matched and the
matcher parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error messages
that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading matchers based on
parameter types (as opposed to just based on the number of parameters).
3549

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3550
### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers
3551

3552
3553
3554
3555
A matcher of argument type `T` implements `::testing::MatcherInterface<T>` and
does two things: it tests whether a value of type `T` matches the matcher, and
can describe what kind of values it matches. The latter ability is used for
generating readable error messages when expectations are violated.
3556
3557
3558

The interface looks like this:

3559
```cpp
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
class MatchResultListener {
 public:
  ...
  // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream
  // is NULL.
  template <typename T>
  MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x);

  // Returns the underlying ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3569
  std::ostream* stream();
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
};

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

3577
  // Returns true if and only if the matcher matches x; also explains the match
3578
3579
3580
3581
  // result to 'listener'.
  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0;

  // Describes this matcher to an ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3582
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3583
3584

  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3585
  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const;
3586
3587
3588
};
```

3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
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:
3599

3600
```cpp
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
using ::testing::MakeMatcher;
using ::testing::Matcher;
using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
 public:
3608
3609
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
3610
3611
3612
    return (n % 7) == 0;
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3613
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
3614
3615
3616
    *os << "is divisible by 7";
  }

krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
3617
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const override {
3618
3619
3620
3621
    *os << "is not divisible by 7";
  }
};

3622
Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
3623
3624
3625
  return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher);
}

3626
...
3627
3628
3629
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
```

3630
3631
You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
`listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
3632

3633
```cpp
3634
3635
class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
 public:
3636
3637
  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
                       MatchResultListener* listener) const override {
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
    const int remainder = n % 7;
    if (remainder != 0) {
      *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder;
    }
    return remainder == 0;
  }
  ...
};
```

3648
3649
3650
Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:

```shell
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
Value of: x
Expected: is divisible by 7
  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3656
### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
3657

3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
You've learned how to write your own matchers in the previous recipe. Just one
problem: a matcher created using `MakeMatcher()` only works for one particular
type of arguments. If you want a *polymorphic* matcher that works with arguments
of several types (for instance, `Eq(x)` can be used to match a *`value`* as long
as `value == x` compiles -- *`value`* and `x` don't have to share the same
type), you can learn the trick from `testing/base/public/gmock-matchers.h` but
it's a bit involved.
3665

3666
3667
3668
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:
3669

3670
```cpp
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
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
3692
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
3693
3694

  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3695
  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
3696
3697
3698
3699
};

// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class
// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.
3700
PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
3701
3702
  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
}
3703

3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
...

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

**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from
3710
3711
`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be
virtual.
3712

3713
3714
Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming
additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`.
3715

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3716
### Writing New Cardinalities
3717

3718
3719
3720
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)`.
3721

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3722
3723
3724
If the [built-in set](cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList) of cardinalities doesn't
suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following
interface (in namespace `testing`):
3725

3726
```cpp
3727
3728
3729
3730
class CardinalityInterface {
 public:
  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();

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

3734
3735
  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this
  // cardinality.
3736
3737
3738
  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;

  // Describes self to an ostream.
Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3739
  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
3740
3741
3742
};
```

3743
3744
For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can
write
3745

3746
```cpp
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
using ::testing::Cardinality;
using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
using ::testing::MakeCardinality;

class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
 public:
3753
  bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3754
3755
3756
    return (call_count % 2) == 0;
  }

3757
  bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
3758
3759
3760
    return false;
  }

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3761
  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
    *os << "called even number of times";
  }
};

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

3770
...
3771
3772
3773
3774
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))
      .Times(EvenNumber());
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3775
### Writing New Actions Quickly {#QuickNewActions}
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790

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):
3791

3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
```
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
3804
#### Legacy macro-based Actions
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810

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.
3811
3812

By writing
3813

3814
```cpp
3815
3816
ACTION(name) { statements; }
```
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823

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:

3824
```cpp
3825
3826
ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
```
3827

3828
allows you to write
3829

3830
```cpp
3831
3832
3833
... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());
```

3834
3835
3836
3837
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.
3838
3839

Another example:
3840

3841
```cpp
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
ACTION(Foo) {
  (*arg2)(5);
  Blah();
  *arg1 = 0;
  return arg0;
}
```

3850
3851
3852
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.
3853

3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
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
3863
3864

For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
3865

3866
```cpp
3867
3868
int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
```
3869

3870
we have:
3871

3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
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*)`
3882

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3883
#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
3884
3885
3886

Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
another macro
3887

3888
```cpp
3889
3890
3891
3892
ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
```

For example,
3893

3894
```cpp
3895
3896
ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
```
3897

3898
will allow you to write
3899

3900
```cpp
3901
3902
3903
3904
// Returns argument #0 + 5.
... WillOnce(Add(5));
```

3905
3906
3907
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.
3908

3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
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,
3917

3918
```cpp
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
  double dx = arg0 - x;
  double dy = arg1 - y;
  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
}
```
3925

3926
lets you write
3927

3928
```cpp
3929
3930
3931
... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
```

3932
3933
You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of
parameters is 0.
3934
3935

You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
3936

3937
```cpp
3938
3939
3940
3941
ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3942
### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION
3943
3944
3945
3946

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.
3947

3948
3949
Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types. There are
several tricks to do that. For example:
3950

3951
```cpp
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
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;
}
```

3967
3968
where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that
verifies two types are the same.
3969

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
3970
### Writing New Action Templates Quickly
3971
3972
3973
3974

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*()`.
3975
3976

The syntax:
3977

3978
```cpp
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,
                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),
                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }
```

3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
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.
3989
3990

Example:
3991

3992
```cpp
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
// 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
3999
  *output = T(std::get<k>(args));
4000
4001
4002
4003
}
```

To create an instance of an action template, write:
4004

4005
```cpp
4006
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
4007
```
4008
4009
4010
4011

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:

4012
```cpp
4013
4014
4015
using ::testing::_;
...
  int n;
4016
  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));
4017
4018
```

4019
4020
4021
If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide
additional template arguments:

4022
```cpp
4023
ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)
4024
```
4025

4026
4027
where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`.

4028
4029
4030
`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:
4031

4032
```cpp
4033
4034
4035
  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);
```

4036
4037
4038
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`?
4039

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4040
### Using the ACTION Object's Type
4041

4042
4043
4044
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:
4045

4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
| Given Definition              | Expression          | Has Type              |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------- |
| `ACTION(Foo)`                 | `Foo()`             | `FooAction`           |
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo,`        | `Foo<t1, ...,       | `FooAction<t1, ...,   |
: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : t_m>()`             : t_m>`                 :
: `AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())`       :                     :                       :
| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)`        | `Bar(int_value)`    | `BarActionP<int>`     |
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar,`        | `Bar<t1, ..., t_m>` | `FooActionP<t1, ...,  |
: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : `(int_value)`       : t_m, int>`            :
: `AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))`     :                     :                       :
| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)`      | `Baz(bool_value,`   | `BazActionP2<bool,    |
:                               : `int_value)`        : int>`                 :
| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz,`        | `Baz<t1, ..., t_m>` | `FooActionP2<t1, ..., |
: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : `(bool_value,`      : t_m,` `bool, int>`    :
: `AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` : `int_value)`        :                       :
| ...                           | ...                 | ...                   |
4062

4063
4064
4065
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.
4066

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4067
### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions}
4068
4069

While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
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.
4075
4076

An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement
4077
4078
`::testing::ActionInterface<F>`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in
which the action will be used. For example:
4079

4080
```cpp
4081
4082
template <typename F>
class ActionInterface {
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
 public:
  virtual ~ActionInterface();

  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type
  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.
  //
4089

4090
  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4091
  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
4092
4093
  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
};
4094
```
4095

4096
```cpp
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
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
4106
4107
  int Perform(const std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
    int* p = std::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
    return *p++;
  }
};

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

4116
...
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
  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
4124
### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions}
4125

4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
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()`).
4131

4132
4133
4134
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:
4135

4136
```cpp
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
namespace testing {
template <typename Impl>
PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);
}  // namespace testing
```

4143
4144
4145
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:
4146

4147
```cpp
4148
4149
4150
4151
class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
 public:
  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
krzysio's avatar
krzysio committed
4152
4153
    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args).
    return std::get<1>(args);
4154
4155
4156
4157
  }
};
```

4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
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.
4165

4166
4167
4168
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:
4169

4170
```cpp
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;
using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;

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

4179
Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones:
4180

4181
```cpp
4182
4183
4184
4185
using ::testing::_;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
 public:
4186
4187
4188
  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
  MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
              (override));
4189
4190
};

4191
  ...
4192
  MockFoo foo;
4193
4194
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
4195
  ...
4196
  foo.DoThis(true, 5);  // Will return 5.
4197
4198
4199
  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".
```

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4200
### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values
4201

4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
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.
4207
4208

This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator. For other types, it
prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the user can figure it out.
[googletest's advanced guide](../../googletest/docs/advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values)
explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your
particular type than to dump the bytes.
4214

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4215
## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
4216
4217
4218
4219

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

Abseil Team's avatar
Abseil Team committed
4220
### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0034 DO NOT DELETE -->