google mock cookbook

原文: https://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook

 

 

You can find recipes for using Google Mock here. If you haven't yet, please read the ForDummies document first to make sure you understand the basics.

Note: Google Mock 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 Google Mock. We omit such using statements in this page for brevity, but you should do it in your own code.

Creating Mock Classes

Mocking Private or Protected Methods

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:

class Foo {

 public:

  ...

  virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0;



 protected:

  virtual void Resume();



 private:

  virtual int GetTimeOut();

};



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  ...

  MOCK_METHOD1(Transform, bool(Gadget* g));



  // The following must be in the public section, even though the

  // methods are protected or private in the base class.

  MOCK_METHOD0(Resume, void());

  MOCK_METHOD0(GetTimeOut, int());

};

Mocking Overloaded Methods

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

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 {

  ...

  MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x));

  MOCK_METHOD2(Add, int(int times, Element x);



  MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&());

  MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&());

};

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:

class MockFoo : public Foo {

  ...

  using Foo::Add;

  MOCK_METHOD1(Add, int(Element x));

  // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x);

  ...

};

Mocking Class Templates

To mock a class template, append _T to the MOCK_* macros:

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> {

  ...

  MOCK_CONST_METHOD0_T(GetSize, int());

  MOCK_METHOD1_T(Push, void(const Elem& x));

};

Mocking Nonvirtual Methods

Google Mock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in what we call hi-perf dependency injection.

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:

// 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:

  MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(GetPacket, const Packet*(size_t packet_number));

  MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(NumberOfPackets, size_t());

  ...

};

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.

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).

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:

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 CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>() andPacketReader<MockPacketStream> in tests.

  MockPacketStream mock_stream;

  EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...;

  .. set more expectations on mock_stream ...

  PacketReader<MockPacketStream> reader(&mock_stream);

  ... exercise reader ...

Mocking Free Functions

It's possible to use Google Mock 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).

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

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) {

    return OpenFile(path, mode);

  }

};

Your code should talk to FileInterface to open a file. Now it's easy to mock out the function.

This may seem much 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.

The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy

If a mock method has no EXPECT_CALL spec but is called, Google Mock will print a warning about the "uninteresting call". The rationale is:

  • New methods may be added to an interface after a test is written. We shouldn't fail a test just because a method it doesn't know about is called.
  • However, this may also mean there's a bug in the test, so Google Mock shouldn't be silent either. If the user believes these calls are harmless, he can add an EXPECT_CALL() to suppress the warning.

However, sometimes you may want to suppress all "uninteresting call" warnings, while sometimes you may want the opposite, i.e. to treat all of them as errors. Google Mock lets you make the decision on a per-mock-object basis.

Suppose your test uses a mock class MockFoo:

TEST(...) {

  MockFoo mock_foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());

  ... code that uses mock_foo ...

}

If a method of mock_foo other than DoThis() is called, it will be reported by Google Mock as a warning. However, if you rewrite your test to use NiceMock<MockFoo> instead, the warning will be gone, resulting in a cleaner test output:

using ::testing::NiceMock;



TEST(...) {

  NiceMock<MockFoo> mock_foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());

  ... code that uses mock_foo ...

}

NiceMock<MockFoo> is a subclass of MockFoo, so it can be used wherever MockFoo is accepted.

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

using ::testing::NiceMock;



TEST(...) {

  NiceMock<MockFoo> mock_foo(5, "hi");  // Calls MockFoo(5, "hi").

  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());

  ... code that uses mock_foo ...

}

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

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.

}

There are some caveats though (I don't like 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* family of macros directly in the MockFoo class. If a mock method is defined in a base classof 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. The constructors of the base mock (MockFoo) cannot have arguments passed by non-const reference, which happens to be banned by the Google C++ style guide.
  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 should'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.

Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code

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

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;

};

This method's argument list is lengthy and hard to work with (let's say that 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.

The trick is to re-dispatch the method in the mock class:

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);

  MOCK_METHOD3(Log, void(LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,

                         const string& message));

};

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

Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes

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 ofConcrete virtual and then mock it.

Try not to do that.

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.

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.

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.

This technique incurs some overhead:

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

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

  • 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 ofConcrete, 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 nearConcrete (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. :-)

Delegating Calls to a Fake

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

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:

  virtual char DoThis(int n) {

    return (n > 0) ? '+' :

        (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';

  }



  virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) {

    *p = strlen(s);

  }

};

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.

When you define the mock class using Google Mock, you can have it delegate its default action to a fake class you already have, using this pattern:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Invoke;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  // Normal mock method definitions using Google Mock.

  MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, char(int n));

  MOCK_METHOD2(DoThat, void(const char* s, int* p));



  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.

  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.

  void DelegateToFake() {

    ON_CALL(*this, DoThis(_))

        .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis));

    ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_, _))

        .WillByDefault(Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThat));

  }

 private:

  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.

};

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:

using ::testing::_;



TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {

  MockFoo foo;

  foo.DelegateToFake(); // Enables the fake for delegation.



  // 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.

  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);           // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.

  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);

}

Some tips:

  • 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()), see the "Selecting Between Overloaded Functions" section on this page; to disambiguate a fake function (the one you place inside Invoke()), use astatic_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 writeInvoke(&fake_, static_cast<bool (FakeFoo::*)(double) const>(&FakeFoo::DoThis)) instead of Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis) (The strange-looking thing inside the angled brackets ofstatic_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.

Delegating Calls to a Real Object

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 technique, the difference being that we use a real object instead of a fake. Here's an example:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::AtLeast;

using ::testing::Invoke;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MockFoo() {

    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.

    ON_CALL(*this, DoThis())

        .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThis));

    ON_CALL(*this, DoThat(_))

        .WillByDefault(Invoke(&real_, &Foo::DoThat));

    ...

  }

  MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, ...);

  MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, ...);

  ...

 private:

  Foo real_;

};

...



  MockFoo mock;



  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())

      .Times(3);

  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))

      .Times(AtLeast(1));

  ... use mock in test ...

With this, Google Mock 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.

Delegating Calls to a Parent Class

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:

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.

  MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n));

  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.

  MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str));

};

Sometimes you may want to call Foo::Concrete() instead of 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).

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  // Mocking a pure method.

  MOCK_METHOD1(Pure, void(int n));

  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.

  MOCK_METHOD1(Concrete, int(const char* str));



  // 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:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Invoke;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete(_))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete));

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

using ::testing::Invoke;

...

  ON_CALL(foo, Concrete(_))

      .WillByDefault(Invoke(&foo, &MockFoo::FooConcrete));

(Why don't we just write Invoke(&foo, &Foo::Concrete)? 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.)

Using Matchers

Matching Argument Values Exactly

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

using ::testing::Return;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))

      .WillOnce(Return('a'));

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));

Using Simple Matchers

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

using ::testing::Ge;

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()));

  // The second argument must not be NULL.

A frequently used matcher is _, which matches anything:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::NotNull;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));

Combining Matchers

You can build complex matchers from existing ones using AllOf(), AnyOf(), and Not():

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));

Casting Matchers

Google Mock 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!

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 before giving it to the matcher.

To support this need, Google Mock gives you the SafeMatcherCast<T>(m) function. It casts a matcher m to type Matcher<T>. To ensure safety, Google Mock checks that (let U be the type m accepts):

  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).

The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.

Here's one example:

using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;



// A base class and a child class.

class Base { ... };

class Derived : public Base { ... };



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD1(DoThis, void(Derived* derived));

};

...



  MockFoo foo;

  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));

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.

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.

Selecting Between Overloaded Functions

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

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

using ::testing::ReturnRef;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

  ...

  MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&());

  MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(GetBar, const Bar&());

};

...



  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));

(Const() is defined by Google Mock and returns a const reference to its argument.)

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):

using ::testing::An;

using ::testing::Lt;

using ::testing::Matcher;

using ::testing::TypedEq;



class MockPrinter : public Printer {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(int n));

  MOCK_METHOD1(Print, void(char c));

};



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');

}

Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments

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:

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'));

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

Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole

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,

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Lt;

using ::testing::Ne;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))

      .With(Lt());

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

The expression inside With() must be a matcher of type Matcher< ::testing::tuple<A1, ..., An> >, where A1, ..., An are the types of the function arguments.

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()).

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

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::AllOf;

using ::testing::Args;

using ::testing::Lt;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah(_, _, _))

      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));

says that Blah() will be called with arguments x, y, and z where x < y < z.

As a convenience and example, Google Mock provides some matchers for 2-tuples, including the Lt() matcher above. See the CheatSheet for the complete list.

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 take a ::testing::tuple as its argument; Google Mock will pass the n selected arguments as one single tuple to the predicate.

Using Matchers as Predicates

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 Google Mock matchers are not allowed to participate.

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

#include <algorithm>

#include <vector>



std::vector<int> v;

...

// How many elements in v are >= 10?

const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));

Since you can build complex matchers from simpler ones easily using Google Mock, 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:

Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))

Using Matchers in Google Test Assertions

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

  ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);  // Asserts that value matches matcher.

  EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);  // The non-fatal version.

For example, in a Google Test test you can write:

#include "gmock/gmock.h"



using ::testing::AllOf;

using ::testing::Ge;

using ::testing::Le;

using ::testing::MatchesRegex;

using ::testing::StartsWith;

...



  EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));

  EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+"));

  ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10)));

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

  • 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].

 

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:

Value of: Foo()

  Actual: "Hi, world!"

Expected: starts with "Hello"

Credit: The idea of (ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT was stolen from the Hamcrest project, which adds assertThat() to JUnit.

Using Predicates as Matchers

Google Mock provides a built-in set of matchers. In case you find them lacking, you can use an arbitray 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:

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)));

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 statement if (condition) ....

Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable

When you do an EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar)), Google Mock saves away a copy of bar. When Foo() is called later, Google Mock 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 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 Google Mock that it should save a reference to bar, instead of a copy of it. Here's how:

using ::testing::Eq;

using ::testing::ByRef;

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))));

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

Validating a Member of an Object

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,

Field(&Foo::bar, m)

is a matcher that matches a Foo object whose bar member variable satisfies matcher m.

Property(&Foo::baz, m)

is a matcher that matches a Foo object whose baz() method returns a value that satisfies matcher m.

For example:

Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3)) Matches x where x.number >= 3.
Property(&Foo::name, StartsWith("John ")) Matches x where x.name() starts with "John ".

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

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

Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))

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 is AllOf().

Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument

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 valuepointed to by the pointer, instead of the pointer itself, has a certain property? Well, you can use the Pointee(m) matcher.

Pointee(m) matches a pointer iff m matches the value the pointer points to. For example:

using ::testing::Ge;

using ::testing::Pointee;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3))));

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

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

  AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m))

without worrying that a NULL pointer will crash your test.

Also, did we tell you that Pointee() works with both raw pointers and smart pointers (linked_ptr, shared_ptr, scoped_ptr, and etc)?

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...).

Testing a Certain Property of an Object

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. If you want to do it quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function.

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 itsbaz() value is a given number. Here's how you can define a matcher to do it:

using ::testing::MatcherInterface;

using ::testing::MatchResultListener;



class BarPlusBazEqMatcher : public MatcherInterface<const Foo&> {

 public:

  explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum)

      : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {}



  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,

                               MatchResultListener* listener) const {

    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;

  }



  virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const {

    *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;

  }



  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const {

    *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;

  }

 private:

  const int expected_sum_;

};



inline Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {

  return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum));

}



...



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

Matching Containers

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 writeEq(expected_container) or simply expected_container to match a container exactly.

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.

You can use the ElementsAre() or UnorderedElementsAre() matcher in such cases:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::ElementsAre;

using ::testing::Gt;

...



  MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, void(const vector<int>& numbers));

...



  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));

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

If you instead write:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Gt;

using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;

...



  MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, void(const vector<int>& numbers));

...



  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));

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

ElementsAre() and UnorderedElementsAre() are overloaded to take 0 to 10 arguments. If more are needed, you can place them in a C-style array and use ElementsAreArray() orUnorderedElementsAreArray() instead:

using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;

...



  // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values.

  const int expected_vector1[] = { 1, 5, 2, 4, ... };

  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1)));



  // Or, an array of element matchers.

  Matcher<int> expected_vector2 = { 1, Gt(2), _, 3, ... };

  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2)));

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:

using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;

...

  int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];

  ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...

  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));

Tips:

  • 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*(). Therefore don't use it with containers whose element order is undefined (e.g. hash_map).

 

Sharing Matchers

Under the hood, a Google Mock 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.

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,

  Matcher<int> in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10));

  ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ...

Setting Expectations

Knowing When to Expect

ON_CALL is likely the single most under-utilized construct in Google Mock.

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 doesn't imply any expectation on the method being called. EXPECT_CALL not only defines the behavior, but also sets an expectation that the method will be called with the given arguments, for the given number of times (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_CALLs in your test fixture to set the common mock behavior shared by all tests in the same group, and write (scarcely) different EXPECT_CALLs in different TEST_Fs to verify different aspects of the code's behavior. Compared with the style where each TEST has many EXPECT_CALLs, 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.

Ignoring Uninteresting Calls

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, Google Mock will perform its default action to allow the test program to continue. If you are not happy with the default action taken by Google Mock, you can override it using DefaultValue<T>::Set() (described later in this document) 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.

Disallowing Unexpected Calls

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

using ::testing::_;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))

      .Times(0);

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

using ::testing::AnyNumber;

using ::testing::Gt;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))

      .Times(AnyNumber());

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

Expecting Ordered Calls

Although an EXPECT_CALL() statement defined earlier takes precedence when Google Mock tries to match a function call with an expectation, by default calls don't have to happen in the orderEXPECT_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:

  using ::testing::_;

  using ::testing::InSequence;



  {

    InSequence s;



    EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5));

    EXPECT_CALL(bar, DoThat(_))

        .Times(2);

    EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(6));

  }

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, Google Mock will report an error.

Expecting Partially Ordered Calls

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.

Google Mock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the After clause of EXPECT_CALL.

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:

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 orginal DAG.

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

  using ::testing::Sequence;



  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);

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

       +---> B

       |

  A ---|

       |

       +---> C ---> D

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.

Controlling When an Expectation Retires

When a mock method is called, Google Mock only consider 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

  using ::testing::_;

  using ::testing::Sequence;



  Sequence s1, s2;



  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))     // #1

      .Times(AnyNumber())

      .InSequence(s1, s2);

  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))  // #2

      .InSequence(s1);

  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))     // #3

      .InSequence(s2);

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.

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

using ::testing::_;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                  // #1

  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."));  // #2

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.

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

using ::testing::_;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                 // #1

  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))  // #2

      .RetiresOnSaturation();

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.

Using Actions

Returning References from Mock Methods

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

using ::testing::ReturnRef;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD0(GetBar, Bar&());

};

...



  MockFoo foo;

  Bar bar;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())

      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));

Returning Live Values from Mock Methods

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.).

If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using ReturnRef(x), as shown in the previous recipe ("Returning References from Mock Methods"). However, Google Mock 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?

You may be tempted to try ByRef():

using testing::ByRef;

using testing::Return;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD0(GetValue, int());

};

...

  int x = 0;

  MockFoo foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())

      .WillRepeatedly(Return(ByRef(x)));

  x = 42;

  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());

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

Value of: foo.GetValue()

  Actual: 0

Expected: 42

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, andReturn(ByRef(x)) will always return 0.

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

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.

Combining Actions

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.

using ::testing::DoAll;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(int n));

};

...



  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))

      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,

                      action_2,

                      ...

                      action_n));

Mocking Side Effects

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.

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

using ::testing::SetArgPointee;



class MockMutator : public Mutator {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(bool mutate, int* value));

  ...

};

...



  MockMutator mutator;

  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))

      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));

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

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.

If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain SetArgPointee() with Return() using DoAll():

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Return;

using ::testing::SetArgPointee;



class MockMutator : public Mutator {

 public:

  ...

  MOCK_METHOD1(MutateInt, bool(int* value));

};

...



  MockMutator mutator;

  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))

      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),

                      Return(true)));

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:

using ::testing::NotNull;

using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;



class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD2(Mutate, void(int* values, int num_values));

  ...

};

...



  MockArrayMutator mutator;

  int values[5] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };

  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))

      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));

This also works when the argument is an output iterator:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::SeArrayArgument;



class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD1(GetNames, void(std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string> >));

  ...

};

...



  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()));

Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State

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:

using ::testing::InSequence;

using ::testing::Return;



...

  {

    InSequence seq;

    EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())

        .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));

    EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());

    EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())

        .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));

  }

  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();

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

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:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::SaveArg;

using ::testing::Return;



ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }

...

  int previous_value = 0;

  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue())

      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));

  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue(_))

      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));

  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();

Here my_mock.GetPrevValue() will always return the argument of the last UpdateValue() call.

Setting the Default Value for a Return Type

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.

Sometimes, you may want to change this default value, or you may want to specify a default value for types Google Mock doesn't know about. You can do this using the ::testing::DefaultValueclass template:

class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD0(CalculateBar, Bar());

};

...



  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();

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 theSet() and Clear() calls are right next to the code that uses your mock.

Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method

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:

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.

As you may have guessed, when there are more than one ON_CALL() statements, the news 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.

Using Functions/Methods/Functors as Actions

If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can easily use an existing function, method, or functor as an action:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Invoke;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD2(Sum, int(int x, int y));

  MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int x));

};



int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }



class Helper {

 public:

  bool ComplexJob(int x);

};

...



  MockFoo foo;

  Helper helper;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(CalculateSum));

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob));



  foo.Sum(5, 6);       // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6).

  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10);

The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be compatible with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the latter's arguments 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?

Invoking a Function/Method/Functor Without Arguments

Invoke() is very useful for doing actions that are more complex. It passes the mock function's arguments to the function or functor 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.

Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without the arguments of the mock function. Invoke() allows her to 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.

InvokeWithoutArgs() solves this problem. It's like Invoke() except that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the callee. Here's an example:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD1(ComplexJob, bool(int n));

};



bool Job1() { ... }

...



  MockFoo foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))

      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(Job1));



  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().

Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function

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

class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, bool(int n, bool (*fp)(int)));

};

and you may want to invoke this callable argument:

using ::testing::_;

...

  MockFoo foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))

      .WillOnce(...);

  // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the

  // second argument DoThis() receives.

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?

Well, Google Mock has an action to solve exactly this problem:

  InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)

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 or a functor, Google Mock handles them both.

With that, you could write:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::InvokeArgument;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))

      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));

  // Will execute (*fp)(5), where fp is the

  // second argument DoThis() receives.

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

...

  MOCK_METHOD1(Bar, bool(bool (*fp)(int, const Helper&)));

...

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::ByRef;

using ::testing::InvokeArgument;

...



  MockFoo foo;

  Helper helper;

  ...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))

      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, ByRef(helper)));

  // ByRef(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of it,

  // will be passed to the callable.

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:

...

  MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)));

...

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::InvokeArgument;

...



  MockFoo foo;

  ...

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))

      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));

  // 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.

Ignoring an Action's Result

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 inDoAll() and it's not the last in the list). IgnoreResult() lets you do that. For example:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Invoke;

using ::testing::Return;



int Process(const MyData& data);

string DoSomething();



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD1(Abc, void(const MyData& data));

  MOCK_METHOD0(Xyz, bool());

};

...



  MockFoo foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))

  // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));

  // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs

  // to return void.

      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Invoke(Process)));



  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())

      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(Invoke(DoSomething)),

      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.

                      Return(true)));

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

Selecting an Action's Arguments

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:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Invoke;

...

  MOCK_METHOD7(Foo, bool(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y,

                         const map<pair<int, int>, double>& weight,

                         double min_weight, double max_wight));

...



bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {

  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;

}

...



  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(

To please the compiler God, you can to define an "adaptor" that has the same signature as Foo() and calls the custom action with the right arguments:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Invoke;



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);

}

...



  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.

But isn't this awkward?

Google Mock provides a generic action adaptor, so you can spend your time minding more important business than writing your own adaptors. Here's the syntax:

  WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)

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:

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Invoke;

using ::testing::WithArgs;

...

  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _, _, _, _, _, _))

      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));

      // No need to define your own adaptor.

For better readability, Google Mock also gives you:

  • WithoutArgs(action) when the inner action takes no argument, and
  • WithArg<N>(action) (no s after Arg) when the inner action takes one argument.

As you may have realized, InvokeWithoutArgs(...) is just syntactic sugar for WithoutArgs(Inovke(...)).

Here are more tips:

  • 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.

 

Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions

The selecting-an-action's-arguments 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 inWithArgs<...>() can get tedious for people writing the tests.

If you are defining a function, method, or functor 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

  MOCK_METHOD3(Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y));

  MOCK_METHOD3(Bar, double(int index, double x, double y));

instead of

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);

}

...



  EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));

  EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));

you could write

using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Invoke;

using ::testing::Unused;



double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {

  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);

}

...



  EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));

  EXEPCT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))

      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));

Sharing Actions

Just like matchers, a Google Mock 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.

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:

  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),

                                      Return(true));

  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...

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 action will exihibit different behaviors. Example:

  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

  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.

Misc Recipes on Using Google Mock

Making the Compilation Faster

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.

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 .cpp 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.

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

// 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.



  MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, int());

  MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(const char* str));

  ... more mock methods ...

};

After the change, it would look like:

// File mock_foo.h.

...

class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.

  MockFoo();

  virtual ~MockFoo();



  MOCK_METHOD0(DoThis, int());

  MOCK_METHOD1(DoThat, bool(const char* str));

  ... more mock methods ...

};

and

// File mock_foo.cpp.

#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() {}

Forcing a Verification

When it's being destoyed, your friendly mock object will automatically verify that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will generate Google Test 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 destoyed.

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.

Using a heap checker is a good idea and can alleviate the concern, but its implementation may not be 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want to force Google Mock to verify a mock object before it is (hopefully) destructed. You can do this with Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object):

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.

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.

Using Check Points

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 mock_object too.

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:

Foo(1);

Foo(2);

Foo(3);

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:

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);

}

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().

Mocking Destructors

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 of mock function calls, so all we need to do is to mock the destructor of the mock function.

This sounds simple, except for one problem: a destructor is a special function with special syntax and special semantics, and the MOCK_METHOD0 macro doesn't work for it:

  MOCK_METHOD0(~MockFoo, void());  // Won't compile!

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:

class MockFoo : public Foo {

  ...

  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.

  MOCK_METHOD0(Die, void());

  virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); }

};

(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:

  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.

Using Google Mock and Threads

IMPORTANT NOTE: What we describe in this recipe is ONLY true on platforms where Google Mock is thread-safe. Currently these are only platforms that support the pthreads library (this includes Linux and Mac). To make it thread-safe on other platforms we only need to implement some synchronization operations in "gtest/internal/gtest-port.h".

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.

Yet many programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something we need to pound on it from more than one thread. Google Mock works for this purpose too.

Remember the steps for using a mock:

  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.

 

If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live happily togeter:

  • 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. Google Mock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any - unless required by your test logic.

 

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.

Google Mock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread that called the mock function. For example, in

  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))

      .WillOnce(action1);

  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))

      .WillOnce(action2);

if Foo(1) is called in thread 1 and Foo(2) is called in thread 2, Google Mock will execute action1 in thread 1 and action2 in thread 2.

Google Mock 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 ofaction1 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.

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.

Controlling How Much Information Google Mock Prints

When Google Mock 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 and the return value. Hopefully this will remind you to take a look and see if there is indeed a problem.

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 and the return value). Clearly, one size doesn't fit all.

You can control how much Google Mock tells you using the --gmock_verbose=LEVEL command-line flag, where LEVEL is a string with three possible values:

  • info: Google Mock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors (most verbose). At this setting, Google Mock will also log any calls to the ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL macros.
  • warning: Google Mock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose). This is the default.
  • error: Google Mock will print errors only (least verbose).

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

  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";

Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable Google Mock serve you better!

Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls

You have a test using Google Mock. It fails: Google Mock tells you that 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_CALLs? Or is the code under test doing something wrong? How can you find out the cause?

Won't it be nice if you have X-ray vision and can actually see the trace of all EXPECT_CALLs and mock method calls as they are made? For each call, would you like to see its actual argument values and which EXPECT_CALL Google Mock thinks it matches?

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

using testing::_;

using testing::HasSubstr;

using testing::Return;



class MockFoo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD2(F, void(const string& x, const string& y));

};



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:

[ RUN      ] Foo.Bar



foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked

foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked

foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked

foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...

    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a", @0x7fff7c8dad10"good")

foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...

    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a", @0x7fff7c8dad70"b")

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

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 firstEXPECT_CALL, not the third as you thought. From that it should be obvious that the third EXPECT_CALL is written wrong. Case solved.

Running Tests in Emacs

If you build and run your tests in Emacs, the source file locations of Google Mock and Google Test 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.

To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your ~/.emacs file:

(global-set-key "\M-m"   'compile)  ; m is for make

(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)

(global-set-key [M-up]   '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))

Then you can type M-m to start a build, or M-up/M-down to move back and forth between errors.

Fusing Google Mock Source Files

Google Mock's implementation consists of dozens of files (excluding its own tests). Sometimes you may want them to be packaged up in fewer files instead, such that you can easily copy them to a new machine and start hacking there. For this we provide an experimental Python script fuse_gmock_files.py in the scripts/ directory (starting with release 1.2.0). Assuming you have Python 2.4 or above installed on your machine, just go to that directory and run

python fuse_gmock_files.py OUTPUT_DIR

and you should see an OUTPUT_DIR directory being created with files gtest/gtest.h, gmock/gmock.h, and gmock-gtest-all.cc in it. These three files contain everything you need to use Google Mock (and Google Test). Just copy them to anywhere you want and you are ready to write tests and use mocks. You can use the scrpts/test/Makefile file as an example on how to compile your tests against them.

Extending Google Mock

Writing New Matchers Quickly

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

MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }

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.

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.

For convenience, we allow the description string to be empty (""), in which case Google Mock will use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the description.

For example:

MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }

allows you to write

  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.

  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));

or,

using ::testing::Not;

...

  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());

  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));

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

  Value of: some_expression

  Expected: is divisible by 7

    Actual: 27

...

  Value of: some_other_expression

  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)

    Actual: 21

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:

MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") +

                        " divisible by 7") {

  return (arg % 7) == 0;

}

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:

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:

  Value of: some_expression

  Expected: is divisible by 7

    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)

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 Google Mock already prints it for you.

Notes:

  1. 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 abool. 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.
  2. Google Mock doesn't guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be invoked. Therefore the matcher logic must be purely functional (i.e. it cannot have any side effect, and the result must not depend on anything other than the value being matched and the matcher parameters). This requirement must be satisfied no matter how you define the matcher (e.g. using one of the methods described in the following recipes). In particular, a matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the mock object and Google Mock.

Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly

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

MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }

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

For example:

MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }

will allow you to write:

  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));

which may lead to this message (assuming n is 10):

  Value of: Blah("a")

  Expected: has absolute value 10

    Actual: -9

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

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 writevalue_type to refer to the type of value.

Google Mock also provides MATCHER_P2, MATCHER_P3, ..., up to MATCHER_P10 to support multi-parameter matchers:

MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }

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. Google Mock lets you do that by referencing the matcher parameters in the description string expression.

For example,

  using ::testing::PrintToString;

  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi,

             std::string(negation ? "isn't" : "is") + " in range [" +

             PrintToString(low) + ", " + PrintToString(hi) + "]") {

    return low <= arg && arg <= hi;

  }

  ...

  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));

would generate a failure that contains the message:

  Expected: is in range [4, 6]

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,

  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }

  ...

  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));

would generate a failure that contains the text:

  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)

For the purpose of typing, you can view

MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }

as shorthand for

template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>

FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>

Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }

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.

You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:

MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }

MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }

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).

Writing New Monomorphic Matchers

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.

The interface looks like this:

class MatchResultListener {

 public:

  ...

  // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream

  // is NULL.

  template <typename T>

  MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x);



  // Returns the underlying ostream.

  ::std::ostream* stream();

};



template <typename T>

class MatcherInterface {

 public:

  virtual ~MatcherInterface();



  // Returns true iff the matcher matches x; also explains the match

  // result to 'listener'.

  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0;



  // Describes this matcher to an ostream.

  virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0;



  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.

  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const;

};

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:

using ::testing::MakeMatcher;

using ::testing::Matcher;

using ::testing::MatcherInterface;

using ::testing::MatchResultListener;



class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {

 public:

  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n, MatchResultListener* listener) const {

    return (n % 7) == 0;

  }



  virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const {

    *os << "is divisible by 7";

  }



  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const {

    *os << "is not divisible by 7";

  }

};



inline Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {

  return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher);

}

...



  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));

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

class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {

 public:

  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(int n,

                               MatchResultListener* listener) const {

    const int remainder = n % 7;

    if (remainder != 0) {

      *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder;

    }

    return remainder == 0;

  }

  ...

};

Then, EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7()); may general a message like this:

Value of: x

Expected: is divisible by 7

  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)

Writing New Polymorphic Matchers

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 apolymorphic 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 "gmock/gmock-matchers.h" but it's a bit involved.

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:

using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;

using ::testing::MatchResultListener;

using ::testing::NotNull;

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.

  void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }



  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.

  void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }

};



// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class

// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.

inline PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {

  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());

}

...



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

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

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

Writing New Cardinalities

A cardinality is used in Times() to tell Google Mock 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).

If the built-in set of cardinalities doesn't suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following interface (in namespace testing):

class CardinalityInterface {

 public:

  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();



  // Returns true iff call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality.

  virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;



  // Returns true iff call_count calls will saturate this cardinality.

  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;



  // Describes self to an ostream.

  virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0;

};

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

using ::testing::Cardinality;

using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;

using ::testing::MakeCardinality;



class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {

 public:

  virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const {

    return (call_count % 2) == 0;

  }



  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const {

    return false;

  }



  virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const {

    *os << "called even number of times";

  }

};



Cardinality EvenNumber() {

  return MakeCardinality(new EvenNumberCardinality);

}

...



  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))

      .Times(EvenNumber());

Writing New Actions Quickly

If the built-in actions don't work for you, and you find it inconvenient to use Invoke(), you can use a macro from the ACTION* family to quickly define a new action that can be used in your code as if it's a built-in action.

By writing

ACTION(name) { statements; }

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:

ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }

allows you to write

... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());

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.

Another example:

ACTION(Foo) {

  (*arg2)(5);

  Blah();

  *arg1 = 0;

  return arg0;

}

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.

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

 

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

int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);

we have:

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 ::testing::tuple<bool, int*>
return_type the type int
function_type the type int(bool, int*)

 

Writing New Parameterized Actions Quickly

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

ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }

For example,

ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }

will allow you to write

// Returns argument #0 + 5.

... WillOnce(Add(5));

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.

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 Google-Mock-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.

Google Mock also provides ACTION_P2, ACTION_P3, and etc to support multi-parameter actions. For example,

ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {

  double dx = arg0 - x;

  double dy = arg1 - y;

  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);

}

lets you write

... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));

You can view ACTION as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of parameters is 0.

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

ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }

ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }

Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION

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.

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

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;

}

where StaticAssertTypeEq is a compile-time assertion in Google Test that verifies two types are the same.

Writing New Action Templates Quickly

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 toACTION() and ACTION_P*().

The syntax:

ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,

                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),

                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }

defines an action template that takes m explicit template parameters and n value parameters, where m is between 1 and 10, and n is between 0 and 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.

Example:

// 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)) {

  *output = T(::testing::get<k>(args));

}

To create an instance of an action template, write:

  ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)

where the ts are the template arguments and the vs are the value arguments. The value argument types are inferred by the compiler. For example:

using ::testing::_;

...

  int n;

  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(_, _))

      .WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));

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

  ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)

where u_i is the desired type of v_i.

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:

  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);

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?

Using the ACTION Object's Type

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:

Given Definition Expression Has Type
ACTION(Foo) Foo() FooAction
ACTION_TEMPLATE(Foo, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS()) Foo<t1, ..., t_m>() FooAction<t1, ..., t_m>
ACTION_P(Bar, param) Bar(int_value) BarActionP<int>
ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1)) Bar<t1, ..., t_m>(int_value) FooActionP<t1, ..., t_m, int>
ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2) Baz(bool_value, int_value) BazActionP2<bool, int>
ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz, HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...), AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2)) Baz<t1, ..., t_m>(bool_value, int_value) FooActionP2<t1, ..., t_m, bool, int>
... ... ...

 

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.

Writing New Monomorphic Actions

While the ACTION* macros are very convenient, sometimes they are 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.

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

template <typename F>class ActionInterface {

 public:

  virtual ~ActionInterface();



  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type

  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.

  //

  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would

  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be ::testing::tuple<bool, const string&>.

  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;

};



using ::testing::_;

using ::testing::Action;

using ::testing::ActionInterface;

using ::testing::MakeAction;



typedef int IncrementMethod(int*);



class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface<IncrementMethod> {

 public:

  virtual int Perform(const ::testing::tuple<int*>& args) {

    int* p = ::testing::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.

    return *p++;

  }

};



Action<IncrementMethod> IncrementArgument() {

  return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction);

}

...



  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Baz(_))

      .WillOnce(IncrementArgument());



  int n = 5;

  foo.Baz(&n);  // Should return 5 and change n to 6.

Writing New Polymorphic Actions

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()).

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:

namespace testing {



template <typename Impl>

PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);



}  // namespace testing

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:

class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {

 public:

  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>

  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {

    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use ::testing::get<i>(args).

    return ::testing::get<1>(args);

  }

};

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.

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:

using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;

using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;



PolymorphicAction<ReturnSecondArgumentAction> ReturnSecondArgument() {

  return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction());

}

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

using ::testing::_;



class MockFoo : public Foo {

 public:

  MOCK_METHOD2(DoThis, int(bool flag, int n));

  MOCK_METHOD3(DoThat, string(int x, const char* str1, const char* str2));

};

...



  MockFoo foo;

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))

      .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());

  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _, _))

      .WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());

  ...

  foo.DoThis(true, 5);         // Will return 5.

  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".

Teaching Google Mock How to Print Your Values

When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, Google Mock 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. Google Mock and Google Test do this using Google Test's user-extensible value printer.

This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL 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. Google Test's advanced guide explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your particular type than to dump the bytes.

你可能感兴趣的:(Google)

  • 第四天旅游线路预览——从换乘中心到喀纳斯湖 陟彼高冈yu 基于Googleearthstudio的旅游规划和预览旅游
    第四天：从贾登峪到喀纳斯风景区入口，晚上住宿贾登峪；换乘中心有4路车，喀纳斯①号车，去喀纳斯湖，路程时长约5分钟；将上面的的行程安排进行动态展示，具体步骤见”Googleearthstudio进行动态轨迹显示制作过程“、“Googleearthstudio入门教程”和“Googleearthstudio进阶教程“相关内容，得到行程如下所示：Day4-2-480p
  • Google earth studio 简介 陟彼高冈yu 旅游
    GoogleEarthStudio是一个基于Web的动画工具，专为创作使用GoogleEarth数据的动画和视频而设计。它利用了GoogleEarth强大的三维地图和卫星影像数据库，使用户能够轻松地创建逼真的地球动画、航拍视频和动态地图可视化。网址为https://www.google.com/earth/studio/。GoogleEarthStudio是一个基于Web的动画工具，专为创作使用G
  • Python开发常用的三方模块如下： 换个网名有点难 python开发语言
    Python是一门功能强大的编程语言，拥有丰富的第三方库，这些库为开发者提供了极大的便利。以下是100个常用的Python库，涵盖了多个领域：1、NumPy，用于科学计算的基础库。2、Pandas，提供数据结构和数据分析工具。3、Matplotlib，一个绘图库。4、Scikit-learn，机器学习库。5、SciPy，用于数学、科学和工程的库。6、TensorFlow，由Google开发的开源机
  • Python实现下载当前年份的谷歌影像 sand&wich python开发语言
    在GIS项目和地图应用中，获取最新的地理影像数据是非常重要的。本文将介绍如何使用Python代码从Google地图自动下载当前年份的影像数据，并将其保存为高分辨率的TIFF格式文件。这个过程涉及地理坐标转换、多线程下载和图像处理。关键功能该脚本的核心功能包括：坐标转换：支持WGS-84与WebMercator投影之间转换，以及处理中国GCJ-02偏移。自动化下载：多线程下载地图瓦片，提高效率。图像
  • 思考成长 丁昆朋
    这篇文章是加紧赶出来“应付”日更，一方面不想要再晚睡了；另一方面不想失去日更达人的称号，只能坐下来匆忙写下一点文字。既然标题是成长，先来总结一下这段时间的收获：1、整理箱子站着可以看电脑，坐着反而是一种享受，减少了坐着腰酸背痛的现象；2、使用讯飞输入法大大增加自己的输出量；3、Anaconda+“pythontutor.com"+Google算是简单入门python；4、英语的阅读文章能力、听力提
  • 效率神器来了：AI工具手把手教你快速提升工作效能 kkai人工智能 人工智能学习媒体aichatgpt
    随着科技的进步，AI工具已经成为提升工作效率的关键手段。本文将介绍一些实用的AI工具和方法，帮助你自动化繁琐的重复性任务、优化数据管理、促进团队协作与沟通，并提升决策质量。背景：OOPAI-免费问答学习交流-GPT自动化重复性任务Zapier：Zapier可以自动化多个应用程序之间的工作流程。例如，它能自动将Gmail中的附件保存至GoogleDrive，或在你发布新文章时，自动分享至社交媒体平台
  • Docker学习十一：Kubernetes概述 爱打羽球的程序猿 Docker学习系列dockerkubernetes学习
    一、Kubernetes简介2006年，Google提出了云计算的概念，当时的云计算领域还是以虚拟机为代表的云平台。2013年，Docker横空出世，Docker提出了镜像、仓库等核心概念，规范了服务的交付标准，使得复杂服务的落地变得更加简单，之后Docker又定义了OCI标准，Docker在容器领域称为事实的标准。但是，Docker诞生只是帮助定义了开发和交付标准，如果想要在生产环境中大批量的使
  • 认识世界 陈陈_19b4
    9月16日，雨。阅读书目:《真相》。作者:瑞典统计学家和医学教授汉斯·罗斯林，他的儿子奥拉·罗斯林，google公共数据团队的负责人。汉斯·罗斯林还是一位全球知名的教育家，是世界健康组织和联合国儿童基金会的顾问。他与儿子儿媳共同创办了Gapminder基金会，开发了Trendalyzer软件，将国际统计数据转化成交互式的生动有趣的图表，帮助人们以事实为基础来观察世界，被称为“可视化数据之父”。图片
  • 哪些网站用python开发 hakesashou python基础知识python
    国内的话，知乎，网易，腾讯，搜狐，金山，豆瓣这些属于用Python比较知名的。大型的项目的话，网易的许多游戏，腾讯的某些网站，搜狐的邮箱，金山的测试框架等等都是或多或少使用了Python。YouTube-视频分享网站，在某些功能上使用到python。Quora-社交问答网站。Google-谷歌在很多项目中用python作为网络应用的后端，如GoogleGroups、Gmail、GoogleMaps
  • 超越免费 奔向自由的路上
    在这个互联时代，由于社会的进步，我们亨受了很多免费的东西，比如免费的电脑操作软件，免费的杀毒软件，免费的搜索服务，雅虎的杨致远和费罗首创让互联网成为一个开放，免费的工具。后来微软用免费的方式压浏览器市场打败了当时一家独大的网景公司，一时之间，免费成了趋势，互联网传播的本质，起到了一个巨大的复印件的作用。免费带来的一个结果是迅速形成垄断，造就了googlefacebook和阿里巴巴这样的经典掉板，然
  • 安卓玩机搞机技巧综合资源----安卓机型使用ADB指令 无需root 卸载 禁用当前机型各种软件app 安卓机器 安卓玩机搞机技巧综合资源android
    在前面的博文我有分享过如何使用adb来卸载禁用有些系统自带的软件。今天将详细的步骤来讲解。在操作前需要注意。不要禁用或者卸载有些系统应用如应用商店和系统更新等。否则系统严重会导致不开机。在做未有把握操作之前，最好先备份数据。如果遇到卡logo问题，极端情况下可能要在Recovery界面清除数据才能启动系统或者线刷来救砖。前期工作1----下载adb环境工具｛https://dl.google.co
  • 解决BERT模型bert-base-chinese报错（无法自动联网下载） 搬砖修狗 bert人工智能深度学习python
    一、下载问题hugging-face是访问BERT模型的最初网站，但是目前hugging-face在中国多地不可达，在代码中涉及到该网站的模型都会报错，本文我们就以bert-base-chinese报错为例，提供一个下载到本地的方法来解决问题。二、网站google-bert(BERTcommunity)Thisorganizationismaintainedbythetransformerstea
  • GEE 将本地 GeoJSON 文件上传到谷歌资产 ThsPool GISjavaandroid前端envigis
    在地理信息系统（GIS）领域，GoogleEarthEngine（GEE）是一个强大的平台，它允许用户处理和分析大规模地理空间数据。本文将介绍如何使用Python脚本批量上传本地GeoJSON文件到GEE资产存储，这对于需要将地理数据上传到GEE进行进一步分析的用户来说非常有用。应用场景数据集成：将本地GeoJSON数据集成到GEE中，以便进行更复杂的地理空间分析。数据共享：与团队成员共享GeoJ
  • 联邦学习 Federated learning Google I/O‘19 笔记 努力搬砖的星期五 笔记联邦学习机器学习机器学习tensorflow
    FederatedLearning:MachineLearningonDecentralizeddatahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89BGjQYA0uE文章目录FederatedLearning:MachineLearningonDecentralizeddata1.DecentralizeddataEdgedevicesGboard:mobilekeyboa
  • 基于Google authentic实现的双因子登录认证系统前后台基于SSMP+Vue+Element（解决SecureRandom造成的服务器请求缓慢） Tate_Brown gitJAVAIDEADEBUGVUE
    用md5两次加盐密码，可以灵活更换算法--直接上代码地址：JAVA后台：https://github.com/TateBrownJava/TwoFALogindemoBackendVue前端：https://github.com/TateBrownJava/TwoFALoginDemofrontend-------------------------------------------------
  • 常用类库 Guava 简介 豆瑞瑞 java
    简介GoogleGuava是一个由Google开发的Java开源函数库。前身是GoogleCollectionsLibrary，提供了许多简化工具，如缓存、连接器、过滤器、关联数组等仓库代码GitCode-全球开发者的开源社区,开源代码托管平台参考https://github.com/google/guavahttps://github.com/google/guava/wikiRedisStre
  • 语音识别技术有哪些应用场景？ 不想秃头的程序 语音识别人工智能
    语音识别技术，作为人工智能领域的重要分支，已经深入到我们日常生活的方方面面。以下是一些常见的应用场景：智能助理智能助理如Siri、GoogleAssistant以及Alexa等，都基于语音识别技术来实现用户交互。用户可以通过语音命令来拨打电话、查询信息、设置提醒等。这些助理软件能够理解多种语言和方言，并能够在复杂的环境噪声中准确识别用户的指令。智能家居在智能家居领域，语音识别被用于控制各种智能设备
  • 安卓手机怎么安装国外应用 印随2018
    怎么解决国内无法使用GooglePlay商店我一直使用的是安卓手机，但是想安装国外应用的话，非常麻烦。今天发现一种最简单的方式，无比高兴，啊哈哈打开https://www.apkmonk.com/，类似于安卓应用商店，好在可以直接下载apk文件想办法发送到手机上在手机上点击安装
  • Android SDK和NDK的区别 Good_tea_h android
    AndroidSDK（SoftwareDevelopmentKit，软件开发工具包）和NDK（NativeDevelopmentKit，本地开发工具包）在Android应用开发中扮演着不同的角色，它们各自具有独特的功能和优势。一、定义与功能AndroidSDKAndroidSDK是由Google提供的一套开发工具，用于开发基于Android操作系统的应用程序。它包含了一系列开发工具和库，如Andr
  • HBase介绍 mingyu1016 数据库
    概述HBase是一个分布式的、面向列的开源数据库,源于google的一篇论文《bigtable：一个结构化数据的分布式存储系统》。HBase是GoogleBigtable的开源实现，它利用HadoopHDFS作为其文件存储系统，利用HadoopMapReduce来处理HBase中的海量数据，利用Zookeeper作为协同服务。HBase的表结构HBase以表的形式存储数据。表有行和列组成。列划分为
  • Protobuf学习 - 入门 weixin_30892987 c/c++python数据结构与算法
    古之立大事者，不惟有超世之才，亦必有坚忍不拔之志--苏轼·《晁错论》从公司的项目源码中看到了这个东西，觉得挺好用的，写篇博客做下小总结。下面的操作以C++为编程语言，protoc的版本为libprotoc3.2.0。一、Protobuf？1.是什么？GoogleProtocolBuffer(简称Protobuf)是一种轻便高效的结构化数据存储格式，平台无关、语言无关、可扩展，可用于通讯协议和数据存
  • 编程小技巧 风的低语
    40条真言，希望对进阶中的程序朋友有所帮助。1、重构是程序员的主力技能。2、工作日志能提升脑容量。3、先用profiler调查，才有脸谈优化。4、注释贵精不贵多。杜绝大姨妈般的“例注”。漫山遍野的碎碎念注释，实际就是背景噪音。5、普通程序员+google=超级程序员。6、单元测试总是合算的。7、不要先写框架再写实现。最好反过来，从原型中提炼框架。8、代码结构清晰，其它问题都不算事儿。9、好的项目作
  • 【保姆级】Protobuf详解及入门指南 AQin1012 Java网络protobuf序列化二进制协议协议Java
    目录Protobuf概述什么是Protobuf为什么要使用ProtobufProtobuf实战环境配置创建文件解析/封装数据附录AQin.proto完整代码Protobuf概述什么是ProtobufProtobuf（ProtocolBuffers）协议Protobuf是一种由Google开发的二进制序列化格式和相关的技术，它用于高效地序列化和反序列化结构化数据，通常用于网络通信、数据存储等场景为什
  • 写出渗透测试信息收集详细流程 卿酌南烛_b805
    一、扫描域名漏洞：域名漏洞扫描工具有AWVS、APPSCAN、Netspark、WebInspect、Nmap、Nessus、天镜、明鉴、WVSS、RSAS等。二、子域名探测：1、dns域传送漏洞2、搜索引擎查找（通过Google、bing、搜索c段）3、通过ssl证书查询网站：https://myssl.com/ssl.html和https://www.chinassl.net/ssltools
  • 学习小组Day4笔记—蓝海松茶 蓝海松茶LHSC
    一、下载安装R和Rstudio1.下载安装RGoogle搜索https://mirrors.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn/CRAN/选择匹配自己电脑的安装包下载安装一直点下一步，直到安装完成Tips确认自己电脑的用户名是英文名，若不是，请修改2.下载安装RstudioGoogle搜索https://www.rstudio.com/products/rstudio/download/下载
  • Google大数据架构技术栈 剑海风云 BigData大数据架构GoogleBigData
    数据存储层ColossusColossus作为Google下一代GFS（GoogleFileSystem）。GFS本身存在一些不足单主瓶颈GFS依赖单个主节点进行元数据管理，随着数据量和访问请求的增长，出现了可扩展性瓶颈。想象一下，只有一位图书管理员管理着一个庞大的图书馆——最终，事情变得难以承受。元数据可扩展性有限主节点上的集中元数据存储无法有效扩展，影响了性能并妨碍了PB和EB级数据的管理。实
  • 远程访问电脑共享文件 节点小宝 网络远程工作服务器php科技
    远程访问电脑共享文件，可以通过多种方法实现，每种方法都有其特点和适用场景。以下是一些常见的方法及其步骤：一、使用Microsoft远程桌面启用远程桌面：在目标电脑上，打开“开始”菜单，选择“设置”>“系统”>“远程桌面”。将“启用远程桌面”开关向右拖动以激活该功能。记住计算机的账号和密码。安装并配置远程桌面应用：在远程访问设备上（如手机、平板电脑或另一台电脑），从GooglePlay商店（对于An
  • 谷歌将把那些冗长的文档变成你下一个最喜欢的播客 AI研报 人工智能
    如果你有很多学校或工作的阅读任务，但更喜欢听播客，谷歌全新的AI驱动的AudioOverview工具可以满足你的需求。这项工具首次在今年的GoogleI/O大会上展示，AudioOverviews可以让你将文档、幻灯片和其他文本转换为一个AI主持的音频节目，讨论相关主题。谷歌将这项功能作为一种帮助那些通过听比读更容易理解复杂信息的人消化这些信息的方式。如果你更喜欢听别人讨论一个话题而不是阅读报告，
  • Android面试题 1b16bebb1c3c
    ListView和RecyclerView区别参考链接：https://blog.csdn.net/shu_lan...既然RecyclerView在很多方面能取代ListView，Google为什么没把ListView划上一条过时的横线？答案：可以沿着回收机制来回答。ListView采用的是RecyclerBin的回收机制在一些轻量级的List显示时效率更高你用过MVP和MVVM的区别参考链接：
  • Go的学习路线 JSU-YSJ Golang基础学习golang学习开发语言
    Golang简介go语言Go（又称Golang）是Google的RobertGriesemer，RobPike及KenThompson开发的一种静态强类型、编译型语言。Go语言语法与C相近，但功能上有：内存安全，GC（垃圾回收），结构形态及CSP-style并发计算。为什么要学习Go现有的编程语言风格各异，不能完全的运动好电脑的硬件，不高效，及各种优势于一身的语言Golang(谷歌创建)兼容静态编
  • 多线程编程之卫生间 周凡杨 java并发卫生间线程厕所
    如大家所知，火车上车厢的卫生间很小，每次只能容纳一个人，一个车厢只有一个卫生间，这个卫生间会被多个人同时使用，在实际使用时，当一个人进入卫生间时则会把卫生间锁上，等出来时打开门，下一个人进去把门锁上，如果有一个人在卫生间内部则别人的人发现门是锁的则只能在外面等待。问题分析：首先问题中有两个实体，一个是人，一个是厕所，所以设计程序时就可以设计两个类。人是多数的，厕所只有一个（暂且模拟的是一个车厢）。
  • How to Install GUI to Centos Minimal sunjing linuxInstallDesktopGUI
    http://www.namhuy.net/475/how-to-install-gui-to-centos-minimal.html   I have centos 6.3 minimal running as web server. I’m looking to install gui to my server to vnc to my server. You can insta
  • Shell 函数 daizj shell函数
    Shell 函数 linux shell 可以用户定义函数，然后在shell脚本中可以随便调用。 shell中函数的定义格式如下： [function] funname [()]{ action; [return int;] } 说明： 1、可以带function fun() 定义，也可以直接fun() 定义,不带任何参数。 2、参数返回
  • Linux服务器新手操作之一 周凡杨 Linux 简单 操作
    1.whoami      当一个用户登录Linux系统之后，也许他想知道自己是发哪个用户登录的。      此时可以使用whoami命令。      [ecuser@HA5-DZ05 ~]$ whoami       e
  • 浅谈Socket通信（一） 朱辉辉33 socket
    在java中ServerSocket用于服务器端，用来监听端口。通过服务器监听，客户端发送请求，双方建立链接后才能通信。当服务器和客户端建立链接后，两边都会产生一个Socket实例，我们可以通过操作Socket来建立通信。    首先我建立一个ServerSocket对象。当然要导入java.net.ServerSocket包    ServerSock
  • 关于框架的简单认识 西蜀石兰 框架
    入职两个月多，依然是一个不会写代码的小白，每天的工作就是看代码，写wiki。 前端接触CSS、HTML、JS等语言，一直在用的CS模型，自然免不了数据库的链接及使用，真心涉及框架，项目中用到的BootStrap算一个吧，哦，JQuery只能算半个框架吧，我更觉得它是另外一种语言。 后台一直是纯Java代码，涉及的框架是Quzrtz和log4j。 都说学前端的要知道三大框架，目前node.
  • You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your 林鹤霄
    You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'option,changed_ids  ) values('0ac91f167f754c8cbac00e9e3dc372
  • MySQL5.6的my.ini配置 aigo mysql
    注意：以下配置的服务器硬件是：8核16G内存    [client]   port=3306   [mysql]   default-character-set=utf8     [mysqld]   port=3306   basedir=D:/mysql-5.6.21-win
  • mysql 全文模糊查找 便捷解决方案 alxw4616 mysql
    mysql 全文模糊查找 便捷解决方案 2013/6/14 by 半仙 [email protected] 目的: 项目需求实现模糊查找. 原则: 查询不能超过 1秒. 问题: 目标表中有超过1千万条记录. 使用like '%str%' 进行模糊查询无法达到性能需求. 解决方案: 使用mysql全文索引. 1.全文索引 : MySQL支持全文索引和搜索功能。MySQL中的全文索
  • 自定义数据结构 链表(单项 ,双向,环形) 百合不是茶 单项链表双向链表
         链表与动态数组的实现方式差不多,    数组适合快速删除某个元素    链表则可以快速的保存数组并且可以是不连续的       单项链表;数据从第一个指向最后一个   实现代码:        //定义动态链表 clas
  • threadLocal实例 bijian1013 javathreadjava多线程threadLocal
    实例1： package com.bijian.thread; public class MyThread extends Thread { private static ThreadLocal tl = new ThreadLocal() { protected synchronized Object initialValue() { return new Inte
  • activemq安全设置—设置admin的用户名和密码 bijian1013 javaactivemq
            ActiveMQ使用的是jetty服务器, 打开conf/jetty.xml文件，找到 <bean id="adminSecurityConstraint" class="org.eclipse.jetty.util.security.Constraint"> <p
  • 【Java范型一】Java范型详解之范型集合和自定义范型类 bit1129 java
    本文详细介绍Java的范型，写一篇关于范型的博客原因有两个，前几天要写个范型方法(返回值根据传入的类型而定)，竟然想了半天，最后还是从网上找了个范型方法的写法；再者，前一段时间在看Gson, Gson这个JSON包的精华就在于对范型的优雅简单的处理，看它的源代码就比较迷糊，只其然不知其所以然。所以，还是花点时间系统的整理总结下范型吧。   范型内容 范型集合类 范型类
  • 【HBase十二】HFile存储的是一个列族的数据 bit1129 hbase
    在HBase中，每个HFile存储的是一个表中一个列族的数据，也就是说，当一个表中有多个列簇时，针对每个列簇插入数据，最后产生的数据是多个HFile，每个对应一个列族，通过如下操作验证   1. 建立一个有两个列族的表   create 'members','colfam1','colfam2'   2. 在members表中的colfam1中插入50*5
  • Nginx 官方一个配置实例 ronin47 nginx 配置实例
    user www www; worker_processes 5; error_log logs/error.log; pid logs/nginx.pid; worker_rlimit_nofile 8192; events { worker_connections 4096;} http { include conf/mim
  • java-15.输入一颗二元查找树，将该树转换为它的镜像， 即在转换后的二元查找树中，左子树的结点都大于右子树的结点。 用递归和循环 bylijinnan java
    //use recursion public static void mirrorHelp1(Node node){ if(node==null)return; swapChild(node); mirrorHelp1(node.getLeft()); mirrorHelp1(node.getRight()); } //use no recursion bu
  • 返回null还是empty bylijinnan javaapachespring编程
    第一个问题，函数是应当返回null还是长度为0的数组（或集合）？ 第二个问题，函数输入参数不当时，是异常还是返回null？ 先看第一个问题 有两个约定我觉得应当遵守： 1.返回零长度的数组或集合而不是null（详见《Effective Java》） 理由就是，如果返回empty，就可以少了很多not-null判断： List<Person> list
  • [科技与项目]工作流厂商的战略机遇期 comsci 工作流
          在新的战略平衡形成之前，这里有一个短暂的战略机遇期，只有大概最短6年，最长14年的时间，这段时间就好像我们森林里面的小动物，在秋天中，必须抓紧一切时间存储坚果一样，否则无法熬过漫长的冬季。。。。         在微软，甲骨文，谷歌，IBM,SONY
  • 过度设计-举例 cuityang 过度设计
    过度设计，需要更多设计时间和测试成本，如无必要，还是尽量简洁一些好。 未来的事情，比如 访问量，比如数据库的容量，比如是否需要改成分布式  都是无法预料的 再举一个例子，对闰年的判断逻辑： 　　1、 if($Year%4==0) return True; else return Fasle; 　　2、if (   ($Year%4==0  &am
  • java进阶，《Java性能优化权威指南》试读 darkblue086 java性能优化
    记得当年随意读了微软出版社的.NET 2.0应用程序调试，才发现调试器如此强大，应用程序开发调试其实真的简单了很多，不仅仅是因为里面介绍了很多调试器工具的使用，更是因为里面寻找问题并重现问题的思想让我震撼，时隔多年，Java已经如日中天，成为许多大型企业应用的首选，而今天，这本《Java性能优化权威指南》让我再次找到了这种感觉，从不经意的开发过程让我刮目相看，原来性能调优不是简单地看看热点在哪里，
  • 网络学习笔记初识OSI七层模型与TCP协议 dcj3sjt126com 学习笔记
      协议：在计算机网络中通信各方面所达成的、共同遵守和执行的一系列约定 　　计算机网络的体系结构：计算机网络的层次结构和各层协议的集合。 　　两类服务： 　　面向连接的服务通信双方在通信之前先建立某种状态，并在通信过程中维持这种状态的变化，同时为服务对象预先分配一定的资源。这种服务叫做面向连接的服务。 　　面向无连接的服务通信双方在通信前后不建立和维持状态，不为服务对象
  • mac中用命令行运行mysql dcj3sjt126com mysqllinuxmac
    参考这篇博客：http://www.cnblogs.com/macro-cheng/archive/2011/10/25/mysql-001.html  感觉workbench不好用（有点先入为主了）。 1，安装mysql 在mysql的官方网站下载 mysql 5.5.23 http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/，根据我的机器的配置情况选择了64
  • MongDB查询（1）——基本查询[五] eksliang mongodbmongodb 查询mongodb find
    MongDB查询 转载请出自出处：http://eksliang.iteye.com/blog/2174452 一、find简介 MongoDB中使用find来进行查询。 API:如下 function ( query , fields , limit , skip, batchSize, options ){.....}  参数含义： query:查询参数 fie
  • base64，加密解密 经融加密，对接 y806839048 经融加密对接
    String data0 = new String(Base64.encode(bo.getPaymentResult().getBytes(("GBK")))); String data1 = new String(Base64.decode(data0.toCharArray()),"GBK"); // 注意编码格式，注意用于加密，解密的要是同
  • JavaWeb之JSP概述 ihuning javaweb
      什么是JSP？为什么使用JSP？ JSP表示Java Server Page，即嵌有Java代码的HTML页面。使用JSP是因为在HTML中嵌入Java代码比在Java代码中拼接字符串更容易、更方便和更高效。   JSP起源    在很多动态网页中，绝大部分内容都是固定不变的，只有局部内容需要动态产生和改变。  如果使用Servl
  • apple watch 指南 啸笑天 apple
    1. 文档 WatchKit Programming Guide（中译在线版 By @CocoaChina） 译文 译者 原文 概览 - 开始为 Apple Watch 进行开发 @星夜暮晨 Overview - Developing for Apple Watch 概览 - 配置 Xcode 项目 - Overview - Configuring Yo
  • java经典的基础题目 macroli java编程
    1.列举出 10个JAVA语言的优势 a:免费，开源，跨平台(平台独立性)，简单易用，功能完善，面向对象，健壮性，多线程，结构中立，企业应用的成熟平台, 无线应用 2.列举出JAVA中10个面向对象编程的术语 a:包，类，接口，对象，属性，方法，构造器，继承，封装，多态，抽象，范型 3.列举出JAVA中6个比较常用的包 Java.lang;java.util;java.io;java.sql;ja
  • 你所不知道神奇的js replace正则表达式 qiaolevip 每天进步一点点学习永无止境纵观千象regex
    var v = 'C9CFBAA3CAD0'; console.log(v); var arr = v.split(''); for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i ++) { if (i % 2 == 0) arr[i] = '%' + arr[i]; } console.log(arr.join('')); console.log(v.r
  • [一起学Hive]之十五-分析Hive表和分区的统计信息(Statistics) superlxw1234 hivehive分析表hive统计信息hive Statistics
    关键字：Hive统计信息、分析Hive表、Hive Statistics   类似于Oracle的分析表，Hive中也提供了分析表和分区的功能，通过自动和手动分析Hive表，将Hive表的一些统计信息存储到元数据中。   表和分区的统计信息主要包括：行数、文件数、原始数据大小、所占存储大小、最后一次操作时间等；   14.1 新表的统计信息 对于一个新创建
  • Spring Boot 1.2.5 发布 wiselyman spring boot
        Spring Boot 1.2.5已在7月2日发布，现在可以从spring的maven库和maven中心库下载。   这个版本是一个维护的发布版，主要是一些修复以及将Spring的依赖提升至4.1.7(包含重要的安全修复)。   官方建议所有的Spring Boot用户升级这个版本。   项目首页 | 源
按字母分类： ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ其他