Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Update code examples in the gMock Cookbook following C++ best practices.
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
PiperOrigin-RevId: 542564354
Change-Id: Ia3307f13f845c662c88fb7303112f41ef8c56b28
  • Loading branch information
Abseil Team authored and copybara-github committed Jun 22, 2023
1 parent af39146 commit ec4fed9
Showing 1 changed file with 24 additions and 22 deletions.
46 changes: 24 additions & 22 deletions docs/gmock_cook_book.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -697,9 +697,9 @@ TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _));

int n = 0;
EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(5)); // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked.
EXPECT_EQ(foo.DoThis(5), '+'); // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked.
foo.DoThat("Hi", &n); // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
EXPECT_EQ(n, 2);
}
```

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1129,11 +1129,11 @@ 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:

```cpp
using testing::AllOf;
using testing::Ge;
using testing::Le;
using testing::Matches;
using testing::Ne;
using ::testing::AllOf;
using ::testing::Ge;
using ::testing::Le;
using ::testing::Matches;
using ::testing::Ne;
...
Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
```
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1861,7 +1861,7 @@ error. So, what shall you do?
Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`:

```cpp
using testing::Return;
using ::testing::Return;

class MockFoo : public Foo {
public:
Expand All @@ -1873,7 +1873,7 @@ class MockFoo : public Foo {
EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
.WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x))); // Wrong!
x = 42;
EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
EXPECT_EQ(foo.GetValue(), 42);
```

Unfortunately, it doesn't work here. The above code will fail with error:
Expand All @@ -1895,14 +1895,14 @@ the expectation is set, and `Return(std::ref(x))` will always return 0.
returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:

```cpp
using testing::ReturnPointee;
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.
EXPECT_EQ(foo.GetValue(), 42); // This will succeed now.
```

### Combining Actions
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2264,7 +2264,7 @@ TEST_F(FooTest, Test) {

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

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2771,11 +2771,13 @@ returns a null `unique_ptr`, that’s what you’ll get if you don’t specify a
action:

```cpp
using ::testing::IsNull;
...
// Use the default action.
EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello"));

// Triggers the previous EXPECT_CALL.
EXPECT_EQ(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"));
EXPECT_THAT(mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"), IsNull());
```

If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3194,9 +3196,9 @@ flag. For example, given the test program:
```cpp
#include "gmock/gmock.h"

using testing::_;
using testing::HasSubstr;
using testing::Return;
using ::testing::_;
using ::testing::HasSubstr;
using ::testing::Return;

class MockFoo {
public:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3817,15 +3819,15 @@ If the built-in actions don't work for you, you can easily define your own one.
All you need is a call operator with a signature compatible with the mocked
function. So you can use a lambda:

```
```cpp
MockFunction<int(int)> mock;
EXPECT_CALL(mock, Call).WillOnce([](const int input) { return input * 7; });
EXPECT_EQ(14, mock.AsStdFunction()(2));
EXPECT_EQ(mock.AsStdFunction()(2), 14);
```

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

```
```cpp
struct MultiplyBy {
template <typename T>
T operator()(T arg) { return arg * multiplier; }
Expand All @@ -3840,16 +3842,16 @@ struct MultiplyBy {
It's also fine for the callable to take no arguments, ignoring the arguments
supplied to the mock function:

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

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

```
```cpp
// An action that contains move-only types and has an &&-qualified operator,
// demanding in the type system that it be called at most once. This can be
// used with WillOnce, but the compiler will reject it if handed to
Expand Down

0 comments on commit ec4fed9

Please sign in to comment.