Googletest export

Allow construction of an Action from a callable of zero args

Action already allows construction from a callable with the same args as the mocked function, without needing to wrap the callable in Invoke. However, if you don't care about the arguments to the mocked function you need to either accept all of them or wrap your callable in InvokeWithoutArgs. This change makes both of those unnecessary, since it allows you to pass a no-args callable to Action directly.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 296117034

3 files changed, 65 insertions, 22 deletions

diff --git a/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md b/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md
index a4935214..7209ea05 100644
--- a/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md
+++ b/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md
@@ -2174,7 +2174,7 @@ own precedence order distinct from the `ON_CALL` precedence order.
 ### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
 
 If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable
-(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda as an action.
+(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda) as an action.
 
 <!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0024 DO NOT DELETE -->
 
@@ -2203,6 +2203,7 @@ class Helper {
       .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1)));
   EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
       .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob))
+      .WillOnce([] { return true; })
       .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; });
 
   foo.Sum(5, 6);         // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6).
@@ -2212,11 +2213,11 @@ class Helper {
 ```
 
 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?
+with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the latter's arguments (if
+it takes any) can be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the
+former, and the former's return type can be implicitly converted to that of the
+latter. So, you can invoke something whose type is *not* exactly the same as the
+mock function, as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh?
 
 **`Note:`{.escaped}**
 
@@ -2267,19 +2268,20 @@ TEST_F(FooTest, Test) {
 
 ### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
 
-`Invoke()` is very useful for doing actions that are more complex. It passes the
-mock function's arguments to the function, etc being invoked such that the
-callee has the full context of the call to work with. If the invoked function is
-not interested in some or all of the arguments, it can simply ignore them.
+`Invoke()` passes the mock function's arguments to the function, etc being
+invoked such that the callee has the full context of the call to work with. If
+the invoked function is not interested in some or all of the arguments, it can
+simply ignore them.
 
 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.
+the arguments of the mock function. She could do that using a wrapper function
+that throws away the arguments before invoking an underlining nullary function.
+Needless to say, this can be tedious and obscures the intent of the test.
 
-`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:
+There are two solutions to this problem. First, you can pass any callable of
+zero args as an action. Alternatively, use `InvokeWithoutArgs()`, which is like
+`Invoke()` except that it doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the
+callee. Here's an example of each:
 
 ```cpp
 using ::testing::_;
@@ -2296,7 +2298,7 @@ bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
 ...
   MockFoo foo;
   EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
-      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(Job1))
+      .WillOnce([] { Job1(); });
       .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
 
   foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().
diff --git a/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h b/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h
index e46bcaa7..b4127e93 100644
--- a/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h
+++ b/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-actions.h
@@ -263,6 +263,10 @@ GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_(double, 0);
 
 #undef GMOCK_DEFINE_DEFAULT_ACTION_FOR_RETURN_TYPE_
 
+// Simple two-arg form of std::disjunction.
+template <typename P, typename Q>
+using disjunction = typename ::std::conditional<P::value, P, Q>::type;
+
 }  // namespace internal
 
 // When an unexpected function call is encountered, Google Mock will
@@ -456,9 +460,15 @@ class Action {
   // This cannot take std::function directly, because then Action would not be
   // directly constructible from lambda (it would require two conversions).
   template <typename G,
-            typename = typename ::std::enable_if<
-                ::std::is_constructible<::std::function<F>, G>::value>::type>
-  Action(G&& fun) : fun_(::std::forward<G>(fun)) {}  // NOLINT
+            typename IsCompatibleFunctor =
+                ::std::is_constructible<::std::function<F>, G>,
+            typename IsNoArgsFunctor =
+                ::std::is_constructible<::std::function<Result()>, G>,
+            typename = typename ::std::enable_if<internal::disjunction<
+                IsCompatibleFunctor, IsNoArgsFunctor>::value>::type>
+  Action(G&& fun) {  // NOLINT
+    Init(::std::forward<G>(fun), IsCompatibleFunctor());
+  }
 
   // Constructs an Action from its implementation.
   explicit Action(ActionInterface<F>* impl)
@@ -490,6 +500,26 @@ class Action {
   template <typename G>
   friend class Action;
 
+  template <typename G>
+  void Init(G&& g, ::std::true_type) {
+    fun_ = ::std::forward<G>(g);
+  }
+
+  template <typename G>
+  void Init(G&& g, ::std::false_type) {
+    fun_ = IgnoreArgs<typename ::std::decay<G>::type>{::std::forward<G>(g)};
+  }
+
+  template <typename FunctionImpl>
+  struct IgnoreArgs {
+    template <typename... Args>
+    Result operator()(const Args&...) const {
+      return function_impl();
+    }
+
+    FunctionImpl function_impl;
+  };
+
   // fun_ is an empty function if and only if this is the DoDefault() action.
   ::std::function<F> fun_;
 };
diff --git a/googlemock/test/gmock-actions_test.cc b/googlemock/test/gmock-actions_test.cc
index 58a2d35a..d1229ac9 100644
--- a/googlemock/test/gmock-actions_test.cc
+++ b/googlemock/test/gmock-actions_test.cc
@@ -1470,8 +1470,19 @@ TEST(FunctorActionTest, TypeConversion) {
   EXPECT_EQ(1, s2.Perform(std::make_tuple("hello")));
 
   // Also between the lambda and the action itself.
-  const Action<bool(std::string)> x = [](Unused) { return 42; };
-  EXPECT_TRUE(x.Perform(std::make_tuple("hello")));
+  const Action<bool(std::string)> x1 = [](Unused) { return 42; };
+  const Action<bool(std::string)> x2 = [] { return 42; };
+  EXPECT_TRUE(x1.Perform(std::make_tuple("hello")));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(x2.Perform(std::make_tuple("hello")));
+
+  // Ensure decay occurs where required.
+  std::function<int()> f = [] { return 7; };
+  Action<int(int)> d = f;
+  f = nullptr;
+  EXPECT_EQ(7, d.Perform(std::make_tuple(1)));
+
+  // Ensure creation of an empty action succeeds.
+  Action<void(int)>(nullptr);
 }
 
 TEST(FunctorActionTest, UnusedArguments) {