diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md | 30 |
1 files changed, 19 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md b/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md index 0da4cbe2..76910569 100644 --- a/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md +++ b/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md @@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ Using Google Mock involves three basic steps: # Why Google Mock? # While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_: - * Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it. - * The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions. + * Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distances to avoid it. + * The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad-hoc restrictions. * The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next. In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference. @@ -217,7 +217,8 @@ The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more informati This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that ``` -using ::testing::Return;... +using ::testing::Return; +... EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) .Times(5) .WillOnce(Return(100)) @@ -251,7 +252,8 @@ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher: ``` -using ::testing::Ge;... +using ::testing::Ge; +... EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100))); ``` @@ -280,7 +282,8 @@ First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, th Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example, ``` -using ::testing::Return;... +using ::testing::Return; +... EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) .WillOnce(Return(100)) .WillOnce(Return(200)) @@ -290,7 +293,8 @@ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX()) This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively. ``` -using ::testing::Return;... +using ::testing::Return; +... EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) .WillOnce(Return(100)) .WillOnce(Return(200)) @@ -317,7 +321,8 @@ Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means? ``` -using ::testing::Return;... +using ::testing::Return; +... EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY()) .Times(4) .WillOnce(Return(100)); @@ -331,7 +336,8 @@ So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More reali By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example: ``` -using ::testing::_;... +using ::testing::_; +... EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2 .Times(2); @@ -347,7 +353,8 @@ By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation h Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy: ``` -using ::testing::InSequence;... +using ::testing::InSequence; +... TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) { ... { @@ -365,7 +372,7 @@ By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are pu In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error. -(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](CookBook#Expecting_Partially_Ordered_Calls.md).) +(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](CookBook.md#expecting-partially-ordered-calls).) ## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ## Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)? @@ -373,7 +380,8 @@ Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. H After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!): ``` -using ::testing::_;... +using ::testing::_; +... EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1 .Times(AnyNumber()); EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2 |