Squashed 'third_party/googletest/' changes from 2fe3bd994..f5e592d8e
f5e592d8e Googletest export
065a0c814 Googletest export
680a5aa33 Googletest export
719fd2d36 Googletest export
6e8a8623f Googletest export
252ce9c52 Googletest export
11da093e0 Merge pull request #3174 from sebkraemer:issue-15644
23ef29555 Merge pull request #3314 from Vollstrecker:master
f16d43cd3 Googletest export
0d9daa993 Googletest export
566fdcc92 Merge pull request #3364 from jbampton:fix-spelling
8043818e1 Use URL instead of git-repo
eaf9a3fd7 Googletest export
831bc0350 Googletest export
124e87a30 Apply missing suggestions from code review for GTEST_SKIP
1de97fd1c Apply suggestions from code review for GTEST_SKIP documentation
c4ed56eb7 Add subsection for GTEST_SKIP documentation
050b51751 chore: fix spelling
c79eb87c1 Mention to explicitely set the option to it's default.
8d664b94b Googletest export
38c316fc5 Changes like Requested.
4400d68de Googletest export
486a4a6be Googletest export
c3fc92f0b Googletest export
ec7fa96f2 Merge pull request #3158 from GauthamBanasandra:patch-1
965f8ecbf Googletest export
ad462b70c Merge pull request #3319 from a-sully:patch-1
6a5eb8074 Googletest export
8a65bc030 Googletest export
d0303e40c Googletest export
601a68150 Googletest export
54689b193 Googletest export
5c8ca58ed Googletest export
4048829db Googletest export
6c5c4554a Merge pull request #3155 from ZedThree:cmake-alias-libraries
df7fee587 Googletest export
c0dd0817c Googletest export
66836f0a9 Googletest export
6dabd081e Googletest export
5142ccd2d Googletest export
4595745f7 Googletest export
53cc7cd1e Googletest export
d4e3b8ced Googletest export
32ad3c8c3 Googletest export
1a8ecf181 Googletest export
3ff1e8b98 Merge pull request #3315 from zaucy:master
9c047902a Update nicestrictnaggy gmock cook_book links
b7d472f12 Merge pull request #3291 from Be-ing:remove_zi_msvc
ac1d60c2b Googletest export
3bd41ab23 Internal change
d0dbf0f6c Googletest export
98ca42067 Googletest export
5c08f92c8 Use @platforms instead of @bazel_tools for windows constraint
5065389aa Use Fetchcontent instead of ExternalProject
e8512bc38 Googletest export
861d535e2 Googletest export
763eaa430 Googletest export
bb4f87e6c Googletest export
bf465ff05 Internal change
bcfcf75ef Merge pull request #3184 from N-Dekker:PrintTo-type_index-overload
79b556eff Googletest export
e7e591764 Googletest export
32983d211 Googletest export
de41f8223 Googletest export
e8b478a73 Googletest export
3832a41ef Googletest export
497db77a0 remove -Zi from MSVC compiler options
ac3c2a8d0 overload PrintTo for std::type_info and std::type_index
1de637fbd Googletest export
d9c309fda Googletest export
daa0df7b4 Googletest export
7fb047bca Googletest export
589377871 Googletest export
bc32a8745 Googletest export
1a5a78b9a Googletest export
9e2c7ab0d Googletest export
0a3a3a845 Googletest export
e935e6c38 Googletest export
609281088 Googletest export
eac6a02cc Googletest export
e09d2b6a7 Merge pull request #3216 from corentinmusard:master
d4144d4ee Googletest export
0b4ecf54c Internal change
e16577341 Merge pull request #3262 from platisd:master
af058521a Googletest export
9c2293af0 Googletest export
36b779204 Googletest export
46b188577 Do not include void into mocked method arguments
f3ef7e173 Googletest export
9e975a022 Googletest export
7e73533ab Googletest export
b6323d216 Googletest export
aea7f60bf Googletest export
8599d312c Googletest export
fd873f6d7 Googletest export
f4e7727cf Googletest export
8c269618a Googletest export
f23cf0002 Googletest export
726118846 Googletest export
d11439880 Googletest export
273f8cb05 Googletest export
8a7618672 Googletest export
3351eba0a Googletest export
0fe14e2cd Merge pull request #3231 from dreamer:po/fix-primer-link
e3827e4e4 Googletest export
a1dde9b18 Googletest export
59dea67b8 Googletest export
997c36c18 Googletest export
4898cdacf Merge pull request #3204 from kuzkry:CmpHelperXX-overloads-removal
2c06d021d Googletest export
17922f344 Googletest export
14098f201 Googletest export
f31c82efe Fix link to Google Test Primer
d128fc825 Googletest export
5ae6e6e7e Merge pull request #3214 from kuzkry:broken-link
41ecb1025 Googletest export
b0eaf9d84 Googletest export
a3c9bb99f Merge pull request #3206 from davidben:format-attr-2
a2f906be6 Googletest export
1b4e47767 fix a broken link
6c58c11d5 Googletest export
0186caf75 Googletest export
6b2e74905 Googletest export
50ce52016 Googletest export
c13c27a51 Googletest export
489283524 Googletest export
996b65e64 Googletest export
f8304d762 Googletest export
95a9bdd9f Googletest export
d72813110 Merge pull request #3189 from ellert:gtest-help-test-GNU/kFreeBSD
e6e2f3f45 Simplify cmake install file
28041f642 Restore GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_PRINTF_ on ColoredPrintf
100ffc33f remove explicit function overloads of CmpHelper?? for BiggestInt arguments
389cb68b8 Merge pull request #3094 from chuckatkins:update-deprecated-cmake-version
ed1bf8684 Fix gtest-help-test failure on GNU/kFreeBSD
ca4b7c9ff Googletest export
4f6fa7087 Googletest export
18f8200e3 Googletest export
5a509dbd2 Googletest export
fb4b3b6b9 Googletest export
e5644f5f1 Googletest export
8779937dd Googletest export
a02a59160 Googletest export
7bf5057a0 Merge pull request #3159 from malcops:master
d0e0529af Googletest export
4fac06b45 Fix typo in CLI help message
626ce00be Fix typo
2292b6d85 CMake: Add namespaced ALIAS library
93748a946 Googletest export
141e95949 Googletest export
73979ee1b Googletest export
b8c4edf95 Googletest export
d73706911 Googletest export
1544828d2 Googletest export
b1fbd33c0 Googletest export
efe703618 Googletest export
60b8906d1 Merge pull request #3114 from marbre:FindPython
36d8eb532 Merge pull request #3118 from vinsonlee:initialize-TestInfo-is_in_another_shard_
341429be3 Initialize TestInfo member is_in_another_shard_ in constructor.
9dce5e5d8 Googletest export
0e202cdbe Googletest export
a1adec799 Googletest export
e7ed50fd1 Googletest export
d385a7729 Googletest export
336fd36fe Googletest export
b4999a1e2 Googletest export
826e9f25a Refactor finding python
035de8c7f Merge pull request #3109 from hyukmyeong:typo
cda390645 Merge pull request #3090 from knutpett:working_dir_on_diskless
fbef0711c Googletest export
0c400f67f Googletest export
e5686bb18 Only save original working directory if death tests are enabled
87347d545 fix typos
d89b36302 Googletest export
710f9c11c Googletest export
fb98f7447 Merge pull request #3008 from hyukmyeong:update_tutorial
9fd284386 Merge pull request #2714 from kuzkry:remove-repeated-include
ee2c62a6d Merge pull request #3086 from sfc-gh-ebrossard:master
282877317 Googletest export
32f4f52d9 Bump CMake minimum to 2.8.12
bd619dee0 Add instructions for sanitizer integration
3005672db Merge pull request #3044 from manavrion:improve_file_path_normalize
1845b85a0 Googletest export
a6dfd3aca Merge pull request #3073 from ArthurSonzogni:fix-typo
fe0ee53fe Fix typo "definedin in" => "defined in"
620659ed9 Googletest export
252ee42d3 Googletest export
3c95bf552 Googletest export
ebbeee39f Merge pull request #3042 from Aralox:Issue-2135-modify-mock-template-args-AX-to-TArgX
a46218886 Googletest export
f3dbe3ec4 Googletest export
7e7e94429 Googletest export
8ccc5ec5c Googletest export
79dc0f231 Googletest export
b2cb220eb Googletest export
fb239f0e4 Googletest export
b55f834c5 Googletest export
6abcfac2f Merge pull request #3050 from peternewman:patch-1
d4df326d6 Googletest export
d11c76175 Googletest export
2cf1f99b9 Googletest export
0555b0eac Googletest export
72512aa89 Googletest export
4abb012c7 Merge pull request #2837 from inazarenko:duck_type_protos
870a6b556 Fix a typo
113ca75c3 Improve FilePath::Normalize method
07f486922 Merge pull request #3030 from ranodeepbanerjee:patch-1
ee66065bc Issue 2135: Change template args in NiceMock, NaggyMock and StrictMock from A1, A2, ... to TArg1, TArg2,... to avoid clash with legacy header files
1fb1bb23b Googletest export
ed17c8ccc A slight Gramatical change.
477998eef Googletest export
2ff8d94d0 Googletest export
a0cbbba13 Merge pull request #3024 from Thomas-Barbier-1A:fix_warning_maybe_unintialized
f278076ef Merge pull request #3027 from keshavgbpecdelhi:patch-2
705b9c1af Googletest export
1f3484a2b Update cook_book.md
fe4d5f108 Googletest export
df94fc5f7 Googletest export
634c52d99 Merge pull request #3014 from JethroSama:patch-1
b5687db55 Googletest export
4679637f1 Fix warning maybe-uninitialized
7aca84427 Googletest export
bb2725346 Googletest export
4181d7a16 Update README.md, added missing 'a'
242ee2720 Remove spaces between Google Test and Google Mock
5afcb3ca4 Add follow-up patch for more natural reading
2d1a18ff3 Apply the reviewed comment
32437f41e Remove a space
7aae2ac34 Improve the tutorial that may be confusing
a4ab0abb9 Googletest export
646603961 Merge pull request #2994 from xerus2000:gmock-docs
5f8fcf4aa Googletest export
7b1cf6dd5 Googletest export
af1e75ce0 Googletest export
df6b75949 Googletest export
296c9d29b Add timestamp to in old method mock macro guide
1e315c5b1 Merge pull request #2895 from lantw44:wip/lantw/Avoid-using-environ-on-FreeBSD
ec9be15bf Googletest export
655bff5d3 Merge pull request #2984 from earhart:master
aa4cbcdcb Merge pull request #2904 from AmatanHead:throw-matchers
fc1e77889 Googletest export
adeef1929 Googletest export
025e1a484 Export LICENSE
10ade8473 Googletest export
6c655699c Googletest export
3d93f8808 Googletest export
3af06fe16 Merge pull request #2961 from FranciscoThiesen:patch-1
ce654c2ff Merge pull request #2972 from srz-zumix:fix/remove_legacy_testcase_api_
d0de618a5 Googletest export
5a5caab35 Googletest export
48ec64092 Googletest export
b612003c3 fix endif comment
7f1c8bb44 Remove ThrowsMessageHasSubstr and fix some nits after review
a899cecb1 Cleanup a bulky expression, document implementation details
4ebbfea62 Fix build under msvc
c46bdea43 Update tests after changing an error message
0a80845e7 Fix build under msvc
92d0a6f7e Add a test to ensure that the `Throws` matcher only invokes its argument once.
69c510fb5 Add a test for duplicate catch clauses in throw matchers, fix a couple of nitpicks.
49d1201a7 Add missing documentation piece
46734d9a6 Small improvements: code style and property name
9ac4cd0f4 Add matchers for testing exception properties
7d4707724 fix tests
e6e2d3b76 Merge pull request #2952 from jasjuang:master
e61125f05 Merge pull request #2920 from ongjunjie:fix-death-test-regex
7b2f00d9d Removing tiny-dnn from "Who is using.."
68ca04c26 Googletest export
317ec2f29 fix GTEST_REMOVE_LEGACY_TEST_CASEAPI_ typo
18a9aeda7 Googletest export
c64309924 Googletest export
7bde252cb fix clang tidy modernize-use-equals-default warnings
a781fe29b Merge pull request #2937 from Ashikpaul:patch-1
eb660507f Googletest export
af287b4ff Merge pull request #2903 from AmatanHead:informative-exception-asserts
c4a5ee3ac Fixed some minor typos
70b90929b Googletest export
c7f05e08a Merge pull request #2872 from elindsey:master
592d46424 Merge pull request #2808 from OlivierLDff:cmake-cpp11-feature
017c8d56b Merge pull request #2682 from mjvankampen:cmake-QNX-fix
08b787796 Googletest export
9aaaaf3f3 Googletest export
b9a8afcf2 Googletest export
356f2d264 Googletest export
131878ce9 use target_compile_features to use c++11 if cmake > 3.8
5c0ef1cb8 Fix test failing when simple regex is used
aee0f9d9b Googletest export
e5613588a Googletest export
05c4a036b Googletest export
849ed6b17 Merge pull request #2902 from mshingote:master
a4007e944 Googletest export
5e0cf72b7 Merge pull request #2718 from NINI1988:master
62f388e15 Merge pull request #2891 from zoddicus:fixMinGW
0d2830b28 Make EXPECT_THROW and EXPECT_NO_THROW macros more informative
93dc015a8 Updated googletest issue tracker url.
c6e309b26 Googletest export
549c5d061 Googletest export
2e8ebe69d Avoid using environ on FreeBSD
8567b0929 Googletest export
82e568737 remove a duplicated include
13a433a94 Googletest export
9f287b46d Googletest export
ec94d9f24 Googletest export
1b0cdaae5 Googletest export
1eda5d825 Fix build issue for MinGW
4fe018038 Googletest export
07d4a6e93 Merge pull request #2742 from kuzkry:c++17-type-printers
210aab09d Googletest export
cb44c86c1 Merge pull request #2755 from Conan-Kudo:set-version-for-libs
26dadc224 Googletest export
df6813f5e Googletest export
a2533417c fix compilation on OpenBSD 6.7
eb3953f80 make UniversalPrinter<std::any> support RTTI
843267f0f specialize UniversalPrinter<> for std::any (without support for RTTI)
95b0ea2cf specialize UniversalPrinter<> for std::optional
33b44c4b3 specialize UniversalPrinter<> for std::variant
859bfe898 Googletest export
fd32ba66e Googletest export
85a463194 Googletest export
07beabd61 Merge pull request #2767 from mvoorsluys:OutputXmlSkipped
8f3854e20 Googletest export
130ae78b9 Merge pull request #2862 from prehistoric-penguin:prehistoric-penguin-patch-1
69fb7e5da Merge pull request #2845 from matepek:readme-update-with-opensource-proj
731d908c0 Merge pull request #2677 from IYP-Programer-Yeah:fix-file-path-normalize-function
99ea9ca3f Merge pull request #2698 from aribibek:patch-1
6b08b41e5 Googletest export
f3a59610f Googletest export
a0669e070 Googletest export
1397db9e5 Googletest export
63713e1ce Googletest export
80d5177dd Use count function instead of handwritten loop
73fdce3b6 Merge remote-tracking branch 'original/master' into readme-update-with-opensource-proj
7d3946133 README.dm: Renamed related open source project name: Catch2 and Google Test Explorer -> C++ TestMate
011959aaf Googletest export
8a32680ce Googletest export
48bf552cb Merge pull request #2778 from lvjp:issue-2777
77b8d767d Merge pull request #2844 from mstorsjo:windows-includes
fe5300ebf Googletest export
d86e9e23c Remove an explicit include of debugapi.h
09f587512 Revert "Googletest export"
a09ea700d Googletest export
e589a3371 Merge pull request #2751 from calumr:quiet-flag
1a9c3e441 Merge pull request #2830 from keshavgbpecdelhi:patch-1
a9f6c1ed1 Googletest export
4c9ad191e Detect proto messages based on presense of DebugString.
0eea2e9fc Googletest export
3cfb4117f Googletest export
472cd8fd8 Merge pull request #2818 from inazarenko:master
b99b421d8 Merge pull request #2818 from inazarenko:master
129329787 Googletest export
ef25d27d4 Merge pull request #2815 from Quuxplusone:simple
955552518 Googletest export
d7ca9af00 Googletest export
b0e53e2d6 Merge pull request #2797 from Jyun-Neng:master
1b3eb6ef3 Googletest export
fb5d9b66c Googletest export
a67701056 Googletest export
4bab55dc5 Removed a typo in README.md
1b066f4ed Add -Wdeprecated to the build configuration.
c7d8ec72c Fix a -Wdeprecated warning.
01c0ff5e2 Fix a -Wdeprecated warning.
11b3cec17 Fix a -Wdeprecated warning.
766ac2e1a Remove all uses of GTEST_DISALLOW_{MOVE_,}ASSIGN_.
7c8ab528b Fix test with stack.
9d580ea80 Enable protobuf printing for open-source proto messages.
4f002f1e2 VariadicMatcher needs a non-defaulted move constructor for compile-time performance.
dcc92d0ab Merge pull request #2805 from pepsiman:patch-1
71d5df6c6 Merge pull request #2802 from e-i-n-s:fix_clang_warning
4c8e6a9fe Merge pull request #2810 from ptahmose:master
373d72b69 Googletest export
4fe5ac533 Merge pull request #2756 from Conan-Kudo:fix-pkgconfig-reqs
c2032090f Merge pull request #2772 from Quuxplusone:travis
b51a49e0c Merge pull request #2773 from Quuxplusone:replace-noexcept
ee0149122 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest into cmake-QNX-fix
be3ac45cf fix signed/unsigned comparison issue (on OpenBSD)
0b6d56761 Remove redundant .c_str()
644f3a992 gtest-unittest-api_test - fix warning in clang build
e3f0319d8 Merge pull request #2715 from kuzkry:document-premature-exit-file-protocol
7084afda5 Merge pull request #2762 from pkryger:avoid_sigprof
c344cb5a8 Googletest export
879fd9b45 Remove duplicate codes existed in get-nprocessors.sh
61f010d70 Googletest export
dc82a3347 Merge pull request #2765 from kuzkry:unsupported-build-systems
01e4fbf5c Merge pull request #2764 from kuzkry:googletest-output-test-dead-code
e3c25c169 Fix --gtest_print_time coloring
6ed4e7168 Replace the last instance of `throw()` with `noexcept`. NFC.
5504ded3a Fix a typo in .travis.yml
189299e95 Merge branch 'master' into quiet-flag
c447b2166 Fixed xml unit-tests and added extra tests
23dadb847 Fix multiple \n characters in xml file when using GTEST_SKIP.
d28d05cc6 Only write ">\n" once when there is failure and skipped tests.
59e5b401a Output skipped information in the xml file.
67cc66080 Merge pull request #2350 from adambadura:MockFunctionFromStdFunction
1ced315a4 Googletest export
acabdf65f remove chapters on Autotools, Meson and plain Makefiles
82e5767f7 remove dead code in googletest-output-test
08347d7a1 Swap settimer and sigaction calls to avoid SIGPROF
354923795 Ensure that gtest/gmock pkgconfig requirements specify version
94a7cf8c5 Set the version for the libraries
749148f1a Googletest export
dbe804f98 Merge pull request #2746 from Romain-Geissler-1A:master
fb19f5788 Add GTEST_BRIEF option
53740ebc2 Add support for std::function in MockFunction (#2277)
e41f31f2a Add tests for MockFunction deduction (#2277)
482ac6ee6 Googletest export
c43f7100f Googletest export
227faf41d Googletest export
230afdb24 Googletest export
0bf8ea306 Googletest export
3de76551e Merge pull request #2722 from JohanMabille:warnings
878bd92e0 Merge pull request #2716 from kuzkry:autotools-leftover
cfb5ef4e7 Googletest export
a1b0173df Make sure IsATTY does not clobber errno.
e588eb1ff Googletest export
909b1ccfc Googletest export
fd538161f Googletest export
ff4872659 Add missing call for gtest_list_output_unittest_ unitTest. Add unitTest for fixed TEST_P line number. Use CodeLocation TestInfo struct.
04e52ebe7 Fixed warnings
25385c23e Fix: shadow member
921972cba Add correct line number to TEST_P test cases for gtest_output.
937b3ce9f Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest into cmake-QNX-fix
23b2a3b1c Googletest export
6f5fd0d71 Googletest export
d0930731d Googletest export
56de7cc8b Googletest export
360f5f70a Googletest export
139fa202c Googletest export
41b5f149a Googletest export
2d6d7a01c Googletest export
fbf67a70d Googletest export
11d9834e9 Googletest export
d02e27727 Googletest export
4f6609129 Googletest export
74b44b2d0 Googletest export
572e261b6 Googletest export
7bc671b8e Googletest export
38f6608e8 Googletest export
d6ce39edf Googletest export
7413280c5 Googletest export
87061810f Googletest export
f1a6db9d4 Googletest export
22397f28e Googletest export
461bd03fc fix a link to documentation
c378d7eb9 remove a dead reference to the Autotools script
c09fbb239 Fix always false condition and clean function body
44517f988 Fixes extensions missing for QNX
10b1902d8 Googletest export
d01e356e1 Googletest export
9417fb401 Merge pull request #2665 from bysreg:fix_noshortcircuitfailure_detectsflakyshortcircuit_test
c59c7bab5 Merge pull request #2672 from ivan1993br:ivan1993br-platformio_update
18b67bfc5 Googletest export
8b4817e3d Googletest export
5336106b6 Googletest export
3e79d366e Googletest export
7a8591e6e Googletest export
0b024bd91 Googletest export
ed16134fb Googletest export
aa4315646 Remove exclusion of *-main and*-all targets
c7137f0b8 Use IsReadableTypeName IsReadableTypeName in OfType function in gmock-matchers_test.cc
3aa538cbf fix unit test failure on NoShortCircuitOnFailure and DetectsFlakyShortCircuit when GTEST_HAS_RTTI is 1
d854bd6ac Googletest export
c901f67dd Googletest export
8417b7332 Googletest export
4b9c1691c Googletest export
306f3754a Googletest export
07ab939af Merge pull request #2632 from Kravlalala:cmake/mingw_msys_build
0d98d87e1 Googletest export
153909f09 Googletest export
fbe34cecf Merge pull request #2639 from trzecieu:trzeci/move_ctor_assign
a13a06261 Googletest export
008629ae2 Merge pull request #2624 from ShabbyX:master
d0a521255 Googletest export
6f1a8ffde Googletest export
bf31ed376 Make move operation noexcept.
cc05a3ca0 Define default destructor for test classes
05701fee2 Deleted functions as part of public interface
77b3a250e Review notes: Return T& from assignment operators
9d8222ad6 Disable move constructor and assignment operator for test classes.
d166e0948 Merge pull request #2590 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_g++-stale-comments
0a0c82662 Googletest export
1800a38fb Revert "Googletest export": disallow empty prefix
4b7809c2f Revert "Googletest export": Remove test for empty prefix
d20164690 Workaround VS bug w.r.t empty arguments to macros
5b162a79d Merge pull request #2589 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_g++-no-space-after-first-macro-argument
d16f86ff1 Googletest export
d8eeb9760 Googletest export
d442089d5 Googletest export
88ba008c2 Merge pull request #2595 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_msvc-warning-4355
a3097c826 Merge pull request #2592 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_msvc-error-C2665
6251071a2 Googletest export
20b8e7a1c Activate GNU extensions in case of MSYS generator
78fdd6c00 Merge pull request #2609 from kuzkry:revert-2596
9ed99c6c8 Googletest export
2002f267f Googletest export
1d563578c Merge pull request #2594 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_msvc-unneeded-const-dropping
cf75d4b92 Googletest export
ae8d1fc81 Googletest export
52825d78a Merge pull request #2603 from maximilianschwab:patch-1
11a9482f8 Merge pull request #2607 from oyefremov:patch-1
b155875f3 Merge pull request #2583 from ChristophStrehle:master
3957b8898 Revert "remove MSVC workaround: wmain link error in the static library"
967d8e05c Revert "unify googletest and googlemock main functions"
b8a92f7c8 Rename test case to test suite
34e92be31 Merge pull request #2604 from matepek:readme-update-with-opensource-proj
39803f3c5 Merge pull request #2593 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_msvc-namespace-scope-from-nested-class
0361bdf59 Merge pull request #2596 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_msvc-wmain-link-error
db13ff1f0 Merge pull request #2597 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_Nokia-Sybian-SafeMatcherCastImpl
be74b4b2e Googletest export
7a8a5bcec Merge pull request #2591 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_g++-using-on-operator<<
a32a20009 Merge pull request #2588 from kuzkry:remove-workaround_g++-incorrect-comments
51545ee51 Googletest export
5a62d400e README.md: added Catch2 and Google Test Explorer
838a32845 Fixed typo
679bfec6d Googletest export
af71b6607 Merge pull request #2570 from xieyubo:1.10
717ce7feb Googletest export
a909becdc unify googletest and googlemock main functions
298a40f02 remove MSVC workaround: wmain link error in the static library
bbbc5d8a4 remove Nokia's Symbian compiler workaround: SafeMatcherCastImpl
e0c80b0a6 consistency fix for SafeMatcherCastImpl member functions
6748df1ea remove MSVC workaround: cease const dropping
ecefcbd4a remove MSVC workaround: warning 4355
a5136dbdd remove MSVC workaround: error C2665
21d276b5c remove MSVC workaround: accessing namespace scope from within nested classes
a91e4e73b remove stale comments about older GCC versions
e1dd49835 remove g++ 2.95.0 workaround: no space after first comma in macros
2241be0c3 remove g++ 3.3 workaround: using on operator<<
6a9d6d5c2 Fix compile break for Microsoft Visual Studio 2017 v141
200ff5994 Merge pull request #2569 from bgianfo:master
4bf466236 Googletest export
50cfbb726 Googletest export
dcdb65065 Fix internal memory leak in Windows _Crt report.
0c469a5a0 Fix FlatTuple compilation on older msvc.
c27acebba Merge pull request #2521 from Sinclair-John:master
f73898f3f Merge pull request #2554 from kuzkry:update-gen_gtest_pred_impl
11440f27c Merge pull request #2556 from ienorand:avoid-pkg-config-lpthread-cflag
dee725b05 add documentation for the premature-exit-file protocol
d5707695c Googletest export
681454dae Googletest export
e08a46027 Merge pull request #2549 from kuzkry:pump-support-for-python-3
8aedd597a Merge pull request #2548 from kuzkry:update-pump-manual
54978626b Merge pull request #2547 from kuzkry:typo
3e062a6ef Merge pull request #2373 from Youw:master
6caa879a4 pkg-config: Remove pthread link flag from Cflags
f79ac2ce0 change incorrect comments
f9665846e update gen_gtest_pred_impl.py
8697709e0 Merge pull request #2453 from kuzkry:gtest-port-clean-up_kMaxBiggestInt
f658561ef fix a typo
442f45b37 pump.py: add support for Python 3
523ad489e update pump_manual.md
e8a82dc7e Merge pull request #2453 from kuzkry:gtest-port-clean-up_kMaxBiggestInt
057ee5063 Merge pull request #2533 from thejcannon:noexcept_spec
2db3df9c4 Googletest export
e2fc3a9c9 Googletest export
0a0348082 Googletest export
f626deda1 Added special catch for std::exception in GTEST_TEST_NO_THROW_
ba33a8876 Googletest export
fff8dabbf Googletest export
2bee6da24 Googletest export
755f853c6 Googletest export
757d39a79 Googletest export
b5fb5ba05 Merge pull request #2527 from PiotrNycz:gmock_prevent_return_ref_to_store_temporaries_2
a1f71dd56 Googletest export
a8b1a66cf Merge pull request #2388 from kuzkry:remove-gtest-type-util.pump
1a49b67ae update CONTRIBUTORS
002905f29 move the pumping script to googlemock
a7083564d remove gtest-type-util.h.pump
e3a9a567d replace autogenerated TemplatesX classes by variadic ones
eed64b5fc replace autogenerated TypesX classes by variadic ones
540835fa6 Merge pull request #2515 from ciband:feat/support_esp8266
208c2f6b6 variable names corrected (followed google coding style)
5ff72f529 Apply 80chars limit
d07268211 Tests simplified and names corrected (POD->scalar)
6e87238c9 remove BiggestInt
37f322783 Googletest export
676d0444b Revert "Merge pull request #2498 from thejcannon:noexcept_spec"
1110c471c Merge pull request #2522 from cloudrex:patch-1
8bab7883a Merge pull request #2514 from thejcannon:msvc_macro_issue
aa1146da8 Googletest export
37590da6c Added more tests to verify: ReturnRef not accept temporary
19a3bbce5 Added tests verifying that temporaries are accepted by ReturnRef
f1afeaa64 Googletest export
b11fb80e9 Prevent using ReturnRef on reference to temporary
8c91ecef2 Merge pull request #2517 from snarkmaster:master
de1128355 Merge pull request #2444 from kuzkry:remove-GTEST_ARRAY_SIZE_
611a321a6 Googletest export
a5216dd1a Merge pull request #2511 from kuzkry:PlatformIO-clean-up
8ce64c084 Merge pull request #2454 from kuzkry:gtest-port-clean-up_dead-function
011c4e23d Googletest export
f164a9e23 Remove extra space
5f92697d4 Fix Issue 2418
f966ed158 Googletest export
1f9edcd96 Googletest export
bbe4b7363 Googletest export
2995ca563 Merge pull request #2507 from roblub:master
cbf019de2 [googletest] Output skip message
bdc29d5dc Merge pull request #2421 from kuzkry:cleanup-for-regex
4c25e2b87 Googletest export
9e466f1eb Merge pull request #2510 from ciband:chore/update_pio_version
778733f9e feat: Add ESP8266 support
e1b67b07f Avoid recursive macros
3cddd56e1 Add more override keywords
84a5ae8b8 Update to distinguish prelease purpose of this fork.
3e813465a Removing extraneous parenthesis
f8961b99f Evaluate and cat NARG in different macros
c2206b05a Add ESP8266 configs to PlatformIO build
40a6b9662 feat: Add support for ESP8266 platform
5fe523361 Removing extraneous test
fe112cfee Replace compile-test with preprocessor test
d935e8e3e Fix preprocessor tests
c1e8e71aa Add a compile test
c081ceebf Workaround MSVC VA_ARGS weirdness
ba513d2c9 Merge pull request #2498 from thejcannon:noexcept_spec
a3ca5b9e0 Googletest export
eafd2a91b Merge pull request #2456 from kuzkry:gtest-port-clean-up_breaking-changes
37905b9d8 Merge pull request #2498 from thejcannon:noexcept_spec
a4a5a7c76 Googletest export
ed78e54f3 Googletest export
9b9700247 clean-up broken paths for PlatformIO
31406d790 chore: update version
bc996e081 Made noexcept condition more exciting
58c719776 Merge pull request #2505 from zebmason:cornichon
20b5b8ecc Googletest export
5395345ca Merge pull request #2497 from thejcannon:handle_null_filename
cb1d5db1a Merge pull request #2448 from kuzkry:bad-googletest-export
de69803b1 Mention Cornichon as a related open source project
cd17fa2ab Merge pull request #2475 from peterbarker:pr/google-add-override
20255e6f4 Use declval in noexcept expression
7f8617a7c Switch to free function to avoid GCC bug
872b9ceb6 Avoid comma operator
0eadff8a9 Fix spacing
10c1d8c4f Use the verbatim noexcept spec in MOCKED_METHOD
3f5a8c6ee Merge pull request #2495 from hyukmyeong:typo
2ed2211db Use FormatFileLocation for streaming file and line
4360e4267 Merge pull request #2491 from SoapGentoo:fix-GNUInstallDirs-pkg-config
b96832a44 Add documentation for pkg-config in cross-compilation settings
5126ff48d Revert "Use pcfiledir for prefix in pkgconfig file"
76a560c81 Googletest export
703bd9caa Googletest export
4105eb726 Googletest export
68319c19e Googletest export
51f7396d4 Fix typo in documents
dc1ca9ae4 Googletest export
72adf7a41 Googletest export
cb3f7ce1d Googletest export
a783ade7c Googletest export
bf0fe874a Googletest export
076c46198 Googletest export
c78ea26f2 Bump llvm version to 4 so brew can work again
2460f9715 Add many missing override keywords
e0d16aa33 remove GTEST_ARRAY_SIZE_
90a8ab70a mention the existing support for wide strings in string matchers
3339b97c6 square away the stuff that hasn't been merged in a manual review
7c2bd3af9 square away the stuff that hasn't been merged in a manual review
f2fb48c3b Googletest export
cad3bc46c Googletest export
c96da8fea change usings
c7a03daa9 Merge pull request #2387 from kuzkry:iff
ac24edd6e Googletest export
274afe50c Googletest export
0cd3fbc8a change includes in gtest-port.h
33a0d4f6d Googletest export
838ea5cea remove GTEST_HAS_STD_STRING
bafa644c1 remove a dead function
3a4503986 Googletest export
62a109a2f Googletest export
c2b2cd888 Googletest export
3f05f651a Googletest export
6123df929 Googletest export
ab8f346b0 Googletest export
565f1b848 Merge pull request #2398 from kuzkry:custom-type-traits-iterator_traits
a648da952 Merge pull request #2420 from kuzkry:remove-autotools-section
eb56ee5a2 Googletest export
d9c55a48e Merge pull request #2426 from kuzkry:#2396-postreview
85f059f03 Merge pull request #3 from google/master
fdd6a1dc8 Merge pull request #2382 from kuzkry:dead-metafunction
6a3d632f4 Googletest export
38ce18e8e post-review to db1b7399 (#2396)
ed2eef654 Googletest export
db1b73994 Googletest export
46525e1e5 Merge pull request #2394 from kuzkry:custom-type-traits-duplication-of-custom-index_sequence
c6d884096 Merge pull request #2401 from kuzkry:custom-type-traits-add_lvalue_reference
9bf34ace7 Merge pull request #2400 from kuzkry:custom-type-traits-enable_if
f8e9b3767 remove references to autotools and combine gTest&gMock sections
fb49e6c16 Merge pull request #2393 from kuzkry:custom-type-traits-remove_const
d1ad644db Googletest export
7bd4a7f3e restore mistakenly removed iffs in their explicit form
c9ccac7cb Googletest export
d5e9e0c38 Merge pull request #2397 from kuzkry:custom-type-traits-is_reference
30e58a89a Merge pull request #2381 from Yannic:fix_bazel
fcffabb5b Googletest export
410b52985 Googletest export
27e17f785 Googletest export
eb78ee170 Googletest export
976b37fe9 Googletest export
44de86978 remove a dead metafunction
e9d5f427b Googletest export
d44b137fd Googletest export
4083746e6 Merge pull request #2391 from adambadura:FixCygwin
9b7040691 Merge pull request #2399 from kuzkry:custom-type-traits-is_same
6aba4a5c4 Merge pull request #2382 from kuzkry:dead-metafunction
c16f57053 Merge pull request #2386 from kuzkry:outdated-comment
a92e4a8e9 Googletest export
3835e15d7 Googletest export
de38f6380 Googletest export
6a015ca1c reuse IndexSequence from googletest
ec49fbca4 remove custom implementations of std::is_same
da76d01b9 remove a custom implementation of std::is_reference
364839ab1 remove a custom implementation of std::remove_const
e2c06aa24 remove a custom implementation of std::iterator_traits
11471da79 remove a custom implementation of std::enable_if
2c2c9e335 remove a custom implementation of std::add_lvalue_reference
6dbddd32b Use -Wa,-mbig-obj for Cygwin/MinGW always
871dcd1ff remove an outdated comment
d51cce4fc remove a dead metafunction
90a443f9c Merge pull request #2378 from kuzkry:markdown-table
f8f5fcab3 Googletest export
dd5402d9d Googletest export
79690c537 Merge pull request #2372 from pitrou:issue2371-windows-crt-asserts
800c9b301 Update Bazel on Windows
6fd262ecf Prepare for Bazel incompatible changes
6aa98d5cd fix an improperly generated table
f64f7bd36 Merge pull request #2375 from kuzkry:broken-links
07ec69a88 Merge pull request #2359 from kuzkry:superfluous-mutable
d0cb77dcc fix broken links
b4961ab1c Googletest export
2f499db00 Merge pull request #2111 from knuto:pr/remove_slash
9f8c3934d Googletest export
c39ee9c46 Fix #2371: Redirect Windows CRT assertions to stderr
11be5f534 Googletest export
4e29e4884 Merge pull request #2358 from kuzkry:adjustment-of-similar-comments
6c7a8bec8 Merge pull request #2341 from ChrisBaish:master
cc34e8fa7 Merge pull request #2357 from kuzkry:obsolete-documentation
47092933f Merge pull request #2361 from guillemglez:master
6a2adc0ee Googletest export
c8d338c62 Merge pull request #2353 from anttsov:patch-1
8756ef905 Googletest export
da28d3019 Googletest export
b15335dfa Googletest export
a3eee98ca Googletest export
2221875d0 Googletest export
210239e80 Fix table formatting in advanced.md
637b0411f remove an excessive mutable type specifier
96c851d05 adjust a comment to the similar section in advanced.md
64b17693e Update README.md
287b37f23 update pre-C++11 paragraphs
9311242db Merge pull request #2356 from kuzkry:typos
0647b90ee Merge pull request #2354 from kuzkry:trailing-whitespaces
4cd6e4d35 Merge pull request #2355 from kuzkry:markdown-numbering
bf6df7eae fix typos
d384b8831 fix numbering of ordered lists in Markdown
28e1dde25 remove trailing whitespaces
579591a35 Update README.md
c205468b6 Merge pull request #2338 from kuzkry:environment-documentation
05747d2ee Merge pull request #2342 from Jauler:master
3821ecd57 Googletest export
a45c24ac1 Googletest export
b2983b2f2 Merge pull request #2331 from adambadura:CMakeCorrection
bb481d2da Manual docs tweaks still in preparation for including docs with code pushes
c4b68b91f Manual docs tweaks still in preparation for including docs with code pushes
1be5ce090 Correct CMake to cover Cygwin
2134e3fd8 Googletest export
373ed74af Googletest export
0a5efc11e Googletest export
e93b5e06b Fix small errors in primer.md
3525e3984 Moved explanation to single line as well
af11cda56 Moved table to single lines
d64e4cf14 Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into primer_md_table_update
b77e5c762 Manual docs tweaks still in preparation for including docs with code pushes
a743249a5 Manual docs tweaks still in preparation for including docs with code pushes
15756aa0c Manual docs tweaks still in preparation for including docs with code pushes
34ddfff94 Manual docs tweaks still in preparation for including docs with code pushes
2fa7be932 explicitly show overriding to align examples to their comments
cc49f5b27 document a missing parent class
adb490773 Update primer.md
2ef13f524 remove outdated
96bf3b1af remove outdated
ad52f7d0b Merge branch 'master' of github.com:google/googletest
63e878b62 Preparation for including docs in round-trip with OSS, Manual merge, review and merge docs internal-OSS
0ef404e2e Googletest export
6077f444d Merge pull request #2332 from adambadura:AddMissingInclude
1f809607b Add missing <functional> include
f899e81e4 Preparation for including docs in round-trip with OSS. Manual review and merge docs internal-OSS
4ab6f4d70 Preparation for including docs in round-trip with OSS. Manual review and merge docs internal-OSS
3d9cdd580 Googletest export
f38f4d8f2 Googletest export
e4f097b5f Googletest export
947aeab28 Preparation for including docs in round-trip with OSS
5af948b30 Preparation for including docs in round-trip with OSS
073a2da40 Preparation for including docs in round-trip with OSS
01573aa0e Merge branch 'master' of github.com:google/googletest
afa914325 Merge pull request #2324 from kuzkry/fix-broken-link
31ff59788 Preparation for including docs in round-trip with OSS
b97b96a1a Merge pull request #2309 from cclauss/patch-1
b0568dcb4 fix a broken link
5c4d53fd5 Merge pull request #2326 from kuzkry/missing-references-to-documentation
f81dbd6ce add missing references to DesignDoc and KnownIssues
b138afde1 rename and apply snake_case on KnownIssues.md
1d5b7cc1e rename and apply snake_case on FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md
92d92f2f5 rename and apply snake_case on ForDummies.md
6078089ef rename and apply snake_case on Documentation.md
382cdf916 rename and apply snake_case on DesignDoc.md
275bbc788 rename and apply snake_case on CheatSheet.md
ee3aa8311 Fix bad advice in cook book (#2308)
dfb5e22b8 Travis CI: The sudo: tag is now deprecated in Travis CI
437e1008c Documentation sync in preparation to including docs with full source sync
834dff3b5 Documentation sync in preparation to including docs with full source sync
c1845f65f Update README.md
2a1a3e290 Merge pull request #2296 from rmstar/replace_golinks
ce58a5972 Remove google internal links from documentation on github
b4676595c Incremental doc changes in preparation for doc sync
152c7dfd0 missed the actual file in previous commit
5ed950c9e Renaming doc files to make the file names more palatable and in preparation for including documentation in sync process
ac31db8fa small docs restucture and cleanup
ba68290cb small docs restucture and cleanup
2f42d769a Merge branch 'master' of github.com:google/googletest
39ea9e8a9 Remove outdated from README
1d721a7a9 Googletest export
ee32b72e1 Googletest export
4f0160360 Merge pull request #2290 from gennadiycivil:master
be8d01462 Googletest export
ed43ecf9e Merge pull request #2288 from gennadiycivil:master
60b929865 Fixing CI break by going to bazel 0.26.1
c1a584d30 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
02767277b Revert "testing, explicitly specify compiler"
d7003576d Googletest export
d1185b9ff Googletest export
fe3a10b41 revert travis.yml, irrelevant
93d69df46 bazel 0.26.1
4b6a3cc6c bazel 0.26.1
1e5ad17e9 testing with bazel 0.26.1
919142f8a testing with bazel 0.26.1
6c971ca9a testing, explicitly specify compiler
176eccfb8 Merge pull request #2287 from PhilLab/patch-1
fd20d1ecc Merge pull request #2286 from gennadiycivil/master
b72b1bee9 docs/primer: Fixed usage of test case
e110929a7 Documentation sync working on the documentation being included with the code
cd6b9ae32 googlemock/docs/CookBook.md small doc test
41961e9e0 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
f7c178ecb Makefiles are no longer supported. Adding pseudo-break with their impending removal to make sure that people who are interested will notice
38d967e88 doc is still valid
7ada9b66b Finish removing autotools
807d590a2 Finish removing autotools
74905ef84 Also remove googlemock/scripts/gmock-config.in
84a498dec Merge pull request #2285 from tomalakgeretkal:c++17-fix
6b8c13815 Removing make and automake. The only supported build systems are Bazel internally and CMake community supported
26afdba79 Merge pull request #2283 from xammy:cmake-cmp0054
d515158d9 Fixed issue #2284 (Incompatibility with C++17)
e580d9919 Setting CMP0054 policy to NEW. This allows to use the string "SHARED" without interpreting it as a variable.
af4c2cb09 Formatting Changes
fa9a47681 Formatting Changes, README
89656ddbe Update README.md
076b7f778 remove obsolete codegear files
fbcb2eb20 removing obsolete language from docs, CMake and Bazel is the only supporeted build methods
6f79a3b8a removing gmock msvc solution, as CMake and Bazel is the only supporeted build methods
527a493fb removing build-aux files , as CMake and Bazel is the only supporeted build methods
b93980dda removing xcode files , as CMake and Bazel is the only supporeted build methods
60a6d5fc3 removing msvc solution, as CMake and Bazel is the only supporeted build methods
da10da05c Merge pull request #2268 from kalaxy/fuse_spi_in_header
577daedd5 Merge pull request #2274 from goudan-er/master
0183a459e Merge pull request #2270 from Peter-Levine:fix-signed-wchar
3ff7cd0f1 fix typo
31200def0 Googletest export
08a68b6fb Googletest export
711fccf83 Don't allow signed/unsigned wchar_t in gcc 9 and later
6044c267e Fuse gtest-spi.h into the resulting header.
8ffb7e5c8 Merge pull request #2264 from mbrobbel:suppress-cmp0048-warning
899c08263 Googletest export
97d8c47df Suppress CMake policy warning (CMP0048)
f5edb4f54 Update CONTRIBUTING.md
a2059b408 Update CONTRIBUTING.md
7f1c0f6f8 Merge pull request #2260 from 741g:master
88f049309 Merge pull request #2259 from ngie-eign:fix-maintainers-typo
dc792bc60 Update README.md
feb55f22c removing msvc
a67e9a848 removing msvc
928f7a342 removing codegear
2f58f41d1 unbreak windows build
699943fe4 Fix typo introduced in 63be3dcc245 (maintaners -> maintainers)
f71fb4f9a Update advanced.md
03273a898 Merge pull request #2254 from chaoran:master
5b4a135f6 add unit test for overload & operator
9d4cde44a Added docs for testing::RegisterTest
2fc238316 Use std::addressof to instead of plain '&'.
529981537 Googletest export
3f5b5b8f8 Googletest export
bf3ef5c9b Merge pull request #2245 from daquexian:fix_wsign_conversion
63be3dcc2 Googletest export
ca642a925 Fix -Wsign-conversion error by adding static_cast
9997a830e Merge pull request #2242 from SylvestreG:master
3c911d2de Removing obsolete msvc 2005 and 2010
87348c217 Removing obsolete codegear and msvc 2010
82f9c8d65 Googletest export
61cdca569 Merge pull request #2241 from ngie-eign:fix-wsign-conversion-fallout
9037e9bda Fix compilation on CentOS 7
bd47c09b7 Address fallout from -Wsign-conversion work on Windows
b953e05bc Remove / from parameterized test names if base test name is empty
84d986531 Googletest export
a53e931dc Update README.md
0c68c865f Googletest export
9f4f27b2a Googletest export
fa52cd636 Googletest export
a0d60bed4 Merge pull request #2170 from ngie-eign:issue-2146-ver2
9f893b995 Googletest export
6d6681806 Googletest export
39f72ea6f Merge pull request #2230 from return:style-issue
698d45d3a Sort Haiku platform definition alphabetically.
adc8a88ff Merge pull request #2226 from davidben:msvc-5046
ea9c49b9c Merge pull request #2229 from return:haiku-support
520a1e52a Merge pull request #2228 from rongou/patch-2
0a00ba64d Add Haiku platform support.
f658dcbaa replace test case with test suite in the primer
7473c5ca5 Merge pull request #2225 from rongou/patch-1
8e9297b50 MSVC C5046 warning is unavailable in MSVC 2015.
d622dfe8a add missing period
604ba376c Update README.md
f683de658 Merge pull request #2222 from Ivaylo-Kirov/patch-1
dc62d1e76 Update ForDummies.md
3829b84e9 clang: fix `-Wsign-conversion` errors
5ba69d5cb Merge pull request #2148 from ngie-eign:clang-add-explicit-c++11-rtti-flag
c061ffafd Googletest export
7475ba503 clang: explicitly enable/disable RTTI support with the compiler
1f3b098ef Merge pull request #2203 from ngie-eign:issue-2189
c9e0aed90 Googletest export
b617b2771 Googletest export
2efd659a1 Merge pull request #2163 from ngie-eign:cmake-fix-gtest-binary-prefixing-when-gmock-enabled
d98254313 Googletest export
67c75ff8b Handle GTEST_SKIP() when calling `Environment::SetUp()`
9b6de41b5 Prefix googletest binaries under its own subtree instead of `gtest`
5b752b194 Googletest export
1f64659fb Update CONTRIBUTING.md
1040b342f Update CONTRIBUTING.md
a5532dae7 Merge pull request #2199 from syohex/update-xcode-project-file-again
c651b4528 Update Xcode project file
a18ac392d Merge pull request #2193 from antismap/patch-1
d31151a49 Update googletest/docs/advanced.md
10e98c4f2 Merge pull request #2180 from twam:master
f1883b182 Googletest export
a4b63e7ef Googletest export
f23336093 Note about INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P / INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P keyword change
f957bd0c2 Merge pull request #2181 from sethraymond/patch-1
c3ac2655f Remove old_crtdbg_flag_ member if not required
1619ebcf2 DesignDoc Markdown table was broken
8b6d3f9c4 Merge pull request #2158 from CarloWood:master
3dd2e841c Googletest export
a1dd07786 Googletest export
db9b85e27 Googletest export
56ef07a20 Googletest export
fc979623a Minor build system fixes.
efecb0bfa Googletest export
5154386c5 Merge pull request #2152 from rsinnet/patch-1
d70cd4e35 Fix grammatical error in primer.md
37ae1fc5e Merge pull request #2147 from ngie-eign:gtest-test-death-test-dont-hardcode-test-name
b6473fcf9 Merge pull request #2126 from ngie-eign:clang-add-more-strict-warnings
cd09534de Don't hardcode the filename in `CxxExceptionDeathTest.PrintsMessageForStdException`
7203f37f5 Merge pull request #2137 from ngie-eign:clang-ignore-sign-conversion
1411d27a9 Merge pull request #2061 from samolisov:building-with-bazel-as-a-dll-on-windows
c5a792d1b Merge pull request #2125 from ngie-eign:clang-unused-parameter
c37489302 Merge pull request #2123 from ngie-eign:clang-inconsistent-missing-override
873e47981 Googletest export
0e424c759 Googletest export
6d4d2f06b Merge pull request #2141 from dspinellis/index-fix
9dc235b59 Avoid array index out of range
fcf59ca7b Ignore `-Wsign-conversion` issues
1c22797cd Fix clang `-Wunused-parameter` warnings
5388473ac Fix clang `-Winconsistent-missing-override` warnings
2147806d2 Fix clang `-Winconsistent-missing-override` warnings
a4af76cf8 Add `cxx_strict_flags` for clang to match FreeBSD's WARNS flags
d850e1447 Merge pull request #2112 from knuto:pr/fix_null_pointer
54ec41f00 Merge pull request #2121 from ngie-eign:add-dragonflybsd-and-kfreebsd-support
f73b2fb39 Merge pull request #2114 from knuto:pr/libtool_support
ea43be9d1 Merge pull request #2119 from ngie-eign:clang-wunused-private-field
e5e846da7 Merge pull request #2120 from ngie-eign:clang-compile-with-basic-warns-flags
75c339609 Merge pull request #2113 from knuto:pr/set_old_gtest_ver
96826743e Import `patch-bsd-defines` from FreeBSD ports [1]
1ded83195 Compile clang with `-Wall -Wshadow -Werror`
ed2fe122f Fix -Wunused-private-field issues with clang
c4ccab33a Googletest export
b37574c1b Merge pull request #2107 from ciband:feat/finish_platformio_support
b68ec344b Merge pull request #2101 from MaEtUgR:fix-cmake-cygwin
4f79e316a Googletest export
28a96d183 Googletest export
dda0df3b0 Googletest export
60cf03313 Set gtest version correctly for older cmake versions
f4d3cdb65 Generate a libgtest.la to help libtool managing dependencies
48e6f1f38 Stop TestInfo::Run() calling a function through null pointer
47568eade fix: Correct *-all.cc file paths
9a502a5b1 Merge pull request #2100 from ngie-eign/test-clang-osx-every-travis-run
e28b50609 Merge pull request #2103 from kw-udon/fix-json-in-advanced-md
b3679d856 Fix an invalid example of JSON report in advanced.md
f80d6644d Update .travis.yml
5dfcd1bc4 Update .travis.yml
9df5475b8 Test out changes with clang/OSX each PR using Travis CI
50059a12b Googletest export
52ea4f7be Googletest export
876bdfa56 Googletest export
471f5bc43 Merge pull request #2098 from ciband:feat/finish_platformio_support
f89253434 cmake: detect Cygwin which needs extensions to build
67265e070 cmake: move global project definition to beginning
0ea2d8f8f Googletest export
53798de93 chore: Add PlatformIO supported platforms list
b2b246225 fix: Add Arduino to embedded platform list
fe519d64a fix: Add *_all.cc files to ignore list
4f4c01d8c Merge pull request #2092 from Billy4195/Update_README
1c23efb42 Fix README.md broken link
e04254989 Merge pull request #2091 from google/gennadiycivil-patch-1
acde02c63 Repeat #2090
8e37822b4 Merge pull request #2063 from mathbunnyru:master
ce29e55cf Merge pull request #2090 from KellyWalker/patch-1
2775733ee Update advanced.md casing in example
9318a18cc Added -Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments" clang
1f42ae735 Merge pull request #2063 from mathbunnyru:master
01148677a Merge pull request #2086 from hugolm84:fix-dynamic/static-runtime-link
718bb65ac Avoid dynamic/static runtime linking (LNK4098) by properly replacing MD(d)->MT(d) in both C and CXX flags, resolves 2074
5ec7f0c4a Merge pull request #2079 from acozzette:fix-dist
46b81732b Fixed "make dist"
bf07131c1 Merge pull request #2041 from ciband:chore/fix_library_json
fdc59ffd0 Googletest export
569fba4d7 Googletest export
91bfc0822 Enable CI on Windows (appveyor) with Bazel
9518a5742 Googletest export
7c4164bf4 Fix INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P with zero variadic arguments
0adeadd28 Googletest export
eb9225ce3 Googletest export
9acd065a9 Googletest export
097407fd3 Googletest export
c868da198 Enable building as a shared library (dll) on Windows with Bazel
0599a7b84 Googletest export
2edadcedf Workaround homebrew issue
6693e85b0 Merge branch 'master' of github.com:google/googletest
bc1023b41 Googletest export
7a7e2bba1 Googletest export
50f1a7795 Merge pull request #2051 from enptfb55:master
f31bf1d36 Googletest export
216c37f05 Googletest export
45c58aa6f fix: Add Arduino setup()/loop() functions back
644319b9f Merge pull request #2048 from ciband:chore/clang_tidy
b6cd40528 Googletest export
8369b5bbd fixing build errors for unused parameter
ade8baa7d clang-tidy: modernize-deprecated-headers
23e693787 misc: Reapply Arduino functions
202dcabf3 misc: Revert formatting changes.
fd1c7976a Merge branch 'chore/fix_library_json' of https://github.com/ciband/googletest into chore/fix_library_json
0ffa5f977 Merge branch 'master' into chore/fix_library_json
23533009b chore: Add Windows cmake files to .gitignore
adc5045cb chore: Alphabetize exclude directories.
3880b13e4 Merge pull request #2042 from gennadiycivil/master
58e62f7a9 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
5d3a2cd9c Update docs, TestCase->TestSuite
827515f8a Googletest export
3a460a26b Googletest export
0c0ca9038 fix: Correct *_main.cc paths
4d62b5b9a fix: Remove Arduino entry points
ac8c102da Update README.md
6e410a3ae Update README.md
8a27d164c Update README.md
bfcc47fc2 Merge pull request #2026 from justin6case/example_makefile_improvements
1bcbd5871 Merge pull request #2037 from ciband:chore/fix_library_json
14c2fba73 Googletest export
f8b1c1af1 Googletest export
933e5df28 Merge pull request #2039 from gennadiycivil/master
8ed34e0f6 Remove outdated scripts
2ace910a3 Revert "test, please ignore"
25905b9f9 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
de99386b6 Merge branch 'chore/fix_library_json' of https://github.com/ciband/googletest into chore/fix_library_json
6d5ce40d4 fix: Add additional source and include directories.
3bedb5a9f Merge pull request #2035 from syohex/update-xcode-project-file
0cf2130c0 Update Xcode project file
6729a1361 Merge #2002
77004096e Update README.md
16269ae2f Merge pull request #2027 from ciband:chore/fix_library_json
c0ef2cbe4 fix: Correct GitHub paths
150613166 Update README.md
4160336cb Merge pull request #2013 from ciband:chore/fix_library_json
34a99e547 Googletest export
b93a13ec4 Improvements have been made to the example/sample makefiles for both googlemock and googletest. Library files are now created and named like versions produced by Cmake.
a83cc11ab Googletest export
9494c45e7 Googletest export
e26a3fa13 Googletest export
9ab640ce5 Googletest export
7515e3994 Googletest export
85c4172ed Update README.md
ed3f9bb22 Googletest export
b7dd66519 Googletest export
1ec20f87e Googletest export
096fb37a1 Googletest export
0f698c830 chore: Add .vs to .gitignore for Visual Studio
1496f73cc fix: correct JSON syntax
130e5aa86 Merge pull request #2 from google/master
b5f5c596a Merge pull request #2000 from ciband:feat/add_support_platformio
c6cb7e033 Googletest export
81f002606 Googletest export
3949c403c Update README.md
6ef591381 Googletest export
b545089f5 Merge pull request #2004 from cotsog/patch-1
3b1f43c2e Use if statements
fc0f92676 Don't cache APT packages on OS X/macOS
ea5e941d8 Change directory ownership earlier
6cbd3753d Googletest export
06bb8d4d6 Googletest export
b5c08cb9f Cache gcc and clang APT packages
31eb5e9b8 chore: Update version to latest release
d9251df84 fix: Remove global chmod from Travis
39c09043b chore: Add initial library.json config
695cf7c96 Merge pull request #1997 from gpakosz:GTEST_IS_THREADSAFE
2c8ab3f18 feat: Add initial support for PlatformIO and Arduino
fe14e3030 Merge pull request #1995 from siddhanjay/patch-1
3d71ab4c3 Googletest export
067aa4c28 Do not define GTEST_IS_THREADSAFE within GTEST_HAS_SEH
3fd66989b Googletest export
214521a14 Update WORKSPACE
a28a71ae4 Update README.md
10e82d01d Update README.md
ba344cbc4 Googletest export
26743363b Googletest export
a42cdf2ab Googletest export
775a17631 Fixed typo
8fbf9d16a Googletest export
b22d23667 Googletest export
191f9336b Merge pull request #1977 from lukasm91:issue_1955_remove_pthread_flags
fca458cab Googletest export
915f6cfef Update .travis.yml
5404fd7d0 Update .travis.yml
2f126c74d Update .travis.yml
87589af5b Update .travis.yml
28a3261fd Create CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
ce526b870 Issue #1955: Remove THREADS_PREFER_PTHREAD_FLAG
3cf8f514d Update build badge
a3013ccef Googletest export
f7779eb3c Googletest export
64368e058 Googletest export
bb7c0ecbd Googletest export
b49266606 Googletest export
c2989fe29 Googletest export
5dab7be70 Googletest export
45d66d81b Googletest export
8e86f6726 Googletest export
aac18185e Googletest export
e46e87bb1 Googletest export
c5f08bf91 Googletest export
d5932506d Merge pull request #1961 from coppered/patch-1
7a0680dc2 Merge pull request #1959 from robinlinden:remove-msvc-workarounds
09beafcd1 Merge branch 'master' into patch-1
b18d39bd2 Googletest export
1454f301c Update README.md
480213369 Add back warning suppression that shouldn't have been removed
a3a42514f Define GTEST_DISABLE_MSC_WARNINGS_PUSH/POP for all compilers
c43603f28 Remove GTEST_HAS_HASH_SET/MAP check
826656b25 Remove workarounds for unsupported MSVC versions
de5be0eb2 Googletest export
105579a6e Googletest export
529c2c6f4 Merge pull request #1950 from benjamincarman/makefix
9636db6b2 Merge branch 'master' into makefix
88c15b5fd Googletest export
4ea629d31 Added line to sample Makefile in googletest/googletest/make to specify use of C++11 in CXXFLAGS as required by the system
879ac092f Merge pull request #1948 from jerryturcios08/master
11319f1c6 Correct grammatical error in README.md
d1beec402 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
71d4fc8d7 Googletest export
e857f9cdd Googletest export
e0d3c3705 Googletest export
cc9dcc541 Merge pull request #1945 from akonradi/optional-matcher-doc
3896e3b59 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
39de88cb9 Add Optional() to the cheat sheet doc.
b9347b31c Googletest export
e9085769d Merge pull request #1941 from barkovv:master
80b43d900 Googletest export
b8a03c80a Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
3feffddd1 Replaced all NULLs with nullptr in googlemock
53d61b5b2 Replaced all NULLs with nullptr in googletest
2e308484d Googletest export
b57c70396 Googletest export
a50e4f05b Googletest export
299d098da Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
8ec8ce1c8 Merge pull request #1934 from jeffvandyke/patch-2
c45631823 Change CMake googletest download location in docs
6463ee81a Merge pull request #1890 from peterjc123:clang_fix
59f90a338 Googletest export
2801b2380 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
478a51859 Disable extensions and force standard
f6dadcf1f Revert previous changes
96824f11c Fix -std=c++11 flag
3bb00b7ea Merge pull request #1929 from goatshriek/cmake-cxx11-flag
6e3720126 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
9b637237b add documentation of manual c++11 specification
7b6b3be34 Update advanced.md
20eaf6e3a Merge pull request #1911 from BrukerJWD:isnice
a743780ad Update advanced.md
b974af792 Update advanced.md
90c957c40 Merge pull request #1927 from svg153/patch-1
58a8da64c ACTION table format
3468af9b3 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
82987067d Googletest export
32dbcac06 Merge pull request #1839 from Peter-Levine:python3-tests
572050dd2 Merge pull request #1905 from fandjelo:relocatable-pkgconfig-fix
648ac832a Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
c955e3349 Merge branch 'master' into python3-tests
f410177a8 Update .travis.yml
723f26663 Update .travis.yml
663ef8636 Googletest export
3a7f0934d Merge pull request #1912 from kakkoko:fix-xml-name
29b47e45c Googletest export
2c19680bf Merge branch 'master' into relocatable-pkgconfig-fix
baf6845b1 Fix incorrect XML file name in help message
0cefda774 Removed last reference to internal::kDefault
96d161577 Merge branch 'isnice' of https://github.com/BrukerJWD/googletest into isnice
8c82ba48e Merge branch 'master' into isnice
386391b01 Use existing Mock::GetReactionOnUninterestingCalls()
6bbf911a8 Don't fully qualify enum member
67a240a10 Added Mock::IsNaggy, IsNice, and IsStrict
9424e7b0d Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
a651a4d44 Merge pull request #1908 from rwoldberg:master
dec3b81a0 Change types to remove cast warnings.
754cb8ed9 Merge branch 'master' into relocatable-pkgconfig-fix
8fad86e75 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
864b6c2d3 Remove duplicate functionality PrintValue (in googletest-param-test-test.cc), use testing::PrintToString
b3b19a796 Merge c41b2bf861ef2ac1a975af05ff66d9256f280b01 into f203b2db77161fe54846ea9e839ebec81aeeccac
f203b2db7 Merge pull request #1902 from theryee/typo
ad997b16b Merge 4c92120d6dedb4eeb499a8702faea0224e0a8b23 into 658c6390a5b363f46c6ad448ad1bce9d6e97e53a
e7327c13f Merge 41fc9745d4a448db7d932250d22fac1dda287443 into 658c6390a5b363f46c6ad448ad1bce9d6e97e53a
bc6a4ce38 Project import generated by Copybara.
0e71eb069 Internal Change
095b3113e Use pcfiledir for prefix in pkgconfig file
4d50ab75a Merge branch 'master' into typo
a83429f5d fix typo
658c6390a Merge pull request #1898 from spartucus/master
8193ed069 Update .gitignore
274b39bfa Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
78761b58f Remove non-variadic pre C++11 AnyOf
7d3b73c85 Unconditionally use std::tuple. Remove all mention of TR1 tuple and our own implementation of tuple.
5434989db Remove testing::internal::BothOfMatcher, no longer needed
b652edb39 Apply [[noreturn]] to Abort()
7a1e9114a Update Makefile.am
689ac9fbd Update BUILD.bazel
5ae4f6222 Update README.md
4665eee10 test, please ignore
272c08380 Delete CHANGES
ac7ed4046 Delete CHANGES
a113467a4 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
a31d6f905 Merge c1170881039e859738c62b02a918116fc6d346bc into 27c86f29417e53a622a2902baab2d1d82dafc5f9
4ac07de8d Fixing AllOfMatches test, where it properly belongs
27c86f294 always define define GTEST_LANG_CXX11 1
fab35920a Remove non-variadic pre C++11 AllOf
4327d95b3 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
3149e0e88 Merge branch 'master' into python3-tests
40f82ce56 Update primer.md
07c4753a1 Remove pre-C++11 code from gtest-printers
f8a1481c0 Make GTestColor and ColoredPrintF available as internal APIs from gtest.h. This is for use in abseil exception safety testing.
c28ce4159 Removed pre-C++11 IsContainerTest and IteratorTraits
4bb49ed64 Apply clang-tidy modernize-use-nullptr to googletest.
7caf5ffd1 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
f13bbe299 Remove checking for C++ 11 and a pre-C++11 test from googletest tests
4b82df5bb Merge branch 'master' into python3-tests
50ec6ee33 Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/google/googletest
bea3d6197 Merge d830440d48a9502161448bc78be33a53388dd1f4 into f5260ae757a681566d8f7d0558b8dc0551036506
9f8512d7c Remove compilation option for C++11 in the root CMakeLists.txt
77e0cd75b Resolve code changes from origin repository
f5260ae75 Merge c798e39a4f96f5a985126cc3fab4738b6412cfc1 into e93da23920e5b6887d6a6a291c3a59f83f5b579e
1e893191c Add compilation option for C++11 in the root CMakeLists.txt
e93da2392 Merge 68b8a4c60cd80c78e1875b77807fa13cdd2313f8 into 77962730563eece3525f40b8769e4ca0c6baf64c
779627305 Merge 86fe8a25eb5a6e4546f9e39cf23a5c764217bf85 into 440527a61e1c91188195f7de212c63c77e8f0a45
00938b2b2 Merge 2ce0685f76a4db403b7b2650433a584c150f2108 into 75e834700d19aa373b428c7c746f951737354c28
2e91bbcf6 Merge pull request #1875 from google/9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
a7b21c950 Googletest export
be429c892 Googletest export
6316d8943 Merge pull request #1872 from jerryturcios08/master
cba347443 Add a cached variable to CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD
d97dea39b Add C++11 support in the root CMakeLists.txt
440527a61 Update appveyor.yml
907ae9eda Merge branch 'master' into python3-tests
75e834700 Merge pull request #1864 from google/revert-1853-appveyor-mingw-enable-tests-again
c2a2f49a3 Revert "[mingw] enable the unittests for gmock and gtest again"
707b3b25c Merge pull request #1855 from zach2good/issue1854_remove_i386_xcode10
a6b5c58ec Merge pull request #1853 from matlo607/appveyor-mingw-enable-tests-again
924146692 Merge branch 'master' into appveyor-mingw-enable-tests-again
0809c6804 Merge pull request #1862 from google/9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
220e790a9 Keep one MinGW build, remove the others
77301d64c Update appveyor.yml
8286bf223 Update appveyor.yml
24ba1b1b3 Delete m4_ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
239d2691b Delete m4_ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4
12b97f378 Update configure.ac
993f6d896 Update Makefile.am
adcb1f8e8 Update .travis.yml
5b6e40f46 automake
41b16d28d test automake c++11
df2a8dbc6 Update configure.ac
5a4e2b158 Update configure.ac
2ec9923cc typo
c159a7719 autotools c++11
e2f45b1bb autotools c++11
f60de198a test
ecbcd99c4 include c++11 for autotools
70de02bf2 Merge branch 'master' into 9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
70ed5e5c4 Merge pull request #1863 from google/revert-1857-master
2b016ca49 Googletest export
c34ecf1ff Revert "Add clang format check to one of the builds"
b2788286d Googletest export
ba974c97a Googletest export
0fc5466db Googletest export
0f7f5cd93 Merge pull request #1861 from gennadiycivil/master
db6e8c727 enable MingW on PR
b91eab2fc C++11 autotools build
c26dd53ce adding c++11 to appveyor mingW
5e13fe662 Merge branch 'master' into appveyor-mingw-enable-tests-again
a4f57cf49 Merge branch 'master' into python3-tests
b19266a3e Merge pull request #1857 from gennadiycivil/master
76e104572 typo
2d3466be4 Add clang format check to one of the builds to provide indication that formatting is incorrect
0272ff1aa Issue #1854: remove support for i386 for XCode 10
0e161c3c8 [mingw] enable the unittests for gmock and gtest again
ed6e84cce Merge pull request #1850 from Jonny007-MKD/master
fd17c91ba Merge branch 'master' into master
c7a429a66 Update CONTRIBUTING.md
51945d3cd Update README.md
a2f13308c Add .clang-format
81c0b876b Formatting
659647110 Formatting
529338370 Formatting
78d3bfeb4 Formatting
67d3c0f6d Fix unit test
2b2b8d71c Fix ColoredOutputTest.UsesColorsWhenTermSupportsColors again
cecea92af Rename private member of AdditionalMessage Shorten lines in unit tests
1cb10b357 Readded changes from 6494f5232b130a29321e661166442bac324c4383
90943525c Merge branch 'master' into python3-tests
258def01a Merge pull request #1847 from google/revert-1832-master
a35326be0 Revert "Added special catch for std::exception in GTEST_TEST_NO_THROW_"
8bf297233 Merge pull request #1843 from matlo607/fix-unittest-msys-ColoredOutputTest
09560fba4 Merge pull request #1844 from matlo607/fix-msys-build-gmock-matchers_test
4f5524518 Merge pull request #1846 from google/9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
8c547cff2 Googletest export
1b20bd176 Googletest export
9ea017285 Merge pull request #1832 from Jonny007-MKD/master
6a1c3d9b7 Removed some newlines
c9fe337ae [msys] fix unittest ColoredOutputTest.UsesColorsWhenTermSupportsColors
0a18c106a [msys] pass big object file option to assembler for target gmock-matchers_test
c40f55a22 Avoid these ambiguities
149c0d241 Fix Python3 support
6494f5232 Print message of unexpected std::exception in EXPECT_THROW, too
631e3a583 Merge branch 'master' into master
bc2d0935b Merge pull request #1838 from google/9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
fc2caf648 Update .travis.yml
bc9df6ad4 Googletest export
28c2989ee Merge pull request #1837 from google/9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
1b2da360e Merge branch 'master' into master
f46c174d1 Merge pull request #1835 from google/gennadiycivil-TR1-docs-cleanup
ffc9baeb4 Googletest export
abc803e28 Update README.md
5c89346de Update README.md
3c8055685 Merge branch 'master' into master
cfe0ae867 Merge pull request #1831 from anthraxx/fix/version
2649c2218 Merge pull request #1834 from google/9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
0cd3c2e8b Googletest export
21d52d3a1 Googletest export
e1b8d82fa Googletest export
82eeb009b Make it public again *sigh*
e86d1df3e Avoid implicit move operator
8c849c584 Try to fix gcc and clang issues
0354ccb04 Added special catch for std::exception in GTEST_TEST_NO_THROW_
c4ef6f3a0 version: fix declared version to be in sync with CMakeLists.txt
5131cf737 Merge pull request #1828 from gdsotirov/patch-1
ca247e179 Merge branch 'master' into patch-1
d25268a55 Merge pull request #1829 from google/gennadiycivil-patch-1
5eee7a343 Update appveyor.yml
94046c91d Return GTEST_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED_ on record_property_env to avoide comilation error (with -Werror)
4d066127b Merge pull request #1827 from google/9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
db405ff8c Googletest export
936dae4ef Googletest export
0c799d043 Merge pull request #1820 from Romain-Geissler/fix-gcc-misleading-indentation-warning-again
93b05da26 Fix gcc misleading indentation again.
34d5d22b6 Merge pull request #1814 from google/9A681768AABE08D1EFA5CA77528236A4
0ddb6bf09 Googletest export
0d2262138 Googletest export
dbd55366c Googletest export
51cabc168 Googletest export
0614a539f Merge pull request #1809 from KindDragon/fix-doc-links
e6c407d60 Fix doc links
a2b149b23 Merge pull request #1801 from SoapGentoo/fix-gmock-pkgconfig
990bf4ffd Merge branch 'master' into fix-gmock-pkgconfig
3787a483b Merge pull request #1803 from KindDragon/patch-2
25bf88432 Merge pull request #1806 from asiplas/master
70a701758 Fix #1805: add `.md` to hyperlink
de9675986 Update documentation to syntax highlight code
79875d320 pkgconfig: Unconditionally depend on GTest when using GMock
c7a899855 Update README.md
git-subtree-dir: third_party/googletest
git-subtree-split: f5e592d8ee5ffb1d9af5be7f715ce3576b8bf9c4
Change-Id: Ic19f54048ae9e648e50b5c4c51045d4a19a51948
diff --git a/docs/_config.yml b/docs/_config.yml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d12867e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/_config.yml
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+title: GoogleTest
diff --git a/docs/_data/navigation.yml b/docs/_data/navigation.yml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fdde283
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/_data/navigation.yml
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+nav:
+- section: "Get Started"
+ items:
+ - title: "Supported Platforms"
+ url: "/platforms.html"
+ - title: "Quickstart: Bazel"
+ url: "/quickstart-bazel.html"
+ - title: "Quickstart: CMake"
+ url: "/quickstart-cmake.html"
+- section: "Guides"
+ items:
+ - title: "GoogleTest Primer"
+ url: "/primer.html"
+ - title: "Advanced Topics"
+ url: "/advanced.html"
+ - title: "Mocking for Dummies"
+ url: "/gmock_for_dummies.html"
+ - title: "Mocking Cookbook"
+ url: "/gmock_cook_book.html"
+ - title: "Mocking Cheat Sheet"
+ url: "/gmock_cheat_sheet.html"
+- section: "References"
+ items:
+ - title: "Matchers"
+ url: "/reference/matchers.html"
+ - title: "Testing FAQ"
+ url: "/faq.html"
+ - title: "Mocking FAQ"
+ url: "/gmock_faq.html"
+ - title: "Code Samples"
+ url: "/samples.html"
+ - title: "Using pkg-config"
+ url: "/pkgconfig.html"
+ - title: "Community Documentation"
+ url: "/community_created_documentation.html"
diff --git a/docs/_layouts/default.html b/docs/_layouts/default.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..731042f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/_layouts/default.html
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="{{ site.lang | default: "en-US" }}">
+ <head>
+ <meta charset="UTF-8">
+ <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
+ <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
+
+{% seo %}
+ <link rel="stylesheet" href="{{ "/assets/css/style.css?v=" | append: site.github.build_revision | relative_url }}">
+ </head>
+ <body>
+ <div class="sidebar">
+ <div class="header">
+ <h1><a href="{{ "/" | relative_url }}">{{ site.title | default: "Documentation" }}</a></h1>
+ </div>
+ <input type="checkbox" id="nav-toggle" class="nav-toggle">
+ <label for="nav-toggle" class="expander">
+ <span class="arrow"></span>
+ </label>
+ <nav>
+ {% for item in site.data.navigation.nav %}
+ <h2>{{ item.section }}</h2>
+ <ul>
+ {% for subitem in item.items %}
+ <a href="{{subitem.url | relative_url }}">
+ <li class="{% if subitem.url == page.url %}active{% endif %}">
+ {{ subitem.title }}
+ </li>
+ </a>
+ {% endfor %}
+ </ul>
+ {% endfor %}
+ </nav>
+ </div>
+ <div class="main markdown-body">
+ <div class="main-inner">
+ {{ content }}
+ </div>
+ </div>
+ <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/anchor-js/4.1.0/anchor.min.js" integrity="sha256-lZaRhKri35AyJSypXXs4o6OPFTbTmUoltBbDCbdzegg=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
+ <script>anchors.add('.main h2, .main h3, .main h4, .main h5, .main h6');</script>
+ {% if site.google_analytics %}
+ <script>
+ (function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){
+ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),
+ m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)
+ })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga');
+ ga('create', '{{ site.google_analytics }}', 'auto');
+ ga('send', 'pageview');
+ </script>
+ {% endif %}
+ </body>
+</html>
diff --git a/docs/_sass/main.scss b/docs/_sass/main.scss
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..91e633b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/_sass/main.scss
@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
+// Styles for GoogleTest docs website on GitHub Pages.
+// Color variables are defined in
+// https://github.com/pages-themes/primer/tree/master/_sass/primer-support/lib/variables
+
+$sidebar-width: 260px;
+
+body {
+ display: flex;
+ margin: 0;
+}
+
+.sidebar {
+ background: $black;
+ color: $text-white;
+ flex-shrink: 0;
+ height: 100vh;
+ overflow: auto;
+ position: sticky;
+ top: 0;
+ width: $sidebar-width;
+}
+
+.sidebar h1 {
+ font-size: 1.5em;
+}
+
+.sidebar h2 {
+ color: $gray-light;
+ font-size: 0.8em;
+ font-weight: normal;
+ margin-bottom: 0.8em;
+ padding-left: 2.5em;
+ text-transform: uppercase;
+}
+
+.sidebar .header {
+ background: $black;
+ padding: 2em;
+ position: sticky;
+ top: 0;
+ width: 100%;
+}
+
+.sidebar .header a {
+ color: $text-white;
+ text-decoration: none;
+}
+
+.sidebar .nav-toggle {
+ display: none;
+}
+
+.sidebar .expander {
+ cursor: pointer;
+ display: none;
+ height: 3em;
+ position: absolute;
+ right: 1em;
+ top: 1.5em;
+ width: 3em;
+}
+
+.sidebar .expander .arrow {
+ border: solid white;
+ border-width: 0 3px 3px 0;
+ display: block;
+ height: 0.7em;
+ margin: 1em auto;
+ transform: rotate(45deg);
+ transition: transform 0.5s;
+ width: 0.7em;
+}
+
+.sidebar nav {
+ width: 100%;
+}
+
+.sidebar nav ul {
+ list-style-type: none;
+ margin-bottom: 1em;
+ padding: 0;
+
+ &:last-child {
+ margin-bottom: 2em;
+ }
+
+ a {
+ text-decoration: none;
+ }
+
+ li {
+ color: $text-white;
+ padding-left: 2em;
+ text-decoration: none;
+ }
+
+ li.active {
+ background: $border-gray-darker;
+ font-weight: bold;
+ }
+
+ li:hover {
+ background: $border-gray-darker;
+ }
+}
+
+.main {
+ width: calc(100% - #{$sidebar-width});
+}
+
+.main .main-inner {
+ margin: 2em;
+}
+
+.main table th {
+ text-align: left;
+}
+
+.main .callout {
+ border-left: 0.25em solid white;
+ padding: 1em;
+
+ a {
+ text-decoration: underline;
+ }
+
+ &.important {
+ background-color: $bg-yellow-light;
+ border-color: $bg-yellow;
+ color: $black;
+ }
+
+ &.note {
+ background-color: $bg-blue-light;
+ border-color: $text-blue;
+ color: $text-blue;
+ }
+
+ &.tip {
+ background-color: $green-000;
+ border-color: $green-700;
+ color: $green-700;
+ }
+
+ &.warning {
+ background-color: $red-000;
+ border-color: $text-red;
+ color: $text-red;
+ }
+}
+
+.main .good pre {
+ background-color: $bg-green-light;
+}
+
+.main .bad pre {
+ background-color: $red-000;
+}
+
+@media all and (max-width: 768px) {
+ body {
+ flex-direction: column;
+ }
+
+ .sidebar {
+ height: auto;
+ position: relative;
+ width: 100%;
+ }
+
+ .sidebar .expander {
+ display: block;
+ }
+
+ .sidebar nav {
+ height: 0;
+ overflow: hidden;
+ }
+
+ .sidebar .nav-toggle:checked {
+ & ~ nav {
+ height: auto;
+ }
+
+ & + .expander .arrow {
+ transform: rotate(-135deg);
+ }
+ }
+
+ .main {
+ width: 100%;
+ }
+}
diff --git a/docs/advanced.md b/docs/advanced.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0fe7b8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/advanced.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2661 @@
+# Advanced googletest Topics
+
+## Introduction
+
+Now that you have read the [googletest Primer](primer.md) and learned how to
+write tests using googletest, it's time to learn some new tricks. This document
+will show you more assertions as well as how to construct complex failure
+messages, propagate fatal failures, reuse and speed up your test fixtures, and
+use various flags with your tests.
+
+## More Assertions
+
+This section covers some less frequently used, but still significant,
+assertions.
+
+### Explicit Success and Failure
+
+These three assertions do not actually test a value or expression. Instead, they
+generate a success or failure directly. Like the macros that actually perform a
+test, you may stream a custom failure message into them.
+
+```c++
+SUCCEED();
+```
+
+Generates a success. This does **NOT** make the overall test succeed. A test is
+considered successful only if none of its assertions fail during its execution.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: `SUCCEED()` is purely documentary and currently doesn't generate any
+user-visible output. However, we may add `SUCCEED()` messages to googletest's
+output in the future.
+
+```c++
+FAIL();
+ADD_FAILURE();
+ADD_FAILURE_AT("file_path", line_number);
+```
+
+`FAIL()` generates a fatal failure, while `ADD_FAILURE()` and `ADD_FAILURE_AT()`
+generate a nonfatal failure. These are useful when control flow, rather than a
+Boolean expression, determines the test's success or failure. For example, you
+might want to write something like:
+
+```c++
+switch(expression) {
+ case 1:
+ ... some checks ...
+ case 2:
+ ... some other checks ...
+ default:
+ FAIL() << "We shouldn't get here.";
+}
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: you can only use `FAIL()` in functions that return `void`. See the
+[Assertion Placement section](#assertion-placement) for more information.
+
+### Exception Assertions
+
+These are for verifying that a piece of code throws (or does not throw) an
+exception of the given type:
+
+Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies
+------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------ | --------
+`ASSERT_THROW(statement, exception_type);` | `EXPECT_THROW(statement, exception_type);` | `statement` throws an exception of the given type
+`ASSERT_ANY_THROW(statement);` | `EXPECT_ANY_THROW(statement);` | `statement` throws an exception of any type
+`ASSERT_NO_THROW(statement);` | `EXPECT_NO_THROW(statement);` | `statement` doesn't throw any exception
+
+Examples:
+
+```c++
+ASSERT_THROW(Foo(5), bar_exception);
+
+EXPECT_NO_THROW({
+ int n = 5;
+ Bar(&n);
+});
+```
+
+**Availability**: requires exceptions to be enabled in the build environment
+
+### Predicate Assertions for Better Error Messages
+
+Even though googletest has a rich set of assertions, they can never be complete,
+as it's impossible (nor a good idea) to anticipate all scenarios a user might
+run into. Therefore, sometimes a user has to use `EXPECT_TRUE()` to check a
+complex expression, for lack of a better macro. This has the problem of not
+showing you the values of the parts of the expression, making it hard to
+understand what went wrong. As a workaround, some users choose to construct the
+failure message by themselves, streaming it into `EXPECT_TRUE()`. However, this
+is awkward especially when the expression has side-effects or is expensive to
+evaluate.
+
+googletest gives you three different options to solve this problem:
+
+#### Using an Existing Boolean Function
+
+If you already have a function or functor that returns `bool` (or a type that
+can be implicitly converted to `bool`), you can use it in a *predicate
+assertion* to get the function arguments printed for free:
+
+
+| Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies |
+| --------------------------------- | --------------------------------- | --------------------------- |
+| `ASSERT_PRED1(pred1, val1)` | `EXPECT_PRED1(pred1, val1)` | `pred1(val1)` is true |
+| `ASSERT_PRED2(pred2, val1, val2)` | `EXPECT_PRED2(pred2, val1, val2)` | `pred2(val1, val2)` is true |
+| `...` | `...` | `...` |
+
+In the above, `predn` is an `n`-ary predicate function or functor, where `val1`,
+`val2`, ..., and `valn` are its arguments. The assertion succeeds if the
+predicate returns `true` when applied to the given arguments, and fails
+otherwise. When the assertion fails, it prints the value of each argument. In
+either case, the arguments are evaluated exactly once.
+
+Here's an example. Given
+
+```c++
+// Returns true if m and n have no common divisors except 1.
+bool MutuallyPrime(int m, int n) { ... }
+
+const int a = 3;
+const int b = 4;
+const int c = 10;
+```
+
+the assertion
+
+```c++
+ EXPECT_PRED2(MutuallyPrime, a, b);
+```
+
+will succeed, while the assertion
+
+```c++
+ EXPECT_PRED2(MutuallyPrime, b, c);
+```
+
+will fail with the message
+
+```none
+MutuallyPrime(b, c) is false, where
+b is 4
+c is 10
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+> NOTE:
+>
+> 1. If you see a compiler error "no matching function to call" when using
+> `ASSERT_PRED*` or `EXPECT_PRED*`, please see
+> [this](faq.md#the-compiler-complains-no-matching-function-to-call-when-i-use-assert_pred-how-do-i-fix-it)
+> for how to resolve it.
+
+#### Using a Function That Returns an AssertionResult
+
+While `EXPECT_PRED*()` and friends are handy for a quick job, the syntax is not
+satisfactory: you have to use different macros for different arities, and it
+feels more like Lisp than C++. The `::testing::AssertionResult` class solves
+this problem.
+
+An `AssertionResult` object represents the result of an assertion (whether it's
+a success or a failure, and an associated message). You can create an
+`AssertionResult` using one of these factory functions:
+
+```c++
+namespace testing {
+
+// Returns an AssertionResult object to indicate that an assertion has
+// succeeded.
+AssertionResult AssertionSuccess();
+
+// Returns an AssertionResult object to indicate that an assertion has
+// failed.
+AssertionResult AssertionFailure();
+
+}
+```
+
+You can then use the `<<` operator to stream messages to the `AssertionResult`
+object.
+
+To provide more readable messages in Boolean assertions (e.g. `EXPECT_TRUE()`),
+write a predicate function that returns `AssertionResult` instead of `bool`. For
+example, if you define `IsEven()` as:
+
+```c++
+testing::AssertionResult IsEven(int n) {
+ if ((n % 2) == 0)
+ return testing::AssertionSuccess();
+ else
+ return testing::AssertionFailure() << n << " is odd";
+}
+```
+
+instead of:
+
+```c++
+bool IsEven(int n) {
+ return (n % 2) == 0;
+}
+```
+
+the failed assertion `EXPECT_TRUE(IsEven(Fib(4)))` will print:
+
+```none
+Value of: IsEven(Fib(4))
+ Actual: false (3 is odd)
+Expected: true
+```
+
+instead of a more opaque
+
+```none
+Value of: IsEven(Fib(4))
+ Actual: false
+Expected: true
+```
+
+If you want informative messages in `EXPECT_FALSE` and `ASSERT_FALSE` as well
+(one third of Boolean assertions in the Google code base are negative ones), and
+are fine with making the predicate slower in the success case, you can supply a
+success message:
+
+```c++
+testing::AssertionResult IsEven(int n) {
+ if ((n % 2) == 0)
+ return testing::AssertionSuccess() << n << " is even";
+ else
+ return testing::AssertionFailure() << n << " is odd";
+}
+```
+
+Then the statement `EXPECT_FALSE(IsEven(Fib(6)))` will print
+
+```none
+ Value of: IsEven(Fib(6))
+ Actual: true (8 is even)
+ Expected: false
+```
+
+#### Using a Predicate-Formatter
+
+If you find the default message generated by `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_PRED*` and
+`(ASSERT|EXPECT)_(TRUE|FALSE)` unsatisfactory, or some arguments to your
+predicate do not support streaming to `ostream`, you can instead use the
+following *predicate-formatter assertions* to *fully* customize how the message
+is formatted:
+
+Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies
+------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ | --------
+`ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT1(pred_format1, val1);` | `EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT1(pred_format1, val1);` | `pred_format1(val1)` is successful
+`ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT2(pred_format2, val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(pred_format2, val1, val2);` | `pred_format2(val1, val2)` is successful
+`...` | `...` | ...
+
+The difference between this and the previous group of macros is that instead of
+a predicate, `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_PRED_FORMAT*` take a *predicate-formatter*
+(`pred_formatn`), which is a function or functor with the signature:
+
+```c++
+testing::AssertionResult PredicateFormattern(const char* expr1,
+ const char* expr2,
+ ...
+ const char* exprn,
+ T1 val1,
+ T2 val2,
+ ...
+ Tn valn);
+```
+
+where `val1`, `val2`, ..., and `valn` are the values of the predicate arguments,
+and `expr1`, `expr2`, ..., and `exprn` are the corresponding expressions as they
+appear in the source code. The types `T1`, `T2`, ..., and `Tn` can be either
+value types or reference types. For example, if an argument has type `Foo`, you
+can declare it as either `Foo` or `const Foo&`, whichever is appropriate.
+
+As an example, let's improve the failure message in `MutuallyPrime()`, which was
+used with `EXPECT_PRED2()`:
+
+```c++
+// Returns the smallest prime common divisor of m and n,
+// or 1 when m and n are mutually prime.
+int SmallestPrimeCommonDivisor(int m, int n) { ... }
+
+// A predicate-formatter for asserting that two integers are mutually prime.
+testing::AssertionResult AssertMutuallyPrime(const char* m_expr,
+ const char* n_expr,
+ int m,
+ int n) {
+ if (MutuallyPrime(m, n)) return testing::AssertionSuccess();
+
+ return testing::AssertionFailure() << m_expr << " and " << n_expr
+ << " (" << m << " and " << n << ") are not mutually prime, "
+ << "as they have a common divisor " << SmallestPrimeCommonDivisor(m, n);
+}
+```
+
+With this predicate-formatter, we can use
+
+```c++
+ EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(AssertMutuallyPrime, b, c);
+```
+
+to generate the message
+
+```none
+b and c (4 and 10) are not mutually prime, as they have a common divisor 2.
+```
+
+As you may have realized, many of the built-in assertions we introduced earlier
+are special cases of `(EXPECT|ASSERT)_PRED_FORMAT*`. In fact, most of them are
+indeed defined using `(EXPECT|ASSERT)_PRED_FORMAT*`.
+
+### Floating-Point Comparison
+
+Comparing floating-point numbers is tricky. Due to round-off errors, it is very
+unlikely that two floating-points will match exactly. Therefore, `ASSERT_EQ` 's
+naive comparison usually doesn't work. And since floating-points can have a wide
+value range, no single fixed error bound works. It's better to compare by a
+fixed relative error bound, except for values close to 0 due to the loss of
+precision there.
+
+In general, for floating-point comparison to make sense, the user needs to
+carefully choose the error bound. If they don't want or care to, comparing in
+terms of Units in the Last Place (ULPs) is a good default, and googletest
+provides assertions to do this. Full details about ULPs are quite long; if you
+want to learn more, see
+[here](https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/comparing-floating-point-numbers-2012-edition/).
+
+#### Floating-Point Macros
+
+
+| Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies |
+| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
+| `ASSERT_FLOAT_EQ(val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(val1, val2);` | the two `float` values are almost equal |
+| `ASSERT_DOUBLE_EQ(val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(val1, val2);` | the two `double` values are almost equal |
+
+
+By "almost equal" we mean the values are within 4 ULP's from each other.
+
+The following assertions allow you to choose the acceptable error bound:
+
+
+| Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies |
+| ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| `ASSERT_NEAR(val1, val2, abs_error);` | `EXPECT_NEAR(val1, val2, abs_error);` | the difference between `val1` and `val2` doesn't exceed the given absolute error |
+
+
+#### Floating-Point Predicate-Format Functions
+
+Some floating-point operations are useful, but not that often used. In order to
+avoid an explosion of new macros, we provide them as predicate-format functions
+that can be used in predicate assertion macros (e.g. `EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2`,
+etc).
+
+```c++
+EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(testing::FloatLE, val1, val2);
+EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2(testing::DoubleLE, val1, val2);
+```
+
+Verifies that `val1` is less than, or almost equal to, `val2`. You can replace
+`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT2` in the above table with `ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT2`.
+
+### Asserting Using gMock Matchers
+
+gMock comes with a library of *matchers* for validating arguments passed to mock
+objects. A gMock matcher is basically a predicate that knows how to describe
+itself. It can be used in these assertion macros:
+
+
+| Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies |
+| ------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | --------------------- |
+| `ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);` | `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);` | value matches matcher |
+
+
+For example, `StartsWith(prefix)` is a matcher that matches a string starting
+with `prefix`, and you can write:
+
+```c++
+using ::testing::StartsWith;
+...
+ // Verifies that Foo() returns a string starting with "Hello".
+ EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
+```
+
+See
+[Using Matchers in googletest Assertions](gmock_cook_book.md#using-matchers-in-googletest-assertions)
+in the gMock Cookbook for more details. For a list of built-in matchers, see the
+[Matchers Reference](reference/matchers.md). You can also write your own
+matchers—see [Writing New Matchers Quickly](gmock_cook_book.md#NewMatchers).
+
+gMock is bundled with googletest, so you don't need to add any build dependency
+in order to take advantage of this. Just include `"gmock/gmock.h"`
+and you're ready to go.
+
+### More String Assertions
+
+(Please read the [previous](#asserting-using-gmock-matchers) section first if
+you haven't.)
+
+You can use the gMock [string matchers](reference/matchers.md#string-matchers)
+with `EXPECT_THAT()` or `ASSERT_THAT()` to do more string comparison tricks
+(sub-string, prefix, suffix, regular expression, and etc). For example,
+
+```c++
+using ::testing::HasSubstr;
+using ::testing::MatchesRegex;
+...
+ ASSERT_THAT(foo_string, HasSubstr("needle"));
+ EXPECT_THAT(bar_string, MatchesRegex("\\w*\\d+"));
+```
+
+If the string contains a well-formed HTML or XML document, you can check whether
+its DOM tree matches an
+[XPath expression](http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#contents):
+
+```c++
+// Currently still in //template/prototemplate/testing:xpath_matcher
+#include "template/prototemplate/testing/xpath_matcher.h"
+using ::prototemplate::testing::MatchesXPath;
+EXPECT_THAT(html_string, MatchesXPath("//a[text()='click here']"));
+```
+
+### Windows HRESULT assertions
+
+These assertions test for `HRESULT` success or failure.
+
+Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies
+-------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | --------
+`ASSERT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED(expression)` | `EXPECT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED(expression)` | `expression` is a success `HRESULT`
+`ASSERT_HRESULT_FAILED(expression)` | `EXPECT_HRESULT_FAILED(expression)` | `expression` is a failure `HRESULT`
+
+The generated output contains the human-readable error message associated with
+the `HRESULT` code returned by `expression`.
+
+You might use them like this:
+
+```c++
+CComPtr<IShellDispatch2> shell;
+ASSERT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED(shell.CoCreateInstance(L"Shell.Application"));
+CComVariant empty;
+ASSERT_HRESULT_SUCCEEDED(shell->ShellExecute(CComBSTR(url), empty, empty, empty, empty));
+```
+
+### Type Assertions
+
+You can call the function
+
+```c++
+::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq<T1, T2>();
+```
+
+to assert that types `T1` and `T2` are the same. The function does nothing if
+the assertion is satisfied. If the types are different, the function call will
+fail to compile, the compiler error message will say that
+`T1 and T2 are not the same type` and most likely (depending on the compiler)
+show you the actual values of `T1` and `T2`. This is mainly useful inside
+template code.
+
+**Caveat**: When used inside a member function of a class template or a function
+template, `StaticAssertTypeEq<T1, T2>()` is effective only if the function is
+instantiated. For example, given:
+
+```c++
+template <typename T> class Foo {
+ public:
+ void Bar() { testing::StaticAssertTypeEq<int, T>(); }
+};
+```
+
+the code:
+
+```c++
+void Test1() { Foo<bool> foo; }
+```
+
+will not generate a compiler error, as `Foo<bool>::Bar()` is never actually
+instantiated. Instead, you need:
+
+```c++
+void Test2() { Foo<bool> foo; foo.Bar(); }
+```
+
+to cause a compiler error.
+
+### Assertion Placement
+
+You can use assertions in any C++ function. In particular, it doesn't have to be
+a method of the test fixture class. The one constraint is that assertions that
+generate a fatal failure (`FAIL*` and `ASSERT_*`) can only be used in
+void-returning functions. This is a consequence of Google's not using
+exceptions. By placing it in a non-void function you'll get a confusing compile
+error like `"error: void value not ignored as it ought to be"` or `"cannot
+initialize return object of type 'bool' with an rvalue of type 'void'"` or
+`"error: no viable conversion from 'void' to 'string'"`.
+
+If you need to use fatal assertions in a function that returns non-void, one
+option is to make the function return the value in an out parameter instead. For
+example, you can rewrite `T2 Foo(T1 x)` to `void Foo(T1 x, T2* result)`. You
+need to make sure that `*result` contains some sensible value even when the
+function returns prematurely. As the function now returns `void`, you can use
+any assertion inside of it.
+
+If changing the function's type is not an option, you should just use assertions
+that generate non-fatal failures, such as `ADD_FAILURE*` and `EXPECT_*`.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: Constructors and destructors are not considered void-returning functions,
+according to the C++ language specification, and so you may not use fatal
+assertions in them; you'll get a compilation error if you try. Instead, either
+call `abort` and crash the entire test executable, or put the fatal assertion in
+a `SetUp`/`TearDown` function; see
+[constructor/destructor vs. `SetUp`/`TearDown`](faq.md#CtorVsSetUp)
+
+{: .callout .warning}
+WARNING: A fatal assertion in a helper function (private void-returning method)
+called from a constructor or destructor does not terminate the current test, as
+your intuition might suggest: it merely returns from the constructor or
+destructor early, possibly leaving your object in a partially-constructed or
+partially-destructed state! You almost certainly want to `abort` or use
+`SetUp`/`TearDown` instead.
+
+## Skipping test execution
+
+Related to the assertions `SUCCEED()` and `FAIL()`, you can prevent further test
+execution at runtime with the `GTEST_SKIP()` macro. This is useful when you need
+to check for preconditions of the system under test during runtime and skip
+tests in a meaningful way.
+
+`GTEST_SKIP()` can be used in individual test cases or in the `SetUp()` methods
+of classes derived from either `::testing::Environment` or `::testing::Test`.
+For example:
+
+```c++
+TEST(SkipTest, DoesSkip) {
+ GTEST_SKIP() << "Skipping single test";
+ EXPECT_EQ(0, 1); // Won't fail; it won't be executed
+}
+
+class SkipFixture : public ::testing::Test {
+ protected:
+ void SetUp() override {
+ GTEST_SKIP() << "Skipping all tests for this fixture";
+ }
+};
+
+// Tests for SkipFixture won't be executed.
+TEST_F(SkipFixture, SkipsOneTest) {
+ EXPECT_EQ(5, 7); // Won't fail
+}
+```
+
+As with assertion macros, you can stream a custom message into `GTEST_SKIP()`.
+
+## Teaching googletest How to Print Your Values
+
+When a test assertion such as `EXPECT_EQ` fails, googletest prints the argument
+values to help you debug. It does this using a 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.
+
+As mentioned earlier, the printer is *extensible*. That means you can teach it
+to do a better job at printing your particular type than to dump the bytes. To
+do that, define `<<` for your type:
+
+```c++
+#include <ostream>
+
+namespace foo {
+
+class Bar { // We want googletest to be able to print instances of this.
+...
+ // Create a free inline friend function.
+ friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Bar& bar) {
+ return os << bar.DebugString(); // whatever needed to print bar to os
+ }
+};
+
+// If you can't declare the function in the class it's important that the
+// << operator is defined in the SAME namespace that defines Bar. C++'s look-up
+// rules rely on that.
+std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Bar& bar) {
+ return os << bar.DebugString(); // whatever needed to print bar to os
+}
+
+} // namespace foo
+```
+
+Sometimes, this might not be an option: your team may consider it bad style to
+have a `<<` operator for `Bar`, or `Bar` may already have a `<<` operator that
+doesn't do what you want (and you cannot change it). If so, you can instead
+define a `PrintTo()` function like this:
+
+```c++
+#include <ostream>
+
+namespace foo {
+
+class Bar {
+ ...
+ friend void PrintTo(const Bar& bar, std::ostream* os) {
+ *os << bar.DebugString(); // whatever needed to print bar to os
+ }
+};
+
+// If you can't declare the function in the class it's important that PrintTo()
+// is defined in the SAME namespace that defines Bar. C++'s look-up rules rely
+// on that.
+void PrintTo(const Bar& bar, std::ostream* os) {
+ *os << bar.DebugString(); // whatever needed to print bar to os
+}
+
+} // namespace foo
+```
+
+If you have defined both `<<` and `PrintTo()`, the latter will be used when
+googletest is concerned. This allows you to customize how the value appears in
+googletest's output without affecting code that relies on the behavior of its
+`<<` operator.
+
+If you want to print a value `x` using googletest's value printer yourself, just
+call `::testing::PrintToString(x)`, which returns an `std::string`:
+
+```c++
+vector<pair<Bar, int> > bar_ints = GetBarIntVector();
+
+EXPECT_TRUE(IsCorrectBarIntVector(bar_ints))
+ << "bar_ints = " << testing::PrintToString(bar_ints);
+```
+
+## Death Tests
+
+In many applications, there are assertions that can cause application failure if
+a condition is not met. These sanity checks, which ensure that the program is in
+a known good state, are there to fail at the earliest possible time after some
+program state is corrupted. If the assertion checks the wrong condition, then
+the program may proceed in an erroneous state, which could lead to memory
+corruption, security holes, or worse. Hence it is vitally important to test that
+such assertion statements work as expected.
+
+Since these precondition checks cause the processes to die, we call such tests
+_death tests_. More generally, any test that checks that a program terminates
+(except by throwing an exception) in an expected fashion is also a death test.
+
+Note that if a piece of code throws an exception, we don't consider it "death"
+for the purpose of death tests, as the caller of the code could catch the
+exception and avoid the crash. If you want to verify exceptions thrown by your
+code, see [Exception Assertions](#ExceptionAssertions).
+
+If you want to test `EXPECT_*()/ASSERT_*()` failures in your test code, see
+Catching Failures
+
+### How to Write a Death Test
+
+googletest has the following macros to support death tests:
+
+Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies
+------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ | --------
+`ASSERT_DEATH(statement, matcher);` | `EXPECT_DEATH(statement, matcher);` | `statement` crashes with the given error
+`ASSERT_DEATH_IF_SUPPORTED(statement, matcher);` | `EXPECT_DEATH_IF_SUPPORTED(statement, matcher);` | if death tests are supported, verifies that `statement` crashes with the given error; otherwise verifies nothing
+`ASSERT_DEBUG_DEATH(statement, matcher);` | `EXPECT_DEBUG_DEATH(statement, matcher);` | `statement` crashes with the given error **in debug mode**. When not in debug (i.e. `NDEBUG` is defined), this just executes `statement`
+`ASSERT_EXIT(statement, predicate, matcher);` | `EXPECT_EXIT(statement, predicate, matcher);` | `statement` exits with the given error, and its exit code matches `predicate`
+
+where `statement` is a statement that is expected to cause the process to die,
+`predicate` is a function or function object that evaluates an integer exit
+status, and `matcher` is either a gMock matcher matching a `const std::string&`
+or a (Perl) regular expression - either of which is matched against the stderr
+output of `statement`. For legacy reasons, a bare string (i.e. with no matcher)
+is interpreted as `ContainsRegex(str)`, **not** `Eq(str)`. Note that `statement`
+can be *any valid statement* (including *compound statement*) and doesn't have
+to be an expression.
+
+As usual, the `ASSERT` variants abort the current test function, while the
+`EXPECT` variants do not.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+> NOTE: We use the word "crash" here to mean that the process terminates with a
+> *non-zero* exit status code. There are two possibilities: either the process
+> has called `exit()` or `_exit()` with a non-zero value, or it may be killed by
+> a signal.
+>
+> This means that if *`statement`* terminates the process with a 0 exit code, it
+> is *not* considered a crash by `EXPECT_DEATH`. Use `EXPECT_EXIT` instead if
+> this is the case, or if you want to restrict the exit code more precisely.
+
+A predicate here must accept an `int` and return a `bool`. The death test
+succeeds only if the predicate returns `true`. googletest defines a few
+predicates that handle the most common cases:
+
+```c++
+::testing::ExitedWithCode(exit_code)
+```
+
+This expression is `true` if the program exited normally with the given exit
+code.
+
+```c++
+testing::KilledBySignal(signal_number) // Not available on Windows.
+```
+
+This expression is `true` if the program was killed by the given signal.
+
+The `*_DEATH` macros are convenient wrappers for `*_EXIT` that use a predicate
+that verifies the process' exit code is non-zero.
+
+Note that a death test only cares about three things:
+
+1. does `statement` abort or exit the process?
+2. (in the case of `ASSERT_EXIT` and `EXPECT_EXIT`) does the exit status
+ satisfy `predicate`? Or (in the case of `ASSERT_DEATH` and `EXPECT_DEATH`)
+ is the exit status non-zero? And
+3. does the stderr output match `matcher`?
+
+In particular, if `statement` generates an `ASSERT_*` or `EXPECT_*` failure, it
+will **not** cause the death test to fail, as googletest assertions don't abort
+the process.
+
+To write a death test, simply use one of the above macros inside your test
+function. For example,
+
+```c++
+TEST(MyDeathTest, Foo) {
+ // This death test uses a compound statement.
+ ASSERT_DEATH({
+ int n = 5;
+ Foo(&n);
+ }, "Error on line .* of Foo()");
+}
+
+TEST(MyDeathTest, NormalExit) {
+ EXPECT_EXIT(NormalExit(), testing::ExitedWithCode(0), "Success");
+}
+
+TEST(MyDeathTest, KillMyself) {
+ EXPECT_EXIT(KillMyself(), testing::KilledBySignal(SIGKILL),
+ "Sending myself unblockable signal");
+}
+```
+
+verifies that:
+
+* calling `Foo(5)` causes the process to die with the given error message,
+* calling `NormalExit()` causes the process to print `"Success"` to stderr and
+ exit with exit code 0, and
+* calling `KillMyself()` kills the process with signal `SIGKILL`.
+
+The test function body may contain other assertions and statements as well, if
+necessary.
+
+### Death Test Naming
+
+{: .callout .important}
+IMPORTANT: We strongly recommend you to follow the convention of naming your
+**test suite** (not test) `*DeathTest` when it contains a death test, as
+demonstrated in the above example. The
+[Death Tests And Threads](#death-tests-and-threads) section below explains why.
+
+If a test fixture class is shared by normal tests and death tests, you can use
+`using` or `typedef` to introduce an alias for the fixture class and avoid
+duplicating its code:
+
+```c++
+class FooTest : public testing::Test { ... };
+
+using FooDeathTest = FooTest;
+
+TEST_F(FooTest, DoesThis) {
+ // normal test
+}
+
+TEST_F(FooDeathTest, DoesThat) {
+ // death test
+}
+```
+
+### Regular Expression Syntax
+
+On POSIX systems (e.g. Linux, Cygwin, and Mac), googletest uses the
+[POSIX extended regular expression](http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap09.html#tag_09_04)
+syntax. To learn about this syntax, you may want to read this
+[Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression#POSIX_Extended_Regular_Expressions).
+
+On Windows, googletest uses its own simple regular expression implementation. It
+lacks many features. For example, we don't support union (`"x|y"`), grouping
+(`"(xy)"`), brackets (`"[xy]"`), and repetition count (`"x{5,7}"`), among
+others. Below is what we do support (`A` denotes a literal character, period
+(`.`), or a single `\\ ` escape sequence; `x` and `y` denote regular
+expressions.):
+
+Expression | Meaning
+---------- | --------------------------------------------------------------
+`c` | matches any literal character `c`
+`\\d` | matches any decimal digit
+`\\D` | matches any character that's not a decimal digit
+`\\f` | matches `\f`
+`\\n` | matches `\n`
+`\\r` | matches `\r`
+`\\s` | matches any ASCII whitespace, including `\n`
+`\\S` | matches any character that's not a whitespace
+`\\t` | matches `\t`
+`\\v` | matches `\v`
+`\\w` | matches any letter, `_`, or decimal digit
+`\\W` | matches any character that `\\w` doesn't match
+`\\c` | matches any literal character `c`, which must be a punctuation
+`.` | matches any single character except `\n`
+`A?` | matches 0 or 1 occurrences of `A`
+`A*` | matches 0 or many occurrences of `A`
+`A+` | matches 1 or many occurrences of `A`
+`^` | matches the beginning of a string (not that of each line)
+`$` | matches the end of a string (not that of each line)
+`xy` | matches `x` followed by `y`
+
+To help you determine which capability is available on your system, googletest
+defines macros to govern which regular expression it is using. The macros are:
+`GTEST_USES_SIMPLE_RE=1` or `GTEST_USES_POSIX_RE=1`. If you want your death
+tests to work in all cases, you can either `#if` on these macros or use the more
+limited syntax only.
+
+### How It Works
+
+Under the hood, `ASSERT_EXIT()` spawns a new process and executes the death test
+statement in that process. The details of how precisely that happens depend on
+the platform and the variable `::testing::GTEST_FLAG(death_test_style)` (which is
+initialized from the command-line flag `--gtest_death_test_style`).
+
+* On POSIX systems, `fork()` (or `clone()` on Linux) is used to spawn the
+ child, after which:
+ * If the variable's value is `"fast"`, the death test statement is
+ immediately executed.
+ * If the variable's value is `"threadsafe"`, the child process re-executes
+ the unit test binary just as it was originally invoked, but with some
+ extra flags to cause just the single death test under consideration to
+ be run.
+* On Windows, the child is spawned using the `CreateProcess()` API, and
+ re-executes the binary to cause just the single death test under
+ consideration to be run - much like the `threadsafe` mode on POSIX.
+
+Other values for the variable are illegal and will cause the death test to fail.
+Currently, the flag's default value is
+**`"fast"`**.
+
+1. the child's exit status satisfies the predicate, and
+2. the child's stderr matches the regular expression.
+
+If the death test statement runs to completion without dying, the child process
+will nonetheless terminate, and the assertion fails.
+
+### Death Tests And Threads
+
+The reason for the two death test styles has to do with thread safety. Due to
+well-known problems with forking in the presence of threads, death tests should
+be run in a single-threaded context. Sometimes, however, it isn't feasible to
+arrange that kind of environment. For example, statically-initialized modules
+may start threads before main is ever reached. Once threads have been created,
+it may be difficult or impossible to clean them up.
+
+googletest has three features intended to raise awareness of threading issues.
+
+1. A warning is emitted if multiple threads are running when a death test is
+ encountered.
+2. Test suites with a name ending in "DeathTest" are run before all other
+ tests.
+3. It uses `clone()` instead of `fork()` to spawn the child process on Linux
+ (`clone()` is not available on Cygwin and Mac), as `fork()` is more likely
+ to cause the child to hang when the parent process has multiple threads.
+
+It's perfectly fine to create threads inside a death test statement; they are
+executed in a separate process and cannot affect the parent.
+
+### Death Test Styles
+
+The "threadsafe" death test style was introduced in order to help mitigate the
+risks of testing in a possibly multithreaded environment. It trades increased
+test execution time (potentially dramatically so) for improved thread safety.
+
+The automated testing framework does not set the style flag. You can choose a
+particular style of death tests by setting the flag programmatically:
+
+```c++
+testing::FLAGS_gtest_death_test_style="threadsafe"
+```
+
+You can do this in `main()` to set the style for all death tests in the binary,
+or in individual tests. Recall that flags are saved before running each test and
+restored afterwards, so you need not do that yourself. For example:
+
+```c++
+int main(int argc, char** argv) {
+ testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv);
+ testing::FLAGS_gtest_death_test_style = "fast";
+ return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
+}
+
+TEST(MyDeathTest, TestOne) {
+ testing::FLAGS_gtest_death_test_style = "threadsafe";
+ // This test is run in the "threadsafe" style:
+ ASSERT_DEATH(ThisShouldDie(), "");
+}
+
+TEST(MyDeathTest, TestTwo) {
+ // This test is run in the "fast" style:
+ ASSERT_DEATH(ThisShouldDie(), "");
+}
+```
+
+### Caveats
+
+The `statement` argument of `ASSERT_EXIT()` can be any valid C++ statement. If
+it leaves the current function via a `return` statement or by throwing an
+exception, the death test is considered to have failed. Some googletest macros
+may return from the current function (e.g. `ASSERT_TRUE()`), so be sure to avoid
+them in `statement`.
+
+Since `statement` runs in the child process, any in-memory side effect (e.g.
+modifying a variable, releasing memory, etc) it causes will *not* be observable
+in the parent process. In particular, if you release memory in a death test,
+your program will fail the heap check as the parent process will never see the
+memory reclaimed. To solve this problem, you can
+
+1. try not to free memory in a death test;
+2. free the memory again in the parent process; or
+3. do not use the heap checker in your program.
+
+Due to an implementation detail, you cannot place multiple death test assertions
+on the same line; otherwise, compilation will fail with an unobvious error
+message.
+
+Despite the improved thread safety afforded by the "threadsafe" style of death
+test, thread problems such as deadlock are still possible in the presence of
+handlers registered with `pthread_atfork(3)`.
+
+
+## Using Assertions in Sub-routines
+
+{: .callout .note}
+Note: If you want to put a series of test assertions in a subroutine to check
+for a complex condition, consider using
+[a custom GMock matcher](gmock_cook_book.md#NewMatchers)
+instead. This lets you provide a more readable error message in case of failure
+and avoid all of the issues described below.
+
+### Adding Traces to Assertions
+
+If a test sub-routine is called from several places, when an assertion inside it
+fails, it can be hard to tell which invocation of the sub-routine the failure is
+from. You can alleviate this problem using extra logging or custom failure
+messages, but that usually clutters up your tests. A better solution is to use
+the `SCOPED_TRACE` macro or the `ScopedTrace` utility:
+
+```c++
+SCOPED_TRACE(message);
+```
+```c++
+ScopedTrace trace("file_path", line_number, message);
+```
+
+where `message` can be anything streamable to `std::ostream`. `SCOPED_TRACE`
+macro will cause the current file name, line number, and the given message to be
+added in every failure message. `ScopedTrace` accepts explicit file name and
+line number in arguments, which is useful for writing test helpers. The effect
+will be undone when the control leaves the current lexical scope.
+
+For example,
+
+```c++
+10: void Sub1(int n) {
+11: EXPECT_EQ(Bar(n), 1);
+12: EXPECT_EQ(Bar(n + 1), 2);
+13: }
+14:
+15: TEST(FooTest, Bar) {
+16: {
+17: SCOPED_TRACE("A"); // This trace point will be included in
+18: // every failure in this scope.
+19: Sub1(1);
+20: }
+21: // Now it won't.
+22: Sub1(9);
+23: }
+```
+
+could result in messages like these:
+
+```none
+path/to/foo_test.cc:11: Failure
+Value of: Bar(n)
+Expected: 1
+ Actual: 2
+Google Test trace:
+path/to/foo_test.cc:17: A
+
+path/to/foo_test.cc:12: Failure
+Value of: Bar(n + 1)
+Expected: 2
+ Actual: 3
+```
+
+Without the trace, it would've been difficult to know which invocation of
+`Sub1()` the two failures come from respectively. (You could add an extra
+message to each assertion in `Sub1()` to indicate the value of `n`, but that's
+tedious.)
+
+Some tips on using `SCOPED_TRACE`:
+
+1. With a suitable message, it's often enough to use `SCOPED_TRACE` at the
+ beginning of a sub-routine, instead of at each call site.
+2. When calling sub-routines inside a loop, make the loop iterator part of the
+ message in `SCOPED_TRACE` such that you can know which iteration the failure
+ is from.
+3. Sometimes the line number of the trace point is enough for identifying the
+ particular invocation of a sub-routine. In this case, you don't have to
+ choose a unique message for `SCOPED_TRACE`. You can simply use `""`.
+4. You can use `SCOPED_TRACE` in an inner scope when there is one in the outer
+ scope. In this case, all active trace points will be included in the failure
+ messages, in reverse order they are encountered.
+5. The trace dump is clickable in Emacs - hit `return` on a line number and
+ you'll be taken to that line in the source file!
+
+### Propagating Fatal Failures
+
+A common pitfall when using `ASSERT_*` and `FAIL*` is not understanding that
+when they fail they only abort the _current function_, not the entire test. For
+example, the following test will segfault:
+
+```c++
+void Subroutine() {
+ // Generates a fatal failure and aborts the current function.
+ ASSERT_EQ(1, 2);
+
+ // The following won't be executed.
+ ...
+}
+
+TEST(FooTest, Bar) {
+ Subroutine(); // The intended behavior is for the fatal failure
+ // in Subroutine() to abort the entire test.
+
+ // The actual behavior: the function goes on after Subroutine() returns.
+ int* p = nullptr;
+ *p = 3; // Segfault!
+}
+```
+
+To alleviate this, googletest provides three different solutions. You could use
+either exceptions, the `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_NO_FATAL_FAILURE` assertions or the
+`HasFatalFailure()` function. They are described in the following two
+subsections.
+
+#### Asserting on Subroutines with an exception
+
+The following code can turn ASSERT-failure into an exception:
+
+```c++
+class ThrowListener : public testing::EmptyTestEventListener {
+ void OnTestPartResult(const testing::TestPartResult& result) override {
+ if (result.type() == testing::TestPartResult::kFatalFailure) {
+ throw testing::AssertionException(result);
+ }
+ }
+};
+int main(int argc, char** argv) {
+ ...
+ testing::UnitTest::GetInstance()->listeners().Append(new ThrowListener);
+ return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
+}
+```
+
+This listener should be added after other listeners if you have any, otherwise
+they won't see failed `OnTestPartResult`.
+
+#### Asserting on Subroutines
+
+As shown above, if your test calls a subroutine that has an `ASSERT_*` failure
+in it, the test will continue after the subroutine returns. This may not be what
+you want.
+
+Often people want fatal failures to propagate like exceptions. For that
+googletest offers the following macros:
+
+Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies
+------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | --------
+`ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(statement);` | `EXPECT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(statement);` | `statement` doesn't generate any new fatal failures in the current thread.
+
+Only failures in the thread that executes the assertion are checked to determine
+the result of this type of assertions. If `statement` creates new threads,
+failures in these threads are ignored.
+
+Examples:
+
+```c++
+ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(Foo());
+
+int i;
+EXPECT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE({
+ i = Bar();
+});
+```
+
+Assertions from multiple threads are currently not supported on Windows.
+
+#### Checking for Failures in the Current Test
+
+`HasFatalFailure()` in the `::testing::Test` class returns `true` if an
+assertion in the current test has suffered a fatal failure. This allows
+functions to catch fatal failures in a sub-routine and return early.
+
+```c++
+class Test {
+ public:
+ ...
+ static bool HasFatalFailure();
+};
+```
+
+The typical usage, which basically simulates the behavior of a thrown exception,
+is:
+
+```c++
+TEST(FooTest, Bar) {
+ Subroutine();
+ // Aborts if Subroutine() had a fatal failure.
+ if (HasFatalFailure()) return;
+
+ // The following won't be executed.
+ ...
+}
+```
+
+If `HasFatalFailure()` is used outside of `TEST()` , `TEST_F()` , or a test
+fixture, you must add the `::testing::Test::` prefix, as in:
+
+```c++
+if (testing::Test::HasFatalFailure()) return;
+```
+
+Similarly, `HasNonfatalFailure()` returns `true` if the current test has at
+least one non-fatal failure, and `HasFailure()` returns `true` if the current
+test has at least one failure of either kind.
+
+## Logging Additional Information
+
+In your test code, you can call `RecordProperty("key", value)` to log additional
+information, where `value` can be either a string or an `int`. The *last* value
+recorded for a key will be emitted to the
+[XML output](#generating-an-xml-report) if you specify one. For example, the
+test
+
+```c++
+TEST_F(WidgetUsageTest, MinAndMaxWidgets) {
+ RecordProperty("MaximumWidgets", ComputeMaxUsage());
+ RecordProperty("MinimumWidgets", ComputeMinUsage());
+}
+```
+
+will output XML like this:
+
+```xml
+ ...
+ <testcase name="MinAndMaxWidgets" status="run" time="0.006" classname="WidgetUsageTest" MaximumWidgets="12" MinimumWidgets="9" />
+ ...
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+> NOTE:
+>
+> * `RecordProperty()` is a static member of the `Test` class. Therefore it
+> needs to be prefixed with `::testing::Test::` if used outside of the
+> `TEST` body and the test fixture class.
+> * *`key`* must be a valid XML attribute name, and cannot conflict with the
+> ones already used by googletest (`name`, `status`, `time`, `classname`,
+> `type_param`, and `value_param`).
+> * Calling `RecordProperty()` outside of the lifespan of a test is allowed.
+> If it's called outside of a test but between a test suite's
+> `SetUpTestSuite()` and `TearDownTestSuite()` methods, it will be
+> attributed to the XML element for the test suite. If it's called outside
+> of all test suites (e.g. in a test environment), it will be attributed to
+> the top-level XML element.
+
+## Sharing Resources Between Tests in the Same Test Suite
+
+googletest creates a new test fixture object for each test in order to make
+tests independent and easier to debug. However, sometimes tests use resources
+that are expensive to set up, making the one-copy-per-test model prohibitively
+expensive.
+
+If the tests don't change the resource, there's no harm in their sharing a
+single resource copy. So, in addition to per-test set-up/tear-down, googletest
+also supports per-test-suite set-up/tear-down. To use it:
+
+1. In your test fixture class (say `FooTest` ), declare as `static` some member
+ variables to hold the shared resources.
+2. Outside your test fixture class (typically just below it), define those
+ member variables, optionally giving them initial values.
+3. In the same test fixture class, define a `static void SetUpTestSuite()`
+ function (remember not to spell it as **`SetupTestSuite`** with a small
+ `u`!) to set up the shared resources and a `static void TearDownTestSuite()`
+ function to tear them down.
+
+That's it! googletest automatically calls `SetUpTestSuite()` before running the
+*first test* in the `FooTest` test suite (i.e. before creating the first
+`FooTest` object), and calls `TearDownTestSuite()` after running the *last test*
+in it (i.e. after deleting the last `FooTest` object). In between, the tests can
+use the shared resources.
+
+Remember that the test order is undefined, so your code can't depend on a test
+preceding or following another. Also, the tests must either not modify the state
+of any shared resource, or, if they do modify the state, they must restore the
+state to its original value before passing control to the next test.
+
+Here's an example of per-test-suite set-up and tear-down:
+
+```c++
+class FooTest : public testing::Test {
+ protected:
+ // Per-test-suite set-up.
+ // Called before the first test in this test suite.
+ // Can be omitted if not needed.
+ static void SetUpTestSuite() {
+ shared_resource_ = new ...;
+ }
+
+ // Per-test-suite tear-down.
+ // Called after the last test in this test suite.
+ // Can be omitted if not needed.
+ static void TearDownTestSuite() {
+ delete shared_resource_;
+ shared_resource_ = nullptr;
+ }
+
+ // You can define per-test set-up logic as usual.
+ void SetUp() override { ... }
+
+ // You can define per-test tear-down logic as usual.
+ void TearDown() override { ... }
+
+ // Some expensive resource shared by all tests.
+ static T* shared_resource_;
+};
+
+T* FooTest::shared_resource_ = nullptr;
+
+TEST_F(FooTest, Test1) {
+ ... you can refer to shared_resource_ here ...
+}
+
+TEST_F(FooTest, Test2) {
+ ... you can refer to shared_resource_ here ...
+}
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: Though the above code declares `SetUpTestSuite()` protected, it may
+sometimes be necessary to declare it public, such as when using it with
+`TEST_P`.
+
+## Global Set-Up and Tear-Down
+
+Just as you can do set-up and tear-down at the test level and the test suite
+level, you can also do it at the test program level. Here's how.
+
+First, you subclass the `::testing::Environment` class to define a test
+environment, which knows how to set-up and tear-down:
+
+```c++
+class Environment : public ::testing::Environment {
+ public:
+ ~Environment() override {}
+
+ // Override this to define how to set up the environment.
+ void SetUp() override {}
+
+ // Override this to define how to tear down the environment.
+ void TearDown() override {}
+};
+```
+
+Then, you register an instance of your environment class with googletest by
+calling the `::testing::AddGlobalTestEnvironment()` function:
+
+```c++
+Environment* AddGlobalTestEnvironment(Environment* env);
+```
+
+Now, when `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` is called, it first calls the `SetUp()` method of
+each environment object, then runs the tests if none of the environments
+reported fatal failures and `GTEST_SKIP()` was not called. `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`
+always calls `TearDown()` with each environment object, regardless of whether or
+not the tests were run.
+
+It's OK to register multiple environment objects. In this suite, their `SetUp()`
+will be called in the order they are registered, and their `TearDown()` will be
+called in the reverse order.
+
+Note that googletest takes ownership of the registered environment objects.
+Therefore **do not delete them** by yourself.
+
+You should call `AddGlobalTestEnvironment()` before `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` is called,
+probably in `main()`. If you use `gtest_main`, you need to call this before
+`main()` starts for it to take effect. One way to do this is to define a global
+variable like this:
+
+```c++
+testing::Environment* const foo_env =
+ testing::AddGlobalTestEnvironment(new FooEnvironment);
+```
+
+However, we strongly recommend you to write your own `main()` and call
+`AddGlobalTestEnvironment()` there, as relying on initialization of global
+variables makes the code harder to read and may cause problems when you register
+multiple environments from different translation units and the environments have
+dependencies among them (remember that the compiler doesn't guarantee the order
+in which global variables from different translation units are initialized).
+
+## Value-Parameterized Tests
+
+*Value-parameterized tests* allow you to test your code with different
+parameters without writing multiple copies of the same test. This is useful in a
+number of situations, for example:
+
+* You have a piece of code whose behavior is affected by one or more
+ command-line flags. You want to make sure your code performs correctly for
+ various values of those flags.
+* You want to test different implementations of an OO interface.
+* You want to test your code over various inputs (a.k.a. data-driven testing).
+ This feature is easy to abuse, so please exercise your good sense when doing
+ it!
+
+### How to Write Value-Parameterized Tests
+
+To write value-parameterized tests, first you should define a fixture class. It
+must be derived from both `testing::Test` and `testing::WithParamInterface<T>`
+(the latter is a pure interface), where `T` is the type of your parameter
+values. For convenience, you can just derive the fixture class from
+`testing::TestWithParam<T>`, which itself is derived from both `testing::Test`
+and `testing::WithParamInterface<T>`. `T` can be any copyable type. If it's a
+raw pointer, you are responsible for managing the lifespan of the pointed
+values.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: If your test fixture defines `SetUpTestSuite()` or `TearDownTestSuite()`
+they must be declared **public** rather than **protected** in order to use
+`TEST_P`.
+
+```c++
+class FooTest :
+ public testing::TestWithParam<const char*> {
+ // You can implement all the usual fixture class members here.
+ // To access the test parameter, call GetParam() from class
+ // TestWithParam<T>.
+};
+
+// Or, when you want to add parameters to a pre-existing fixture class:
+class BaseTest : public testing::Test {
+ ...
+};
+class BarTest : public BaseTest,
+ public testing::WithParamInterface<const char*> {
+ ...
+};
+```
+
+Then, use the `TEST_P` macro to define as many test patterns using this fixture
+as you want. The `_P` suffix is for "parameterized" or "pattern", whichever you
+prefer to think.
+
+```c++
+TEST_P(FooTest, DoesBlah) {
+ // Inside a test, access the test parameter with the GetParam() method
+ // of the TestWithParam<T> class:
+ EXPECT_TRUE(foo.Blah(GetParam()));
+ ...
+}
+
+TEST_P(FooTest, HasBlahBlah) {
+ ...
+}
+```
+
+Finally, you can use `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` to instantiate the test suite
+with any set of parameters you want. googletest defines a number of functions
+for generating test parameters. They return what we call (surprise!) *parameter
+generators*. Here is a summary of them, which are all in the `testing`
+namespace:
+
+
+| Parameter Generator | Behavior |
+| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| `Range(begin, end [, step])` | Yields values `{begin, begin+step, begin+step+step, ...}`. The values do not include `end`. `step` defaults to 1. |
+| `Values(v1, v2, ..., vN)` | Yields values `{v1, v2, ..., vN}`. |
+| `ValuesIn(container)` and `ValuesIn(begin,end)` | Yields values from a C-style array, an STL-style container, or an iterator range `[begin, end)` |
+| `Bool()` | Yields sequence `{false, true}`. |
+| `Combine(g1, g2, ..., gN)` | Yields all combinations (Cartesian product) as std\:\:tuples of the values generated by the `N` generators. |
+
+
+For more details, see the comments at the definitions of these functions.
+
+The following statement will instantiate tests from the `FooTest` test suite
+each with parameter values `"meeny"`, `"miny"`, and `"moe"`.
+
+```c++
+INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(MeenyMinyMoe,
+ FooTest,
+ testing::Values("meeny", "miny", "moe"));
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: The code above must be placed at global or namespace scope, not at
+function scope.
+
+The first argument to `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` is a unique name for the
+instantiation of the test suite. The next argument is the name of the test
+pattern, and the last is the parameter generator.
+
+You can instantiate a test pattern more than once, so to distinguish different
+instances of the pattern, the instantiation name is added as a prefix to the
+actual test suite name. Remember to pick unique prefixes for different
+instantiations. The tests from the instantiation above will have these names:
+
+* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.DoesBlah/0` for `"meeny"`
+* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.DoesBlah/1` for `"miny"`
+* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.DoesBlah/2` for `"moe"`
+* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/0` for `"meeny"`
+* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/1` for `"miny"`
+* `MeenyMinyMoe/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/2` for `"moe"`
+
+You can use these names in [`--gtest_filter`](#running-a-subset-of-the-tests).
+
+The following statement will instantiate all tests from `FooTest` again, each
+with parameter values `"cat"` and `"dog"`:
+
+```c++
+const char* pets[] = {"cat", "dog"};
+INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(Pets, FooTest, testing::ValuesIn(pets));
+```
+
+The tests from the instantiation above will have these names:
+
+* `Pets/FooTest.DoesBlah/0` for `"cat"`
+* `Pets/FooTest.DoesBlah/1` for `"dog"`
+* `Pets/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/0` for `"cat"`
+* `Pets/FooTest.HasBlahBlah/1` for `"dog"`
+
+Please note that `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` will instantiate *all* tests in the
+given test suite, whether their definitions come before or *after* the
+`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` statement.
+
+Additionally, by default, every `TEST_P` without a corresponding
+`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P` causes a failing test in test suite
+`GoogleTestVerification`. If you have a test suite where that omission is not an
+error, for example it is in a library that may be linked in for other reasons or
+where the list of test cases is dynamic and may be empty, then this check can be
+suppressed by tagging the test suite:
+
+```c++
+GTEST_ALLOW_UNINSTANTIATED_PARAMETERIZED_TEST(FooTest);
+```
+
+You can see [sample7_unittest.cc] and [sample8_unittest.cc] for more examples.
+
+[sample7_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample7_unittest.cc "Parameterized Test example"
+[sample8_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample8_unittest.cc "Parameterized Test example with multiple parameters"
+
+### Creating Value-Parameterized Abstract Tests
+
+In the above, we define and instantiate `FooTest` in the *same* source file.
+Sometimes you may want to define value-parameterized tests in a library and let
+other people instantiate them later. This pattern is known as *abstract tests*.
+As an example of its application, when you are designing an interface you can
+write a standard suite of abstract tests (perhaps using a factory function as
+the test parameter) that all implementations of the interface are expected to
+pass. When someone implements the interface, they can instantiate your suite to
+get all the interface-conformance tests for free.
+
+To define abstract tests, you should organize your code like this:
+
+1. Put the definition of the parameterized test fixture class (e.g. `FooTest`)
+ in a header file, say `foo_param_test.h`. Think of this as *declaring* your
+ abstract tests.
+2. Put the `TEST_P` definitions in `foo_param_test.cc`, which includes
+ `foo_param_test.h`. Think of this as *implementing* your abstract tests.
+
+Once they are defined, you can instantiate them by including `foo_param_test.h`,
+invoking `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P()`, and depending on the library target that
+contains `foo_param_test.cc`. You can instantiate the same abstract test suite
+multiple times, possibly in different source files.
+
+### Specifying Names for Value-Parameterized Test Parameters
+
+The optional last argument to `INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P()` allows the user to
+specify a function or functor that generates custom test name suffixes based on
+the test parameters. The function should accept one argument of type
+`testing::TestParamInfo<class ParamType>`, and return `std::string`.
+
+`testing::PrintToStringParamName` is a builtin test suffix generator that
+returns the value of `testing::PrintToString(GetParam())`. It does not work for
+`std::string` or C strings.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: test names must be non-empty, unique, and may only contain ASCII
+alphanumeric characters. In particular, they
+[should not contain underscores](faq.md#why-should-test-suite-names-and-test-names-not-contain-underscore)
+
+```c++
+class MyTestSuite : public testing::TestWithParam<int> {};
+
+TEST_P(MyTestSuite, MyTest)
+{
+ std::cout << "Example Test Param: " << GetParam() << std::endl;
+}
+
+INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(MyGroup, MyTestSuite, testing::Range(0, 10),
+ testing::PrintToStringParamName());
+```
+
+Providing a custom functor allows for more control over test parameter name
+generation, especially for types where the automatic conversion does not
+generate helpful parameter names (e.g. strings as demonstrated above). The
+following example illustrates this for multiple parameters, an enumeration type
+and a string, and also demonstrates how to combine generators. It uses a lambda
+for conciseness:
+
+```c++
+enum class MyType { MY_FOO = 0, MY_BAR = 1 };
+
+class MyTestSuite : public testing::TestWithParam<std::tuple<MyType, std::string>> {
+};
+
+INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(
+ MyGroup, MyTestSuite,
+ testing::Combine(
+ testing::Values(MyType::MY_FOO, MyType::MY_BAR),
+ testing::Values("A", "B")),
+ [](const testing::TestParamInfo<MyTestSuite::ParamType>& info) {
+ std::string name = absl::StrCat(
+ std::get<0>(info.param) == MyType::MY_FOO ? "Foo" : "Bar",
+ std::get<1>(info.param));
+ absl::c_replace_if(name, [](char c) { return !std::isalnum(c); }, '');
+ return name;
+ });
+```
+
+## Typed Tests
+
+Suppose you have multiple implementations of the same interface and want to make
+sure that all of them satisfy some common requirements. Or, you may have defined
+several types that are supposed to conform to the same "concept" and you want to
+verify it. In both cases, you want the same test logic repeated for different
+types.
+
+While you can write one `TEST` or `TEST_F` for each type you want to test (and
+you may even factor the test logic into a function template that you invoke from
+the `TEST`), it's tedious and doesn't scale: if you want `m` tests over `n`
+types, you'll end up writing `m*n` `TEST`s.
+
+*Typed tests* allow you to repeat the same test logic over a list of types. You
+only need to write the test logic once, although you must know the type list
+when writing typed tests. Here's how you do it:
+
+First, define a fixture class template. It should be parameterized by a type.
+Remember to derive it from `::testing::Test`:
+
+```c++
+template <typename T>
+class FooTest : public testing::Test {
+ public:
+ ...
+ using List = std::list<T>;
+ static T shared_;
+ T value_;
+};
+```
+
+Next, associate a list of types with the test suite, which will be repeated for
+each type in the list:
+
+```c++
+using MyTypes = ::testing::Types<char, int, unsigned int>;
+TYPED_TEST_SUITE(FooTest, MyTypes);
+```
+
+The type alias (`using` or `typedef`) is necessary for the `TYPED_TEST_SUITE`
+macro to parse correctly. Otherwise the compiler will think that each comma in
+the type list introduces a new macro argument.
+
+Then, use `TYPED_TEST()` instead of `TEST_F()` to define a typed test for this
+test suite. You can repeat this as many times as you want:
+
+```c++
+TYPED_TEST(FooTest, DoesBlah) {
+ // Inside a test, refer to the special name TypeParam to get the type
+ // parameter. Since we are inside a derived class template, C++ requires
+ // us to visit the members of FooTest via 'this'.
+ TypeParam n = this->value_;
+
+ // To visit static members of the fixture, add the 'TestFixture::'
+ // prefix.
+ n += TestFixture::shared_;
+
+ // To refer to typedefs in the fixture, add the 'typename TestFixture::'
+ // prefix. The 'typename' is required to satisfy the compiler.
+ typename TestFixture::List values;
+
+ values.push_back(n);
+ ...
+}
+
+TYPED_TEST(FooTest, HasPropertyA) { ... }
+```
+
+You can see [sample6_unittest.cc] for a complete example.
+
+[sample6_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample6_unittest.cc "Typed Test example"
+
+## Type-Parameterized Tests
+
+*Type-parameterized tests* are like typed tests, except that they don't require
+you to know the list of types ahead of time. Instead, you can define the test
+logic first and instantiate it with different type lists later. You can even
+instantiate it more than once in the same program.
+
+If you are designing an interface or concept, you can define a suite of
+type-parameterized tests to verify properties that any valid implementation of
+the interface/concept should have. Then, the author of each implementation can
+just instantiate the test suite with their type to verify that it conforms to
+the requirements, without having to write similar tests repeatedly. Here's an
+example:
+
+First, define a fixture class template, as we did with typed tests:
+
+```c++
+template <typename T>
+class FooTest : public testing::Test {
+ ...
+};
+```
+
+Next, declare that you will define a type-parameterized test suite:
+
+```c++
+TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(FooTest);
+```
+
+Then, use `TYPED_TEST_P()` to define a type-parameterized test. You can repeat
+this as many times as you want:
+
+```c++
+TYPED_TEST_P(FooTest, DoesBlah) {
+ // Inside a test, refer to TypeParam to get the type parameter.
+ TypeParam n = 0;
+ ...
+}
+
+TYPED_TEST_P(FooTest, HasPropertyA) { ... }
+```
+
+Now the tricky part: you need to register all test patterns using the
+`REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P` macro before you can instantiate them. The first
+argument of the macro is the test suite name; the rest are the names of the
+tests in this test suite:
+
+```c++
+REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(FooTest,
+ DoesBlah, HasPropertyA);
+```
+
+Finally, you are free to instantiate the pattern with the types you want. If you
+put the above code in a header file, you can `#include` it in multiple C++
+source files and instantiate it multiple times.
+
+```c++
+using MyTypes = ::testing::Types<char, int, unsigned int>;
+INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(My, FooTest, MyTypes);
+```
+
+To distinguish different instances of the pattern, the first argument to the
+`INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P` macro is a prefix that will be added to the
+actual test suite name. Remember to pick unique prefixes for different
+instances.
+
+In the special case where the type list contains only one type, you can write
+that type directly without `::testing::Types<...>`, like this:
+
+```c++
+INSTANTIATE_TYPED_TEST_SUITE_P(My, FooTest, int);
+```
+
+You can see [sample6_unittest.cc] for a complete example.
+
+## Testing Private Code
+
+If you change your software's internal implementation, your tests should not
+break as long as the change is not observable by users. Therefore, **per the
+black-box testing principle, most of the time you should test your code through
+its public interfaces.**
+
+**If you still find yourself needing to test internal implementation code,
+consider if there's a better design.** The desire to test internal
+implementation is often a sign that the class is doing too much. Consider
+extracting an implementation class, and testing it. Then use that implementation
+class in the original class.
+
+If you absolutely have to test non-public interface code though, you can. There
+are two cases to consider:
+
+* Static functions ( *not* the same as static member functions!) or unnamed
+ namespaces, and
+* Private or protected class members
+
+To test them, we use the following special techniques:
+
+* Both static functions and definitions/declarations in an unnamed namespace
+ are only visible within the same translation unit. To test them, you can
+ `#include` the entire `.cc` file being tested in your `*_test.cc` file.
+ (#including `.cc` files is not a good way to reuse code - you should not do
+ this in production code!)
+
+ However, a better approach is to move the private code into the
+ `foo::internal` namespace, where `foo` is the namespace your project
+ normally uses, and put the private declarations in a `*-internal.h` file.
+ Your production `.cc` files and your tests are allowed to include this
+ internal header, but your clients are not. This way, you can fully test your
+ internal implementation without leaking it to your clients.
+
+* Private class members are only accessible from within the class or by
+ friends. To access a class' private members, you can declare your test
+ fixture as a friend to the class and define accessors in your fixture. Tests
+ using the fixture can then access the private members of your production
+ class via the accessors in the fixture. Note that even though your fixture
+ is a friend to your production class, your tests are not automatically
+ friends to it, as they are technically defined in sub-classes of the
+ fixture.
+
+ Another way to test private members is to refactor them into an
+ implementation class, which is then declared in a `*-internal.h` file. Your
+ clients aren't allowed to include this header but your tests can. Such is
+ called the
+ [Pimpl](https://www.gamedev.net/articles/programming/general-and-gameplay-programming/the-c-pimpl-r1794/)
+ (Private Implementation) idiom.
+
+ Or, you can declare an individual test as a friend of your class by adding
+ this line in the class body:
+
+ ```c++
+ FRIEND_TEST(TestSuiteName, TestName);
+ ```
+
+ For example,
+
+ ```c++
+ // foo.h
+ class Foo {
+ ...
+ private:
+ FRIEND_TEST(FooTest, BarReturnsZeroOnNull);
+
+ int Bar(void* x);
+ };
+
+ // foo_test.cc
+ ...
+ TEST(FooTest, BarReturnsZeroOnNull) {
+ Foo foo;
+ EXPECT_EQ(foo.Bar(NULL), 0); // Uses Foo's private member Bar().
+ }
+ ```
+
+ Pay special attention when your class is defined in a namespace. If you want
+ your test fixtures and tests to be friends of your class, then they must be
+ defined in the exact same namespace (no anonymous or inline namespaces).
+
+ For example, if the code to be tested looks like:
+
+ ```c++
+ namespace my_namespace {
+
+ class Foo {
+ friend class FooTest;
+ FRIEND_TEST(FooTest, Bar);
+ FRIEND_TEST(FooTest, Baz);
+ ... definition of the class Foo ...
+ };
+
+ } // namespace my_namespace
+ ```
+
+ Your test code should be something like:
+
+ ```c++
+ namespace my_namespace {
+
+ class FooTest : public testing::Test {
+ protected:
+ ...
+ };
+
+ TEST_F(FooTest, Bar) { ... }
+ TEST_F(FooTest, Baz) { ... }
+
+ } // namespace my_namespace
+ ```
+
+## "Catching" Failures
+
+If you are building a testing utility on top of googletest, you'll want to test
+your utility. What framework would you use to test it? googletest, of course.
+
+The challenge is to verify that your testing utility reports failures correctly.
+In frameworks that report a failure by throwing an exception, you could catch
+the exception and assert on it. But googletest doesn't use exceptions, so how do
+we test that a piece of code generates an expected failure?
+
+`"gtest/gtest-spi.h"` contains some constructs to do this. After #including this header,
+you can use
+
+```c++
+ EXPECT_FATAL_FAILURE(statement, substring);
+```
+
+to assert that `statement` generates a fatal (e.g. `ASSERT_*`) failure in the
+current thread whose message contains the given `substring`, or use
+
+```c++
+ EXPECT_NONFATAL_FAILURE(statement, substring);
+```
+
+if you are expecting a non-fatal (e.g. `EXPECT_*`) failure.
+
+Only failures in the current thread are checked to determine the result of this
+type of expectations. If `statement` creates new threads, failures in these
+threads are also ignored. If you want to catch failures in other threads as
+well, use one of the following macros instead:
+
+```c++
+ EXPECT_FATAL_FAILURE_ON_ALL_THREADS(statement, substring);
+ EXPECT_NONFATAL_FAILURE_ON_ALL_THREADS(statement, substring);
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: Assertions from multiple threads are currently not supported on Windows.
+
+For technical reasons, there are some caveats:
+
+1. You cannot stream a failure message to either macro.
+
+2. `statement` in `EXPECT_FATAL_FAILURE{_ON_ALL_THREADS}()` cannot reference
+ local non-static variables or non-static members of `this` object.
+
+3. `statement` in `EXPECT_FATAL_FAILURE{_ON_ALL_THREADS}()` cannot return a
+ value.
+
+## Registering tests programmatically
+
+The `TEST` macros handle the vast majority of all use cases, but there are few
+where runtime registration logic is required. For those cases, the framework
+provides the `::testing::RegisterTest` that allows callers to register arbitrary
+tests dynamically.
+
+This is an advanced API only to be used when the `TEST` macros are insufficient.
+The macros should be preferred when possible, as they avoid most of the
+complexity of calling this function.
+
+It provides the following signature:
+
+```c++
+template <typename Factory>
+TestInfo* RegisterTest(const char* test_suite_name, const char* test_name,
+ const char* type_param, const char* value_param,
+ const char* file, int line, Factory factory);
+```
+
+The `factory` argument is a factory callable (move-constructible) object or
+function pointer that creates a new instance of the Test object. It handles
+ownership to the caller. The signature of the callable is `Fixture*()`, where
+`Fixture` is the test fixture class for the test. All tests registered with the
+same `test_suite_name` must return the same fixture type. This is checked at
+runtime.
+
+The framework will infer the fixture class from the factory and will call the
+`SetUpTestSuite` and `TearDownTestSuite` for it.
+
+Must be called before `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` is invoked, otherwise behavior is
+undefined.
+
+Use case example:
+
+```c++
+class MyFixture : public testing::Test {
+ public:
+ // All of these optional, just like in regular macro usage.
+ static void SetUpTestSuite() { ... }
+ static void TearDownTestSuite() { ... }
+ void SetUp() override { ... }
+ void TearDown() override { ... }
+};
+
+class MyTest : public MyFixture {
+ public:
+ explicit MyTest(int data) : data_(data) {}
+ void TestBody() override { ... }
+
+ private:
+ int data_;
+};
+
+void RegisterMyTests(const std::vector<int>& values) {
+ for (int v : values) {
+ testing::RegisterTest(
+ "MyFixture", ("Test" + std::to_string(v)).c_str(), nullptr,
+ std::to_string(v).c_str(),
+ __FILE__, __LINE__,
+ // Important to use the fixture type as the return type here.
+ [=]() -> MyFixture* { return new MyTest(v); });
+ }
+}
+...
+int main(int argc, char** argv) {
+ std::vector<int> values_to_test = LoadValuesFromConfig();
+ RegisterMyTests(values_to_test);
+ ...
+ return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
+}
+```
+## Getting the Current Test's Name
+
+Sometimes a function may need to know the name of the currently running test.
+For example, you may be using the `SetUp()` method of your test fixture to set
+the golden file name based on which test is running. The `::testing::TestInfo`
+class has this information:
+
+```c++
+namespace testing {
+
+class TestInfo {
+ public:
+ // Returns the test suite name and the test name, respectively.
+ //
+ // Do NOT delete or free the return value - it's managed by the
+ // TestInfo class.
+ const char* test_suite_name() const;
+ const char* name() const;
+};
+
+}
+```
+
+To obtain a `TestInfo` object for the currently running test, call
+`current_test_info()` on the `UnitTest` singleton object:
+
+```c++
+ // Gets information about the currently running test.
+ // Do NOT delete the returned object - it's managed by the UnitTest class.
+ const testing::TestInfo* const test_info =
+ testing::UnitTest::GetInstance()->current_test_info();
+
+ printf("We are in test %s of test suite %s.\n",
+ test_info->name(),
+ test_info->test_suite_name());
+```
+
+`current_test_info()` returns a null pointer if no test is running. In
+particular, you cannot find the test suite name in `SetUpTestSuite()`,
+`TearDownTestSuite()` (where you know the test suite name implicitly), or
+functions called from them.
+
+## Extending googletest by Handling Test Events
+
+googletest provides an **event listener API** to let you receive notifications
+about the progress of a test program and test failures. The events you can
+listen to include the start and end of the test program, a test suite, or a test
+method, among others. You may use this API to augment or replace the standard
+console output, replace the XML output, or provide a completely different form
+of output, such as a GUI or a database. You can also use test events as
+checkpoints to implement a resource leak checker, for example.
+
+### Defining Event Listeners
+
+To define a event listener, you subclass either testing::TestEventListener or
+testing::EmptyTestEventListener The former is an (abstract) interface, where
+*each pure virtual method can be overridden to handle a test event* (For
+example, when a test starts, the `OnTestStart()` method will be called.). The
+latter provides an empty implementation of all methods in the interface, such
+that a subclass only needs to override the methods it cares about.
+
+When an event is fired, its context is passed to the handler function as an
+argument. The following argument types are used:
+
+* UnitTest reflects the state of the entire test program,
+* TestSuite has information about a test suite, which can contain one or more
+ tests,
+* TestInfo contains the state of a test, and
+* TestPartResult represents the result of a test assertion.
+
+An event handler function can examine the argument it receives to find out
+interesting information about the event and the test program's state.
+
+Here's an example:
+
+```c++
+ class MinimalistPrinter : public testing::EmptyTestEventListener {
+ // Called before a test starts.
+ void OnTestStart(const testing::TestInfo& test_info) override {
+ printf("*** Test %s.%s starting.\n",
+ test_info.test_suite_name(), test_info.name());
+ }
+
+ // Called after a failed assertion or a SUCCESS().
+ void OnTestPartResult(const testing::TestPartResult& test_part_result) override {
+ printf("%s in %s:%d\n%s\n",
+ test_part_result.failed() ? "*** Failure" : "Success",
+ test_part_result.file_name(),
+ test_part_result.line_number(),
+ test_part_result.summary());
+ }
+
+ // Called after a test ends.
+ void OnTestEnd(const testing::TestInfo& test_info) override {
+ printf("*** Test %s.%s ending.\n",
+ test_info.test_suite_name(), test_info.name());
+ }
+ };
+```
+
+### Using Event Listeners
+
+To use the event listener you have defined, add an instance of it to the
+googletest event listener list (represented by class TestEventListeners - note
+the "s" at the end of the name) in your `main()` function, before calling
+`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`:
+
+```c++
+int main(int argc, char** argv) {
+ testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv);
+ // Gets hold of the event listener list.
+ testing::TestEventListeners& listeners =
+ testing::UnitTest::GetInstance()->listeners();
+ // Adds a listener to the end. googletest takes the ownership.
+ listeners.Append(new MinimalistPrinter);
+ return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
+}
+```
+
+There's only one problem: the default test result printer is still in effect, so
+its output will mingle with the output from your minimalist printer. To suppress
+the default printer, just release it from the event listener list and delete it.
+You can do so by adding one line:
+
+```c++
+ ...
+ delete listeners.Release(listeners.default_result_printer());
+ listeners.Append(new MinimalistPrinter);
+ return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
+```
+
+Now, sit back and enjoy a completely different output from your tests. For more
+details, see [sample9_unittest.cc].
+
+[sample9_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample9_unittest.cc "Event listener example"
+
+You may append more than one listener to the list. When an `On*Start()` or
+`OnTestPartResult()` event is fired, the listeners will receive it in the order
+they appear in the list (since new listeners are added to the end of the list,
+the default text printer and the default XML generator will receive the event
+first). An `On*End()` event will be received by the listeners in the *reverse*
+order. This allows output by listeners added later to be framed by output from
+listeners added earlier.
+
+### Generating Failures in Listeners
+
+You may use failure-raising macros (`EXPECT_*()`, `ASSERT_*()`, `FAIL()`, etc)
+when processing an event. There are some restrictions:
+
+1. You cannot generate any failure in `OnTestPartResult()` (otherwise it will
+ cause `OnTestPartResult()` to be called recursively).
+2. A listener that handles `OnTestPartResult()` is not allowed to generate any
+ failure.
+
+When you add listeners to the listener list, you should put listeners that
+handle `OnTestPartResult()` *before* listeners that can generate failures. This
+ensures that failures generated by the latter are attributed to the right test
+by the former.
+
+See [sample10_unittest.cc] for an example of a failure-raising listener.
+
+[sample10_unittest.cc]: https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample10_unittest.cc "Failure-raising listener example"
+
+## Running Test Programs: Advanced Options
+
+googletest test programs are ordinary executables. Once built, you can run them
+directly and affect their behavior via the following environment variables
+and/or command line flags. For the flags to work, your programs must call
+`::testing::InitGoogleTest()` before calling `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`.
+
+To see a list of supported flags and their usage, please run your test program
+with the `--help` flag. You can also use `-h`, `-?`, or `/?` for short.
+
+If an option is specified both by an environment variable and by a flag, the
+latter takes precedence.
+
+### Selecting Tests
+
+#### Listing Test Names
+
+Sometimes it is necessary to list the available tests in a program before
+running them so that a filter may be applied if needed. Including the flag
+`--gtest_list_tests` overrides all other flags and lists tests in the following
+format:
+
+```none
+TestSuite1.
+ TestName1
+ TestName2
+TestSuite2.
+ TestName
+```
+
+None of the tests listed are actually run if the flag is provided. There is no
+corresponding environment variable for this flag.
+
+#### Running a Subset of the Tests
+
+By default, a googletest program runs all tests the user has defined. Sometimes,
+you want to run only a subset of the tests (e.g. for debugging or quickly
+verifying a change). If you set the `GTEST_FILTER` environment variable or the
+`--gtest_filter` flag to a filter string, googletest will only run the tests
+whose full names (in the form of `TestSuiteName.TestName`) match the filter.
+
+The format of a filter is a '`:`'-separated list of wildcard patterns (called
+the *positive patterns*) optionally followed by a '`-`' and another
+'`:`'-separated pattern list (called the *negative patterns*). A test matches
+the filter if and only if it matches any of the positive patterns but does not
+match any of the negative patterns.
+
+A pattern may contain `'*'` (matches any string) or `'?'` (matches any single
+character). For convenience, the filter `'*-NegativePatterns'` can be also
+written as `'-NegativePatterns'`.
+
+For example:
+
+* `./foo_test` Has no flag, and thus runs all its tests.
+* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=*` Also runs everything, due to the single
+ match-everything `*` value.
+* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=FooTest.*` Runs everything in test suite
+ `FooTest` .
+* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=*Null*:*Constructor*` Runs any test whose full
+ name contains either `"Null"` or `"Constructor"` .
+* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=-*DeathTest.*` Runs all non-death tests.
+* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=FooTest.*-FooTest.Bar` Runs everything in test
+ suite `FooTest` except `FooTest.Bar`.
+* `./foo_test --gtest_filter=FooTest.*:BarTest.*-FooTest.Bar:BarTest.Foo` Runs
+ everything in test suite `FooTest` except `FooTest.Bar` and everything in
+ test suite `BarTest` except `BarTest.Foo`.
+
+#### Stop test execution upon first failure
+
+By default, a googletest program runs all tests the user has defined. In some
+cases (e.g. iterative test development & execution) it may be desirable stop
+test execution upon first failure (trading improved latency for completeness).
+If `GTEST_FAIL_FAST` environment variable or `--gtest_fail_fast` flag is set,
+the test runner will stop execution as soon as the first test failure is
+found.
+
+#### Temporarily Disabling Tests
+
+If you have a broken test that you cannot fix right away, you can add the
+`DISABLED_` prefix to its name. This will exclude it from execution. This is
+better than commenting out the code or using `#if 0`, as disabled tests are
+still compiled (and thus won't rot).
+
+If you need to disable all tests in a test suite, you can either add `DISABLED_`
+to the front of the name of each test, or alternatively add it to the front of
+the test suite name.
+
+For example, the following tests won't be run by googletest, even though they
+will still be compiled:
+
+```c++
+// Tests that Foo does Abc.
+TEST(FooTest, DISABLED_DoesAbc) { ... }
+
+class DISABLED_BarTest : public testing::Test { ... };
+
+// Tests that Bar does Xyz.
+TEST_F(DISABLED_BarTest, DoesXyz) { ... }
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: This feature should only be used for temporary pain-relief. You still have
+to fix the disabled tests at a later date. As a reminder, googletest will print
+a banner warning you if a test program contains any disabled tests.
+
+{: .callout .tip}
+TIP: You can easily count the number of disabled tests you have using
+`grep`. This number can be used as a metric for
+improving your test quality.
+
+#### Temporarily Enabling Disabled Tests
+
+To include disabled tests in test execution, just invoke the test program with
+the `--gtest_also_run_disabled_tests` flag or set the
+`GTEST_ALSO_RUN_DISABLED_TESTS` environment variable to a value other than `0`.
+You can combine this with the `--gtest_filter` flag to further select which
+disabled tests to run.
+
+### Repeating the Tests
+
+Once in a while you'll run into a test whose result is hit-or-miss. Perhaps it
+will fail only 1% of the time, making it rather hard to reproduce the bug under
+a debugger. This can be a major source of frustration.
+
+The `--gtest_repeat` flag allows you to repeat all (or selected) test methods in
+a program many times. Hopefully, a flaky test will eventually fail and give you
+a chance to debug. Here's how to use it:
+
+```none
+$ foo_test --gtest_repeat=1000
+Repeat foo_test 1000 times and don't stop at failures.
+
+$ foo_test --gtest_repeat=-1
+A negative count means repeating forever.
+
+$ foo_test --gtest_repeat=1000 --gtest_break_on_failure
+Repeat foo_test 1000 times, stopping at the first failure. This
+is especially useful when running under a debugger: when the test
+fails, it will drop into the debugger and you can then inspect
+variables and stacks.
+
+$ foo_test --gtest_repeat=1000 --gtest_filter=FooBar.*
+Repeat the tests whose name matches the filter 1000 times.
+```
+
+If your test program contains
+[global set-up/tear-down](#global-set-up-and-tear-down) code, it will be
+repeated in each iteration as well, as the flakiness may be in it. You can also
+specify the repeat count by setting the `GTEST_REPEAT` environment variable.
+
+### Shuffling the Tests
+
+You can specify the `--gtest_shuffle` flag (or set the `GTEST_SHUFFLE`
+environment variable to `1`) to run the tests in a program in a random order.
+This helps to reveal bad dependencies between tests.
+
+By default, googletest uses a random seed calculated from the current time.
+Therefore you'll get a different order every time. The console output includes
+the random seed value, such that you can reproduce an order-related test failure
+later. To specify the random seed explicitly, use the `--gtest_random_seed=SEED`
+flag (or set the `GTEST_RANDOM_SEED` environment variable), where `SEED` is an
+integer in the range [0, 99999]. The seed value 0 is special: it tells
+googletest to do the default behavior of calculating the seed from the current
+time.
+
+If you combine this with `--gtest_repeat=N`, googletest will pick a different
+random seed and re-shuffle the tests in each iteration.
+
+### Controlling Test Output
+
+#### Colored Terminal Output
+
+googletest can use colors in its terminal output to make it easier to spot the
+important information:
+
+<pre>...
+<font color="green">[----------]</font> 1 test from FooTest
+<font color="green">[ RUN ]</font> FooTest.DoesAbc
+<font color="green">[ OK ]</font> FooTest.DoesAbc
+<font color="green">[----------]</font> 2 tests from BarTest
+<font color="green">[ RUN ]</font> BarTest.HasXyzProperty
+<font color="green">[ OK ]</font> BarTest.HasXyzProperty
+<font color="green">[ RUN ]</font> BarTest.ReturnsTrueOnSuccess
+... some error messages ...
+<font color="red">[ FAILED ]</font> BarTest.ReturnsTrueOnSuccess
+...
+<font color="green">[==========]</font> 30 tests from 14 test suites ran.
+<font color="green">[ PASSED ]</font> 28 tests.
+<font color="red">[ FAILED ]</font> 2 tests, listed below:
+<font color="red">[ FAILED ]</font> BarTest.ReturnsTrueOnSuccess
+<font color="red">[ FAILED ]</font> AnotherTest.DoesXyz
+
+ 2 FAILED TESTS
+</pre>
+
+You can set the `GTEST_COLOR` environment variable or the `--gtest_color`
+command line flag to `yes`, `no`, or `auto` (the default) to enable colors,
+disable colors, or let googletest decide. When the value is `auto`, googletest
+will use colors if and only if the output goes to a terminal and (on non-Windows
+platforms) the `TERM` environment variable is set to `xterm` or `xterm-color`.
+
+#### Suppressing test passes
+
+By default, googletest prints 1 line of output for each test, indicating if it
+passed or failed. To show only test failures, run the test program with
+`--gtest_brief=1`, or set the GTEST_BRIEF environment variable to `1`.
+
+#### Suppressing the Elapsed Time
+
+By default, googletest prints the time it takes to run each test. To disable
+that, run the test program with the `--gtest_print_time=0` command line flag, or
+set the GTEST_PRINT_TIME environment variable to `0`.
+
+#### Suppressing UTF-8 Text Output
+
+In case of assertion failures, googletest prints expected and actual values of
+type `string` both as hex-encoded strings as well as in readable UTF-8 text if
+they contain valid non-ASCII UTF-8 characters. If you want to suppress the UTF-8
+text because, for example, you don't have an UTF-8 compatible output medium, run
+the test program with `--gtest_print_utf8=0` or set the `GTEST_PRINT_UTF8`
+environment variable to `0`.
+
+
+
+#### Generating an XML Report
+
+googletest can emit a detailed XML report to a file in addition to its normal
+textual output. The report contains the duration of each test, and thus can help
+you identify slow tests.
+
+To generate the XML report, set the `GTEST_OUTPUT` environment variable or the
+`--gtest_output` flag to the string `"xml:path_to_output_file"`, which will
+create the file at the given location. You can also just use the string `"xml"`,
+in which case the output can be found in the `test_detail.xml` file in the
+current directory.
+
+If you specify a directory (for example, `"xml:output/directory/"` on Linux or
+`"xml:output\directory\"` on Windows), googletest will create the XML file in
+that directory, named after the test executable (e.g. `foo_test.xml` for test
+program `foo_test` or `foo_test.exe`). If the file already exists (perhaps left
+over from a previous run), googletest will pick a different name (e.g.
+`foo_test_1.xml`) to avoid overwriting it.
+
+The report is based on the `junitreport` Ant task. Since that format was
+originally intended for Java, a little interpretation is required to make it
+apply to googletest tests, as shown here:
+
+```xml
+<testsuites name="AllTests" ...>
+ <testsuite name="test_case_name" ...>
+ <testcase name="test_name" ...>
+ <failure message="..."/>
+ <failure message="..."/>
+ <failure message="..."/>
+ </testcase>
+ </testsuite>
+</testsuites>
+```
+
+* The root `<testsuites>` element corresponds to the entire test program.
+* `<testsuite>` elements correspond to googletest test suites.
+* `<testcase>` elements correspond to googletest test functions.
+
+For instance, the following program
+
+```c++
+TEST(MathTest, Addition) { ... }
+TEST(MathTest, Subtraction) { ... }
+TEST(LogicTest, NonContradiction) { ... }
+```
+
+could generate this report:
+
+```xml
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+<testsuites tests="3" failures="1" errors="0" time="0.035" timestamp="2011-10-31T18:52:42" name="AllTests">
+ <testsuite name="MathTest" tests="2" failures="1" errors="0" time="0.015">
+ <testcase name="Addition" status="run" time="0.007" classname="">
+ <failure message="Value of: add(1, 1)
 Actual: 3
Expected: 2" type="">...</failure>
+ <failure message="Value of: add(1, -1)
 Actual: 1
Expected: 0" type="">...</failure>
+ </testcase>
+ <testcase name="Subtraction" status="run" time="0.005" classname="">
+ </testcase>
+ </testsuite>
+ <testsuite name="LogicTest" tests="1" failures="0" errors="0" time="0.005">
+ <testcase name="NonContradiction" status="run" time="0.005" classname="">
+ </testcase>
+ </testsuite>
+</testsuites>
+```
+
+Things to note:
+
+* The `tests` attribute of a `<testsuites>` or `<testsuite>` element tells how
+ many test functions the googletest program or test suite contains, while the
+ `failures` attribute tells how many of them failed.
+
+* The `time` attribute expresses the duration of the test, test suite, or
+ entire test program in seconds.
+
+* The `timestamp` attribute records the local date and time of the test
+ execution.
+
+* Each `<failure>` element corresponds to a single failed googletest
+ assertion.
+
+#### Generating a JSON Report
+
+googletest can also emit a JSON report as an alternative format to XML. To
+generate the JSON report, set the `GTEST_OUTPUT` environment variable or the
+`--gtest_output` flag to the string `"json:path_to_output_file"`, which will
+create the file at the given location. You can also just use the string
+`"json"`, in which case the output can be found in the `test_detail.json` file
+in the current directory.
+
+The report format conforms to the following JSON Schema:
+
+```json
+{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/schema#",
+ "type": "object",
+ "definitions": {
+ "TestCase": {
+ "type": "object",
+ "properties": {
+ "name": { "type": "string" },
+ "tests": { "type": "integer" },
+ "failures": { "type": "integer" },
+ "disabled": { "type": "integer" },
+ "time": { "type": "string" },
+ "testsuite": {
+ "type": "array",
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/definitions/TestInfo"
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ },
+ "TestInfo": {
+ "type": "object",
+ "properties": {
+ "name": { "type": "string" },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string",
+ "enum": ["RUN", "NOTRUN"]
+ },
+ "time": { "type": "string" },
+ "classname": { "type": "string" },
+ "failures": {
+ "type": "array",
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/definitions/Failure"
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ },
+ "Failure": {
+ "type": "object",
+ "properties": {
+ "failures": { "type": "string" },
+ "type": { "type": "string" }
+ }
+ }
+ },
+ "properties": {
+ "tests": { "type": "integer" },
+ "failures": { "type": "integer" },
+ "disabled": { "type": "integer" },
+ "errors": { "type": "integer" },
+ "timestamp": {
+ "type": "string",
+ "format": "date-time"
+ },
+ "time": { "type": "string" },
+ "name": { "type": "string" },
+ "testsuites": {
+ "type": "array",
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/definitions/TestCase"
+ }
+ }
+ }
+}
+```
+
+The report uses the format that conforms to the following Proto3 using the
+[JSON encoding](https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#json):
+
+```proto
+syntax = "proto3";
+
+package googletest;
+
+import "google/protobuf/timestamp.proto";
+import "google/protobuf/duration.proto";
+
+message UnitTest {
+ int32 tests = 1;
+ int32 failures = 2;
+ int32 disabled = 3;
+ int32 errors = 4;
+ google.protobuf.Timestamp timestamp = 5;
+ google.protobuf.Duration time = 6;
+ string name = 7;
+ repeated TestCase testsuites = 8;
+}
+
+message TestCase {
+ string name = 1;
+ int32 tests = 2;
+ int32 failures = 3;
+ int32 disabled = 4;
+ int32 errors = 5;
+ google.protobuf.Duration time = 6;
+ repeated TestInfo testsuite = 7;
+}
+
+message TestInfo {
+ string name = 1;
+ enum Status {
+ RUN = 0;
+ NOTRUN = 1;
+ }
+ Status status = 2;
+ google.protobuf.Duration time = 3;
+ string classname = 4;
+ message Failure {
+ string failures = 1;
+ string type = 2;
+ }
+ repeated Failure failures = 5;
+}
+```
+
+For instance, the following program
+
+```c++
+TEST(MathTest, Addition) { ... }
+TEST(MathTest, Subtraction) { ... }
+TEST(LogicTest, NonContradiction) { ... }
+```
+
+could generate this report:
+
+```json
+{
+ "tests": 3,
+ "failures": 1,
+ "errors": 0,
+ "time": "0.035s",
+ "timestamp": "2011-10-31T18:52:42Z",
+ "name": "AllTests",
+ "testsuites": [
+ {
+ "name": "MathTest",
+ "tests": 2,
+ "failures": 1,
+ "errors": 0,
+ "time": "0.015s",
+ "testsuite": [
+ {
+ "name": "Addition",
+ "status": "RUN",
+ "time": "0.007s",
+ "classname": "",
+ "failures": [
+ {
+ "message": "Value of: add(1, 1)\n Actual: 3\nExpected: 2",
+ "type": ""
+ },
+ {
+ "message": "Value of: add(1, -1)\n Actual: 1\nExpected: 0",
+ "type": ""
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "Subtraction",
+ "status": "RUN",
+ "time": "0.005s",
+ "classname": ""
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "LogicTest",
+ "tests": 1,
+ "failures": 0,
+ "errors": 0,
+ "time": "0.005s",
+ "testsuite": [
+ {
+ "name": "NonContradiction",
+ "status": "RUN",
+ "time": "0.005s",
+ "classname": ""
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ ]
+}
+```
+
+{: .callout .important}
+IMPORTANT: The exact format of the JSON document is subject to change.
+
+### Controlling How Failures Are Reported
+
+#### Detecting Test Premature Exit
+
+Google Test implements the _premature-exit-file_ protocol for test runners
+to catch any kind of unexpected exits of test programs. Upon start,
+Google Test creates the file which will be automatically deleted after
+all work has been finished. Then, the test runner can check if this file
+exists. In case the file remains undeleted, the inspected test has exited
+prematurely.
+
+This feature is enabled only if the `TEST_PREMATURE_EXIT_FILE` environment
+variable has been set.
+
+#### Turning Assertion Failures into Break-Points
+
+When running test programs under a debugger, it's very convenient if the
+debugger can catch an assertion failure and automatically drop into interactive
+mode. googletest's *break-on-failure* mode supports this behavior.
+
+To enable it, set the `GTEST_BREAK_ON_FAILURE` environment variable to a value
+other than `0`. Alternatively, you can use the `--gtest_break_on_failure`
+command line flag.
+
+#### Disabling Catching Test-Thrown Exceptions
+
+googletest can be used either with or without exceptions enabled. If a test
+throws a C++ exception or (on Windows) a structured exception (SEH), by default
+googletest catches it, reports it as a test failure, and continues with the next
+test method. This maximizes the coverage of a test run. Also, on Windows an
+uncaught exception will cause a pop-up window, so catching the exceptions allows
+you to run the tests automatically.
+
+When debugging the test failures, however, you may instead want the exceptions
+to be handled by the debugger, such that you can examine the call stack when an
+exception is thrown. To achieve that, set the `GTEST_CATCH_EXCEPTIONS`
+environment variable to `0`, or use the `--gtest_catch_exceptions=0` flag when
+running the tests.
+
+### Sanitizer Integration
+
+The
+[Undefined Behavior Sanitizer](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html),
+[Address Sanitizer](https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer),
+and
+[Thread Sanitizer](https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/ThreadSanitizerCppManual)
+all provide weak functions that you can override to trigger explicit failures
+when they detect sanitizer errors, such as creating a reference from `nullptr`.
+To override these functions, place definitions for them in a source file that
+you compile as part of your main binary:
+
+```
+extern "C" {
+void __ubsan_on_report() {
+ FAIL() << "Encountered an undefined behavior sanitizer error";
+}
+void __asan_on_error() {
+ FAIL() << "Encountered an address sanitizer error";
+}
+void __tsan_on_report() {
+ FAIL() << "Encountered a thread sanitizer error";
+}
+} // extern "C"
+```
+
+After compiling your project with one of the sanitizers enabled, if a particular
+test triggers a sanitizer error, googletest will report that it failed.
diff --git a/docs/assets/css/style.scss b/docs/assets/css/style.scss
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bb30f41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/assets/css/style.scss
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+---
+
+@import "jekyll-theme-primer";
+@import "main";
diff --git a/docs/community_created_documentation.md b/docs/community_created_documentation.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4569075
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/community_created_documentation.md
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Community-Created Documentation
+
+The following is a list, in no particular order, of links to documentation
+created by the Googletest community.
+
+* [Googlemock Insights](https://github.com/ElectricRCAircraftGuy/eRCaGuy_dotfiles/blob/master/googletest/insights.md),
+ by [ElectricRCAircraftGuy](https://github.com/ElectricRCAircraftGuy)
diff --git a/docs/faq.md b/docs/faq.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4071232
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/faq.md
@@ -0,0 +1,756 @@
+# Googletest FAQ
+
+## Why should test suite names and test names not contain underscore?
+
+{: .callout .note}
+Note: Googletest reserves underscore (`_`) for special purpose keywords, such as
+[the `DISABLED_` prefix](advanced.md#temporarily-disabling-tests), in addition
+to the following rationale.
+
+Underscore (`_`) is special, as C++ reserves the following to be used by the
+compiler and the standard library:
+
+1. any identifier that starts with an `_` followed by an upper-case letter, and
+2. any identifier that contains two consecutive underscores (i.e. `__`)
+ *anywhere* in its name.
+
+User code is *prohibited* from using such identifiers.
+
+Now let's look at what this means for `TEST` and `TEST_F`.
+
+Currently `TEST(TestSuiteName, TestName)` generates a class named
+`TestSuiteName_TestName_Test`. What happens if `TestSuiteName` or `TestName`
+contains `_`?
+
+1. If `TestSuiteName` starts with an `_` followed by an upper-case letter (say,
+ `_Foo`), we end up with `_Foo_TestName_Test`, which is reserved and thus
+ invalid.
+2. If `TestSuiteName` ends with an `_` (say, `Foo_`), we get
+ `Foo__TestName_Test`, which is invalid.
+3. If `TestName` starts with an `_` (say, `_Bar`), we get
+ `TestSuiteName__Bar_Test`, which is invalid.
+4. If `TestName` ends with an `_` (say, `Bar_`), we get
+ `TestSuiteName_Bar__Test`, which is invalid.
+
+So clearly `TestSuiteName` and `TestName` cannot start or end with `_`
+(Actually, `TestSuiteName` can start with `_` -- as long as the `_` isn't
+followed by an upper-case letter. But that's getting complicated. So for
+simplicity we just say that it cannot start with `_`.).
+
+It may seem fine for `TestSuiteName` and `TestName` to contain `_` in the
+middle. However, consider this:
+
+```c++
+TEST(Time, Flies_Like_An_Arrow) { ... }
+TEST(Time_Flies, Like_An_Arrow) { ... }
+```
+
+Now, the two `TEST`s will both generate the same class
+(`Time_Flies_Like_An_Arrow_Test`). That's not good.
+
+So for simplicity, we just ask the users to avoid `_` in `TestSuiteName` and
+`TestName`. The rule is more constraining than necessary, but it's simple and
+easy to remember. It also gives googletest some wiggle room in case its
+implementation needs to change in the future.
+
+If you violate the rule, there may not be immediate consequences, but your test
+may (just may) break with a new compiler (or a new version of the compiler you
+are using) or with a new version of googletest. Therefore it's best to follow
+the rule.
+
+## Why does googletest support `EXPECT_EQ(NULL, ptr)` and `ASSERT_EQ(NULL, ptr)` but not `EXPECT_NE(NULL, ptr)` and `ASSERT_NE(NULL, ptr)`?
+
+First of all, you can use `nullptr` with each of these macros, e.g.
+`EXPECT_EQ(ptr, nullptr)`, `EXPECT_NE(ptr, nullptr)`, `ASSERT_EQ(ptr, nullptr)`,
+`ASSERT_NE(ptr, nullptr)`. This is the preferred syntax in the style guide
+because `nullptr` does not have the type problems that `NULL` does.
+
+Due to some peculiarity of C++, it requires some non-trivial template meta
+programming tricks to support using `NULL` as an argument of the `EXPECT_XX()`
+and `ASSERT_XX()` macros. Therefore we only do it where it's most needed
+(otherwise we make the implementation of googletest harder to maintain and more
+error-prone than necessary).
+
+Historically, the `EXPECT_EQ()` macro took the *expected* value as its first
+argument and the *actual* value as the second, though this argument order is now
+discouraged. It was reasonable that someone wanted
+to write `EXPECT_EQ(NULL, some_expression)`, and this indeed was requested
+several times. Therefore we implemented it.
+
+The need for `EXPECT_NE(NULL, ptr)` wasn't nearly as strong. When the assertion
+fails, you already know that `ptr` must be `NULL`, so it doesn't add any
+information to print `ptr` in this case. That means `EXPECT_TRUE(ptr != NULL)`
+works just as well.
+
+If we were to support `EXPECT_NE(NULL, ptr)`, for consistency we'd have to
+support `EXPECT_NE(ptr, NULL)` as well. This means using the template meta
+programming tricks twice in the implementation, making it even harder to
+understand and maintain. We believe the benefit doesn't justify the cost.
+
+Finally, with the growth of the gMock matcher library, we are encouraging people
+to use the unified `EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher)` syntax more often in tests. One
+significant advantage of the matcher approach is that matchers can be easily
+combined to form new matchers, while the `EXPECT_NE`, etc, macros cannot be
+easily combined. Therefore we want to invest more in the matchers than in the
+`EXPECT_XX()` macros.
+
+## I need to test that different implementations of an interface satisfy some common requirements. Should I use typed tests or value-parameterized tests?
+
+For testing various implementations of the same interface, either typed tests or
+value-parameterized tests can get it done. It's really up to you the user to
+decide which is more convenient for you, depending on your particular case. Some
+rough guidelines:
+
+* Typed tests can be easier to write if instances of the different
+ implementations can be created the same way, modulo the type. For example,
+ if all these implementations have a public default constructor (such that
+ you can write `new TypeParam`), or if their factory functions have the same
+ form (e.g. `CreateInstance<TypeParam>()`).
+* Value-parameterized tests can be easier to write if you need different code
+ patterns to create different implementations' instances, e.g. `new Foo` vs
+ `new Bar(5)`. To accommodate for the differences, you can write factory
+ function wrappers and pass these function pointers to the tests as their
+ parameters.
+* When a typed test fails, the default output includes the name of the type,
+ which can help you quickly identify which implementation is wrong.
+ Value-parameterized tests only show the number of the failed iteration by
+ default. You will need to define a function that returns the iteration name
+ and pass it as the third parameter to INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P to have more
+ useful output.
+* When using typed tests, you need to make sure you are testing against the
+ interface type, not the concrete types (in other words, you want to make
+ sure `implicit_cast<MyInterface*>(my_concrete_impl)` works, not just that
+ `my_concrete_impl` works). It's less likely to make mistakes in this area
+ when using value-parameterized tests.
+
+I hope I didn't confuse you more. :-) If you don't mind, I'd suggest you to give
+both approaches a try. Practice is a much better way to grasp the subtle
+differences between the two tools. Once you have some concrete experience, you
+can much more easily decide which one to use the next time.
+
+## I got some run-time errors about invalid proto descriptors when using `ProtocolMessageEquals`. Help!
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**Note:** `ProtocolMessageEquals` and `ProtocolMessageEquiv` are *deprecated*
+now. Please use `EqualsProto`, etc instead.
+
+`ProtocolMessageEquals` and `ProtocolMessageEquiv` were redefined recently and
+are now less tolerant of invalid protocol buffer definitions. In particular, if
+you have a `foo.proto` that doesn't fully qualify the type of a protocol message
+it references (e.g. `message<Bar>` where it should be `message<blah.Bar>`), you
+will now get run-time errors like:
+
+```
+... descriptor.cc:...] Invalid proto descriptor for file "path/to/foo.proto":
+... descriptor.cc:...] blah.MyMessage.my_field: ".Bar" is not defined.
+```
+
+If you see this, your `.proto` file is broken and needs to be fixed by making
+the types fully qualified. The new definition of `ProtocolMessageEquals` and
+`ProtocolMessageEquiv` just happen to reveal your bug.
+
+## My death test modifies some state, but the change seems lost after the death test finishes. Why?
+
+Death tests (`EXPECT_DEATH`, etc) are executed in a sub-process s.t. the
+expected crash won't kill the test program (i.e. the parent process). As a
+result, any in-memory side effects they incur are observable in their respective
+sub-processes, but not in the parent process. You can think of them as running
+in a parallel universe, more or less.
+
+In particular, if you use mocking and the death test statement invokes some mock
+methods, the parent process will think the calls have never occurred. Therefore,
+you may want to move your `EXPECT_CALL` statements inside the `EXPECT_DEATH`
+macro.
+
+## EXPECT_EQ(htonl(blah), blah_blah) generates weird compiler errors in opt mode. Is this a googletest bug?
+
+Actually, the bug is in `htonl()`.
+
+According to `'man htonl'`, `htonl()` is a *function*, which means it's valid to
+use `htonl` as a function pointer. However, in opt mode `htonl()` is defined as
+a *macro*, which breaks this usage.
+
+Worse, the macro definition of `htonl()` uses a `gcc` extension and is *not*
+standard C++. That hacky implementation has some ad hoc limitations. In
+particular, it prevents you from writing `Foo<sizeof(htonl(x))>()`, where `Foo`
+is a template that has an integral argument.
+
+The implementation of `EXPECT_EQ(a, b)` uses `sizeof(... a ...)` inside a
+template argument, and thus doesn't compile in opt mode when `a` contains a call
+to `htonl()`. It is difficult to make `EXPECT_EQ` bypass the `htonl()` bug, as
+the solution must work with different compilers on various platforms.
+
+## The compiler complains about "undefined references" to some static const member variables, but I did define them in the class body. What's wrong?
+
+If your class has a static data member:
+
+```c++
+// foo.h
+class Foo {
+ ...
+ static const int kBar = 100;
+};
+```
+
+You also need to define it *outside* of the class body in `foo.cc`:
+
+```c++
+const int Foo::kBar; // No initializer here.
+```
+
+Otherwise your code is **invalid C++**, and may break in unexpected ways. In
+particular, using it in googletest comparison assertions (`EXPECT_EQ`, etc) will
+generate an "undefined reference" linker error. The fact that "it used to work"
+doesn't mean it's valid. It just means that you were lucky. :-)
+
+If the declaration of the static data member is `constexpr` then it is
+implicitly an `inline` definition, and a separate definition in `foo.cc` is not
+needed:
+
+```c++
+// foo.h
+class Foo {
+ ...
+ static constexpr int kBar = 100; // Defines kBar, no need to do it in foo.cc.
+};
+```
+
+## Can I derive a test fixture from another?
+
+Yes.
+
+Each test fixture has a corresponding and same named test suite. This means only
+one test suite can use a particular fixture. Sometimes, however, multiple test
+cases may want to use the same or slightly different fixtures. For example, you
+may want to make sure that all of a GUI library's test suites don't leak
+important system resources like fonts and brushes.
+
+In googletest, you share a fixture among test suites by putting the shared logic
+in a base test fixture, then deriving from that base a separate fixture for each
+test suite that wants to use this common logic. You then use `TEST_F()` to write
+tests using each derived fixture.
+
+Typically, your code looks like this:
+
+```c++
+// Defines a base test fixture.
+class BaseTest : public ::testing::Test {
+ protected:
+ ...
+};
+
+// Derives a fixture FooTest from BaseTest.
+class FooTest : public BaseTest {
+ protected:
+ void SetUp() override {
+ BaseTest::SetUp(); // Sets up the base fixture first.
+ ... additional set-up work ...
+ }
+
+ void TearDown() override {
+ ... clean-up work for FooTest ...
+ BaseTest::TearDown(); // Remember to tear down the base fixture
+ // after cleaning up FooTest!
+ }
+
+ ... functions and variables for FooTest ...
+};
+
+// Tests that use the fixture FooTest.
+TEST_F(FooTest, Bar) { ... }
+TEST_F(FooTest, Baz) { ... }
+
+... additional fixtures derived from BaseTest ...
+```
+
+If necessary, you can continue to derive test fixtures from a derived fixture.
+googletest has no limit on how deep the hierarchy can be.
+
+For a complete example using derived test fixtures, see
+[sample5_unittest.cc](https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample5_unittest.cc).
+
+## My compiler complains "void value not ignored as it ought to be." What does this mean?
+
+You're probably using an `ASSERT_*()` in a function that doesn't return `void`.
+`ASSERT_*()` can only be used in `void` functions, due to exceptions being
+disabled by our build system. Please see more details
+[here](advanced.md#assertion-placement).
+
+## My death test hangs (or seg-faults). How do I fix it?
+
+In googletest, death tests are run in a child process and the way they work is
+delicate. To write death tests you really need to understand how they work.
+Please make sure you have read [this](advanced.md#how-it-works).
+
+In particular, death tests don't like having multiple threads in the parent
+process. So the first thing you can try is to eliminate creating threads outside
+of `EXPECT_DEATH()`. For example, you may want to use mocks or fake objects
+instead of real ones in your tests.
+
+Sometimes this is impossible as some library you must use may be creating
+threads before `main()` is even reached. In this case, you can try to minimize
+the chance of conflicts by either moving as many activities as possible inside
+`EXPECT_DEATH()` (in the extreme case, you want to move everything inside), or
+leaving as few things as possible in it. Also, you can try to set the death test
+style to `"threadsafe"`, which is safer but slower, and see if it helps.
+
+If you go with thread-safe death tests, remember that they rerun the test
+program from the beginning in the child process. Therefore make sure your
+program can run side-by-side with itself and is deterministic.
+
+In the end, this boils down to good concurrent programming. You have to make
+sure that there are no race conditions or deadlocks in your program. No silver
+bullet - sorry!
+
+## Should I use the constructor/destructor of the test fixture or SetUp()/TearDown()? {#CtorVsSetUp}
+
+The first thing to remember is that googletest does **not** reuse the same test
+fixture object across multiple tests. For each `TEST_F`, googletest will create
+a **fresh** test fixture object, immediately call `SetUp()`, run the test body,
+call `TearDown()`, and then delete the test fixture object.
+
+When you need to write per-test set-up and tear-down logic, you have the choice
+between using the test fixture constructor/destructor or `SetUp()/TearDown()`.
+The former is usually preferred, as it has the following benefits:
+
+* By initializing a member variable in the constructor, we have the option to
+ make it `const`, which helps prevent accidental changes to its value and
+ makes the tests more obviously correct.
+* In case we need to subclass the test fixture class, the subclass'
+ constructor is guaranteed to call the base class' constructor *first*, and
+ the subclass' destructor is guaranteed to call the base class' destructor
+ *afterward*. With `SetUp()/TearDown()`, a subclass may make the mistake of
+ forgetting to call the base class' `SetUp()/TearDown()` or call them at the
+ wrong time.
+
+You may still want to use `SetUp()/TearDown()` in the following cases:
+
+* C++ does not allow virtual function calls in constructors and destructors.
+ You can call a method declared as virtual, but it will not use dynamic
+ dispatch, it will use the definition from the class the constructor of which
+ is currently executing. This is because calling a virtual method before the
+ derived class constructor has a chance to run is very dangerous - the
+ virtual method might operate on uninitialized data. Therefore, if you need
+ to call a method that will be overridden in a derived class, you have to use
+ `SetUp()/TearDown()`.
+* In the body of a constructor (or destructor), it's not possible to use the
+ `ASSERT_xx` macros. Therefore, if the set-up operation could cause a fatal
+ test failure that should prevent the test from running, it's necessary to
+ use `abort` and abort the whole test
+ executable, or to use `SetUp()` instead of a constructor.
+* If the tear-down operation could throw an exception, you must use
+ `TearDown()` as opposed to the destructor, as throwing in a destructor leads
+ to undefined behavior and usually will kill your program right away. Note
+ that many standard libraries (like STL) may throw when exceptions are
+ enabled in the compiler. Therefore you should prefer `TearDown()` if you
+ want to write portable tests that work with or without exceptions.
+* The googletest team is considering making the assertion macros throw on
+ platforms where exceptions are enabled (e.g. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux
+ client-side), which will eliminate the need for the user to propagate
+ failures from a subroutine to its caller. Therefore, you shouldn't use
+ googletest assertions in a destructor if your code could run on such a
+ platform.
+
+## The compiler complains "no matching function to call" when I use ASSERT_PRED*. How do I fix it?
+
+If the predicate function you use in `ASSERT_PRED*` or `EXPECT_PRED*` is
+overloaded or a template, the compiler will have trouble figuring out which
+overloaded version it should use. `ASSERT_PRED_FORMAT*` and
+`EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT*` don't have this problem.
+
+If you see this error, you might want to switch to
+`(ASSERT|EXPECT)_PRED_FORMAT*`, which will also give you a better failure
+message. If, however, that is not an option, you can resolve the problem by
+explicitly telling the compiler which version to pick.
+
+For example, suppose you have
+
+```c++
+bool IsPositive(int n) {
+ return n > 0;
+}
+
+bool IsPositive(double x) {
+ return x > 0;
+}
+```
+
+you will get a compiler error if you write
+
+```c++
+EXPECT_PRED1(IsPositive, 5);
+```
+
+However, this will work:
+
+```c++
+EXPECT_PRED1(static_cast<bool (*)(int)>(IsPositive), 5);
+```
+
+(The stuff inside the angled brackets for the `static_cast` operator is the type
+of the function pointer for the `int`-version of `IsPositive()`.)
+
+As another example, when you have a template function
+
+```c++
+template <typename T>
+bool IsNegative(T x) {
+ return x < 0;
+}
+```
+
+you can use it in a predicate assertion like this:
+
+```c++
+ASSERT_PRED1(IsNegative<int>, -5);
+```
+
+Things are more interesting if your template has more than one parameter. The
+following won't compile:
+
+```c++
+ASSERT_PRED2(GreaterThan<int, int>, 5, 0);
+```
+
+as the C++ pre-processor thinks you are giving `ASSERT_PRED2` 4 arguments, which
+is one more than expected. The workaround is to wrap the predicate function in
+parentheses:
+
+```c++
+ASSERT_PRED2((GreaterThan<int, int>), 5, 0);
+```
+
+## My compiler complains about "ignoring return value" when I call RUN_ALL_TESTS(). Why?
+
+Some people had been ignoring the return value of `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`. That is,
+instead of
+
+```c++
+ return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
+```
+
+they write
+
+```c++
+ RUN_ALL_TESTS();
+```
+
+This is **wrong and dangerous**. The testing services needs to see the return
+value of `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` in order to determine if a test has passed. If your
+`main()` function ignores it, your test will be considered successful even if it
+has a googletest assertion failure. Very bad.
+
+We have decided to fix this (thanks to Michael Chastain for the idea). Now, your
+code will no longer be able to ignore `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` when compiled with
+`gcc`. If you do so, you'll get a compiler error.
+
+If you see the compiler complaining about you ignoring the return value of
+`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`, the fix is simple: just make sure its value is used as the
+return value of `main()`.
+
+But how could we introduce a change that breaks existing tests? Well, in this
+case, the code was already broken in the first place, so we didn't break it. :-)
+
+## My compiler complains that a constructor (or destructor) cannot return a value. What's going on?
+
+Due to a peculiarity of C++, in order to support the syntax for streaming
+messages to an `ASSERT_*`, e.g.
+
+```c++
+ ASSERT_EQ(1, Foo()) << "blah blah" << foo;
+```
+
+we had to give up using `ASSERT*` and `FAIL*` (but not `EXPECT*` and
+`ADD_FAILURE*`) in constructors and destructors. The workaround is to move the
+content of your constructor/destructor to a private void member function, or
+switch to `EXPECT_*()` if that works. This
+[section](advanced.md#assertion-placement) in the user's guide explains it.
+
+## My SetUp() function is not called. Why?
+
+C++ is case-sensitive. Did you spell it as `Setup()`?
+
+Similarly, sometimes people spell `SetUpTestSuite()` as `SetupTestSuite()` and
+wonder why it's never called.
+
+
+## I have several test suites which share the same test fixture logic, do I have to define a new test fixture class for each of them? This seems pretty tedious.
+
+You don't have to. Instead of
+
+```c++
+class FooTest : public BaseTest {};
+
+TEST_F(FooTest, Abc) { ... }
+TEST_F(FooTest, Def) { ... }
+
+class BarTest : public BaseTest {};
+
+TEST_F(BarTest, Abc) { ... }
+TEST_F(BarTest, Def) { ... }
+```
+
+you can simply `typedef` the test fixtures:
+
+```c++
+typedef BaseTest FooTest;
+
+TEST_F(FooTest, Abc) { ... }
+TEST_F(FooTest, Def) { ... }
+
+typedef BaseTest BarTest;
+
+TEST_F(BarTest, Abc) { ... }
+TEST_F(BarTest, Def) { ... }
+```
+
+## googletest output is buried in a whole bunch of LOG messages. What do I do?
+
+The googletest output is meant to be a concise and human-friendly report. If
+your test generates textual output itself, it will mix with the googletest
+output, making it hard to read. However, there is an easy solution to this
+problem.
+
+Since `LOG` messages go to stderr, we decided to let googletest output go to
+stdout. This way, you can easily separate the two using redirection. For
+example:
+
+```shell
+$ ./my_test > gtest_output.txt
+```
+
+## Why should I prefer test fixtures over global variables?
+
+There are several good reasons:
+
+1. It's likely your test needs to change the states of its global variables.
+ This makes it difficult to keep side effects from escaping one test and
+ contaminating others, making debugging difficult. By using fixtures, each
+ test has a fresh set of variables that's different (but with the same
+ names). Thus, tests are kept independent of each other.
+2. Global variables pollute the global namespace.
+3. Test fixtures can be reused via subclassing, which cannot be done easily
+ with global variables. This is useful if many test suites have something in
+ common.
+
+## What can the statement argument in ASSERT_DEATH() be?
+
+`ASSERT_DEATH(statement, matcher)` (or any death assertion macro) can be used
+wherever *`statement`* is valid. So basically *`statement`* can be any C++
+statement that makes sense in the current context. In particular, it can
+reference global and/or local variables, and can be:
+
+* a simple function call (often the case),
+* a complex expression, or
+* a compound statement.
+
+Some examples are shown here:
+
+```c++
+// A death test can be a simple function call.
+TEST(MyDeathTest, FunctionCall) {
+ ASSERT_DEATH(Xyz(5), "Xyz failed");
+}
+
+// Or a complex expression that references variables and functions.
+TEST(MyDeathTest, ComplexExpression) {
+ const bool c = Condition();
+ ASSERT_DEATH((c ? Func1(0) : object2.Method("test")),
+ "(Func1|Method) failed");
+}
+
+// Death assertions can be used anywhere in a function. In
+// particular, they can be inside a loop.
+TEST(MyDeathTest, InsideLoop) {
+ // Verifies that Foo(0), Foo(1), ..., and Foo(4) all die.
+ for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
+ EXPECT_DEATH_M(Foo(i), "Foo has \\d+ errors",
+ ::testing::Message() << "where i is " << i);
+ }
+}
+
+// A death assertion can contain a compound statement.
+TEST(MyDeathTest, CompoundStatement) {
+ // Verifies that at lease one of Bar(0), Bar(1), ..., and
+ // Bar(4) dies.
+ ASSERT_DEATH({
+ for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
+ Bar(i);
+ }
+ },
+ "Bar has \\d+ errors");
+}
+```
+
+## I have a fixture class `FooTest`, but `TEST_F(FooTest, Bar)` gives me error ``"no matching function for call to `FooTest::FooTest()'"``. Why?
+
+Googletest needs to be able to create objects of your test fixture class, so it
+must have a default constructor. Normally the compiler will define one for you.
+However, there are cases where you have to define your own:
+
+* If you explicitly declare a non-default constructor for class `FooTest`
+ (`DISALLOW_EVIL_CONSTRUCTORS()` does this), then you need to define a
+ default constructor, even if it would be empty.
+* If `FooTest` has a const non-static data member, then you have to define the
+ default constructor *and* initialize the const member in the initializer
+ list of the constructor. (Early versions of `gcc` doesn't force you to
+ initialize the const member. It's a bug that has been fixed in `gcc 4`.)
+
+## Why does ASSERT_DEATH complain about previous threads that were already joined?
+
+With the Linux pthread library, there is no turning back once you cross the line
+from a single thread to multiple threads. The first time you create a thread, a
+manager thread is created in addition, so you get 3, not 2, threads. Later when
+the thread you create joins the main thread, the thread count decrements by 1,
+but the manager thread will never be killed, so you still have 2 threads, which
+means you cannot safely run a death test.
+
+The new NPTL thread library doesn't suffer from this problem, as it doesn't
+create a manager thread. However, if you don't control which machine your test
+runs on, you shouldn't depend on this.
+
+## Why does googletest require the entire test suite, instead of individual tests, to be named *DeathTest when it uses ASSERT_DEATH?
+
+googletest does not interleave tests from different test suites. That is, it
+runs all tests in one test suite first, and then runs all tests in the next test
+suite, and so on. googletest does this because it needs to set up a test suite
+before the first test in it is run, and tear it down afterwards. Splitting up
+the test case would require multiple set-up and tear-down processes, which is
+inefficient and makes the semantics unclean.
+
+If we were to determine the order of tests based on test name instead of test
+case name, then we would have a problem with the following situation:
+
+```c++
+TEST_F(FooTest, AbcDeathTest) { ... }
+TEST_F(FooTest, Uvw) { ... }
+
+TEST_F(BarTest, DefDeathTest) { ... }
+TEST_F(BarTest, Xyz) { ... }
+```
+
+Since `FooTest.AbcDeathTest` needs to run before `BarTest.Xyz`, and we don't
+interleave tests from different test suites, we need to run all tests in the
+`FooTest` case before running any test in the `BarTest` case. This contradicts
+with the requirement to run `BarTest.DefDeathTest` before `FooTest.Uvw`.
+
+## But I don't like calling my entire test suite \*DeathTest when it contains both death tests and non-death tests. What do I do?
+
+You don't have to, but if you like, you may split up the test suite into
+`FooTest` and `FooDeathTest`, where the names make it clear that they are
+related:
+
+```c++
+class FooTest : public ::testing::Test { ... };
+
+TEST_F(FooTest, Abc) { ... }
+TEST_F(FooTest, Def) { ... }
+
+using FooDeathTest = FooTest;
+
+TEST_F(FooDeathTest, Uvw) { ... EXPECT_DEATH(...) ... }
+TEST_F(FooDeathTest, Xyz) { ... ASSERT_DEATH(...) ... }
+```
+
+## googletest prints the LOG messages in a death test's child process only when the test fails. How can I see the LOG messages when the death test succeeds?
+
+Printing the LOG messages generated by the statement inside `EXPECT_DEATH()`
+makes it harder to search for real problems in the parent's log. Therefore,
+googletest only prints them when the death test has failed.
+
+If you really need to see such LOG messages, a workaround is to temporarily
+break the death test (e.g. by changing the regex pattern it is expected to
+match). Admittedly, this is a hack. We'll consider a more permanent solution
+after the fork-and-exec-style death tests are implemented.
+
+## The compiler complains about `no match for 'operator<<'` when I use an assertion. What gives?
+
+If you use a user-defined type `FooType` in an assertion, you must make sure
+there is an `std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream&, const FooType&)` function
+defined such that we can print a value of `FooType`.
+
+In addition, if `FooType` is declared in a name space, the `<<` operator also
+needs to be defined in the *same* name space. See
+[Tip of the Week #49](http://abseil.io/tips/49) for details.
+
+## How do I suppress the memory leak messages on Windows?
+
+Since the statically initialized googletest singleton requires allocations on
+the heap, the Visual C++ memory leak detector will report memory leaks at the
+end of the program run. The easiest way to avoid this is to use the
+`_CrtMemCheckpoint` and `_CrtMemDumpAllObjectsSince` calls to not report any
+statically initialized heap objects. See MSDN for more details and additional
+heap check/debug routines.
+
+## How can my code detect if it is running in a test?
+
+If you write code that sniffs whether it's running in a test and does different
+things accordingly, you are leaking test-only logic into production code and
+there is no easy way to ensure that the test-only code paths aren't run by
+mistake in production. Such cleverness also leads to
+[Heisenbugs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug). Therefore we strongly
+advise against the practice, and googletest doesn't provide a way to do it.
+
+In general, the recommended way to cause the code to behave differently under
+test is [Dependency Injection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection). You can inject
+different functionality from the test and from the production code. Since your
+production code doesn't link in the for-test logic at all (the
+[`testonly`](http://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/common-definitions.html#common.testonly) attribute for BUILD targets helps to ensure
+that), there is no danger in accidentally running it.
+
+However, if you *really*, *really*, *really* have no choice, and if you follow
+the rule of ending your test program names with `_test`, you can use the
+*horrible* hack of sniffing your executable name (`argv[0]` in `main()`) to know
+whether the code is under test.
+
+## How do I temporarily disable a test?
+
+If you have a broken test that you cannot fix right away, you can add the
+`DISABLED_` prefix to its name. This will exclude it from execution. This is
+better than commenting out the code or using `#if 0`, as disabled tests are
+still compiled (and thus won't rot).
+
+To include disabled tests in test execution, just invoke the test program with
+the `--gtest_also_run_disabled_tests` flag.
+
+## Is it OK if I have two separate `TEST(Foo, Bar)` test methods defined in different namespaces?
+
+Yes.
+
+The rule is **all test methods in the same test suite must use the same fixture
+class.** This means that the following is **allowed** because both tests use the
+same fixture class (`::testing::Test`).
+
+```c++
+namespace foo {
+TEST(CoolTest, DoSomething) {
+ SUCCEED();
+}
+} // namespace foo
+
+namespace bar {
+TEST(CoolTest, DoSomething) {
+ SUCCEED();
+}
+} // namespace bar
+```
+
+However, the following code is **not allowed** and will produce a runtime error
+from googletest because the test methods are using different test fixture
+classes with the same test suite name.
+
+```c++
+namespace foo {
+class CoolTest : public ::testing::Test {}; // Fixture foo::CoolTest
+TEST_F(CoolTest, DoSomething) {
+ SUCCEED();
+}
+} // namespace foo
+
+namespace bar {
+class CoolTest : public ::testing::Test {}; // Fixture: bar::CoolTest
+TEST_F(CoolTest, DoSomething) {
+ SUCCEED();
+}
+} // namespace bar
+```
diff --git a/docs/gmock_cheat_sheet.md b/docs/gmock_cheat_sheet.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cda9ddd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/gmock_cheat_sheet.md
@@ -0,0 +1,483 @@
+# gMock Cheat Sheet
+
+## Defining a Mock Class
+
+### Mocking a Normal Class {#MockClass}
+
+Given
+
+```cpp
+class Foo {
+ ...
+ virtual ~Foo();
+ virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
+ virtual string Describe(const char* name) = 0;
+ virtual string Describe(int type) = 0;
+ virtual bool Process(Bar elem, int count) = 0;
+};
+```
+
+(note that `~Foo()` **must** be virtual) we can define its mock as
+
+```cpp
+#include "gmock/gmock.h"
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (const, override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(string, Describe, (const char* name), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(string, Describe, (int type), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, Process, (Bar elem, int count), (override));
+};
+```
+
+To create a "nice" mock, which ignores all uninteresting calls, a "naggy" mock,
+which warns on all uninteresting calls, or a "strict" mock, which treats them as
+failures:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::NiceMock;
+using ::testing::NaggyMock;
+using ::testing::StrictMock;
+
+NiceMock<MockFoo> nice_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
+NaggyMock<MockFoo> naggy_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
+StrictMock<MockFoo> strict_foo; // The type is a subclass of MockFoo.
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**Note:** A mock object is currently naggy by default. We may make it nice by
+default in the future.
+
+### Mocking a Class Template {#MockTemplate}
+
+Class templates can be mocked just like any class.
+
+To mock
+
+```cpp
+template <typename Elem>
+class StackInterface {
+ ...
+ virtual ~StackInterface();
+ virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
+ virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0;
+};
+```
+
+(note that all member functions that are mocked, including `~StackInterface()`
+**must** be virtual).
+
+```cpp
+template <typename Elem>
+class MockStack : public StackInterface<Elem> {
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (const, override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
+};
+```
+
+### Specifying Calling Conventions for Mock Functions
+
+If your mock function doesn't use the default calling convention, you can
+specify it by adding `Calltype(convention)` to `MOCK_METHOD`'s 4th parameter.
+For example,
+
+```cpp
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int n), (Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)));
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, Bar, (double x, double y),
+ (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)));
+```
+
+where `STDMETHODCALLTYPE` is defined by `<objbase.h>` on Windows.
+
+## Using Mocks in Tests {#UsingMocks}
+
+The typical work flow is:
+
+1. Import the gMock names you need to use. All gMock symbols are in the
+ `testing` namespace unless they are macros or otherwise noted.
+2. Create the mock objects.
+3. Optionally, set the default actions of the mock objects.
+4. Set your expectations on the mock objects (How will they be called? What
+ will they do?).
+5. Exercise code that uses the mock objects; if necessary, check the result
+ using googletest assertions.
+6. When a mock object is destructed, gMock automatically verifies that all
+ expectations on it have been satisfied.
+
+Here's an example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return; // #1
+
+TEST(BarTest, DoesThis) {
+ MockFoo foo; // #2
+
+ ON_CALL(foo, GetSize()) // #3
+ .WillByDefault(Return(1));
+ // ... other default actions ...
+
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(5)) // #4
+ .Times(3)
+ .WillRepeatedly(Return("Category 5"));
+ // ... other expectations ...
+
+ EXPECT_EQ(MyProductionFunction(&foo), "good"); // #5
+} // #6
+```
+
+## Setting Default Actions {#OnCall}
+
+gMock has a **built-in default action** for any function that returns `void`,
+`bool`, a numeric value, or a pointer. In C++11, it will additionally returns
+the default-constructed value, if one exists for the given type.
+
+To customize the default action for functions with return type *`T`*:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::DefaultValue;
+
+// Sets the default value to be returned. T must be CopyConstructible.
+DefaultValue<T>::Set(value);
+// Sets a factory. Will be invoked on demand. T must be MoveConstructible.
+// T MakeT();
+DefaultValue<T>::SetFactory(&MakeT);
+// ... use the mocks ...
+// Resets the default value.
+DefaultValue<T>::Clear();
+```
+
+Example usage:
+
+```cpp
+ // Sets the default action for return type std::unique_ptr<Buzz> to
+ // creating a new Buzz every time.
+ DefaultValue<std::unique_ptr<Buzz>>::SetFactory(
+ [] { return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal); });
+
+ // When this fires, the default action of MakeBuzz() will run, which
+ // will return a new Buzz object.
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello")).Times(AnyNumber());
+
+ auto buzz1 = mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello");
+ auto buzz2 = mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello");
+ EXPECT_NE(buzz1, nullptr);
+ EXPECT_NE(buzz2, nullptr);
+ EXPECT_NE(buzz1, buzz2);
+
+ // Resets the default action for return type std::unique_ptr<Buzz>,
+ // to avoid interfere with other tests.
+ DefaultValue<std::unique_ptr<Buzz>>::Clear();
+```
+
+To customize the default action for a particular method of a specific mock
+object, use `ON_CALL()`. `ON_CALL()` has a similar syntax to `EXPECT_CALL()`,
+but it is used for setting default behaviors (when you do not require that the
+mock method is called). See [here](gmock_cook_book.md#UseOnCall) for a more
+detailed discussion.
+
+```cpp
+ON_CALL(mock-object, method(matchers))
+ .With(multi-argument-matcher) ?
+ .WillByDefault(action);
+```
+
+## Setting Expectations {#ExpectCall}
+
+`EXPECT_CALL()` sets **expectations** on a mock method (How will it be called?
+What will it do?):
+
+```cpp
+EXPECT_CALL(mock-object, method (matchers)?)
+ .With(multi-argument-matcher) ?
+ .Times(cardinality) ?
+ .InSequence(sequences) *
+ .After(expectations) *
+ .WillOnce(action) *
+ .WillRepeatedly(action) ?
+ .RetiresOnSaturation(); ?
+```
+
+For each item above, `?` means it can be used at most once, while `*` means it
+can be used any number of times.
+
+In order to pass, `EXPECT_CALL` must be used before the calls are actually made.
+
+The `(matchers)` is a comma-separated list of matchers that correspond to each
+of the arguments of `method`, and sets the expectation only for calls of
+`method` that matches all of the matchers.
+
+If `(matchers)` is omitted, the expectation is the same as if the matchers were
+set to anything matchers (for example, `(_, _, _, _)` for a four-arg method).
+
+If `Times()` is omitted, the cardinality is assumed to be:
+
+* `Times(1)` when there is neither `WillOnce()` nor `WillRepeatedly()`;
+* `Times(n)` when there are `n` `WillOnce()`s but no `WillRepeatedly()`, where
+ `n` >= 1; or
+* `Times(AtLeast(n))` when there are `n` `WillOnce()`s and a
+ `WillRepeatedly()`, where `n` >= 0.
+
+A method with no `EXPECT_CALL()` is free to be invoked *any number of times*,
+and the default action will be taken each time.
+
+## Matchers {#MatcherList}
+
+See the [Matchers Reference](reference/matchers.md).
+
+## Actions {#ActionList}
+
+**Actions** specify what a mock function should do when invoked.
+
+### Returning a Value
+
+| | |
+| :-------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------------- |
+| `Return()` | Return from a `void` mock function. |
+| `Return(value)` | Return `value`. If the type of `value` is different to the mock function's return type, `value` is converted to the latter type <i>at the time the expectation is set</i>, not when the action is executed. |
+| `ReturnArg<N>()` | Return the `N`-th (0-based) argument. |
+| `ReturnNew<T>(a1, ..., ak)` | Return `new T(a1, ..., ak)`; a different object is created each time. |
+| `ReturnNull()` | Return a null pointer. |
+| `ReturnPointee(ptr)` | Return the value pointed to by `ptr`. |
+| `ReturnRef(variable)` | Return a reference to `variable`. |
+| `ReturnRefOfCopy(value)` | Return a reference to a copy of `value`; the copy lives as long as the action. |
+| `ReturnRoundRobin({a1, ..., ak})` | Each call will return the next `ai` in the list, starting at the beginning when the end of the list is reached. |
+
+### Side Effects
+
+| | |
+| :--------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------- |
+| `Assign(&variable, value)` | Assign `value` to variable. |
+| `DeleteArg<N>()` | Delete the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a pointer. |
+| `SaveArg<N>(pointer)` | Save the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. |
+| `SaveArgPointee<N>(pointer)` | Save the value pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument to `*pointer`. |
+| `SetArgReferee<N>(value)` | Assign `value` to the variable referenced by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. |
+| `SetArgPointee<N>(value)` | Assign `value` to the variable pointed by the `N`-th (0-based) argument. |
+| `SetArgumentPointee<N>(value)` | Same as `SetArgPointee<N>(value)`. Deprecated. Will be removed in v1.7.0. |
+| `SetArrayArgument<N>(first, last)` | Copies the elements in source range [`first`, `last`) to the array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument, which can be either a pointer or an iterator. The action does not take ownership of the elements in the source range. |
+| `SetErrnoAndReturn(error, value)` | Set `errno` to `error` and return `value`. |
+| `Throw(exception)` | Throws the given exception, which can be any copyable value. Available since v1.1.0. |
+
+### Using a Function, Functor, or Lambda as an Action
+
+In the following, by "callable" we mean a free function, `std::function`,
+functor, or lambda.
+
+| | |
+| :---------------------------------- | :------------------------------------- |
+| `f` | Invoke f with the arguments passed to the mock function, where f is a callable. |
+| `Invoke(f)` | Invoke `f` with the arguments passed to the mock function, where `f` can be a global/static function or a functor. |
+| `Invoke(object_pointer, &class::method)` | Invoke the method on the object with the arguments passed to the mock function. |
+| `InvokeWithoutArgs(f)` | Invoke `f`, which can be a global/static function or a functor. `f` must take no arguments. |
+| `InvokeWithoutArgs(object_pointer, &class::method)` | Invoke the method on the object, which takes no arguments. |
+| `InvokeArgument<N>(arg1, arg2, ..., argk)` | Invoke the mock function's `N`-th (0-based) argument, which must be a function or a functor, with the `k` arguments. |
+
+The return value of the invoked function is used as the return value of the
+action.
+
+When defining a callable to be used with `Invoke*()`, you can declare any unused
+parameters as `Unused`:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+double Distance(Unused, double x, double y) { return sqrt(x*x + y*y); }
+...
+EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("Hi", _, _)).WillOnce(Invoke(Distance));
+```
+
+`Invoke(callback)` and `InvokeWithoutArgs(callback)` take ownership of
+`callback`, which must be permanent. The type of `callback` must be a base
+callback type instead of a derived one, e.g.
+
+```cpp
+ BlockingClosure* done = new BlockingClosure;
+ ... Invoke(done) ...; // This won't compile!
+
+ Closure* done2 = new BlockingClosure;
+ ... Invoke(done2) ...; // This works.
+```
+
+In `InvokeArgument<N>(...)`, if an argument needs to be passed by reference,
+wrap it inside `std::ref()`. For example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
+...
+InvokeArgument<2>(5, string("Hi"), std::ref(foo))
+```
+
+calls the mock function's #2 argument, passing to it `5` and `string("Hi")` by
+value, and `foo` by reference.
+
+### Default Action
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :------------ | :----------------------------------------------------- |
+| `DoDefault()` | Do the default action (specified by `ON_CALL()` or the built-in one). |
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**Note:** due to technical reasons, `DoDefault()` cannot be used inside a
+composite action - trying to do so will result in a run-time error.
+
+### Composite Actions
+
+| | |
+| :----------------------------- | :------------------------------------------ |
+| `DoAll(a1, a2, ..., an)` | Do all actions `a1` to `an` and return the result of `an` in each invocation. The first `n - 1` sub-actions must return void and will receive a readonly view of the arguments. |
+| `IgnoreResult(a)` | Perform action `a` and ignore its result. `a` must not return void. |
+| `WithArg<N>(a)` | Pass the `N`-th (0-based) argument of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. |
+| `WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(a)` | Pass the selected (0-based) arguments of the mock function to action `a` and perform it. |
+| `WithoutArgs(a)` | Perform action `a` without any arguments. |
+
+### Defining Actions
+
+| | |
+| :--------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------- |
+| `ACTION(Sum) { return arg0 + arg1; }` | Defines an action `Sum()` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and #1. |
+| `ACTION_P(Plus, n) { return arg0 + n; }` | Defines an action `Plus(n)` to return the sum of the mock function's argument #0 and `n`. |
+| `ACTION_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk) { statements; }` | Defines a parameterized action `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to execute the given `statements`. |
+
+The `ACTION*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class.
+
+## Cardinalities {#CardinalityList}
+
+These are used in `Times()` to specify how many times a mock function will be
+called:
+
+| | |
+| :---------------- | :----------------------------------------------------- |
+| `AnyNumber()` | The function can be called any number of times. |
+| `AtLeast(n)` | The call is expected at least `n` times. |
+| `AtMost(n)` | The call is expected at most `n` times. |
+| `Between(m, n)` | The call is expected between `m` and `n` (inclusive) times. |
+| `Exactly(n) or n` | The call is expected exactly `n` times. In particular, the call should never happen when `n` is 0. |
+
+## Expectation Order
+
+By default, the expectations can be matched in *any* order. If some or all
+expectations must be matched in a given order, there are two ways to specify it.
+They can be used either independently or together.
+
+### The After Clause {#AfterClause}
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Expectation;
+...
+Expectation init_x = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitX());
+Expectation init_y = EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitY());
+EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
+ .After(init_x, init_y);
+```
+
+says that `Bar()` can be called only after both `InitX()` and `InitY()` have
+been called.
+
+If you don't know how many pre-requisites an expectation has when you write it,
+you can use an `ExpectationSet` to collect them:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ExpectationSet;
+...
+ExpectationSet all_inits;
+for (int i = 0; i < element_count; i++) {
+ all_inits += EXPECT_CALL(foo, InitElement(i));
+}
+EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
+ .After(all_inits);
+```
+
+says that `Bar()` can be called only after all elements have been initialized
+(but we don't care about which elements get initialized before the others).
+
+Modifying an `ExpectationSet` after using it in an `.After()` doesn't affect the
+meaning of the `.After()`.
+
+### Sequences {#UsingSequences}
+
+When you have a long chain of sequential expectations, it's easier to specify
+the order using **sequences**, which don't require you to give each expectation
+in the chain a different name. *All expected calls* in the same sequence must
+occur in the order they are specified.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+using ::testing::Sequence;
+Sequence s1, s2;
+...
+EXPECT_CALL(foo, Reset())
+ .InSequence(s1, s2)
+ .WillOnce(Return(true));
+EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetSize())
+ .InSequence(s1)
+ .WillOnce(Return(1));
+EXPECT_CALL(foo, Describe(A<const char*>()))
+ .InSequence(s2)
+ .WillOnce(Return("dummy"));
+```
+
+says that `Reset()` must be called before *both* `GetSize()` *and* `Describe()`,
+and the latter two can occur in any order.
+
+To put many expectations in a sequence conveniently:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::InSequence;
+{
+ InSequence seq;
+
+ EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
+ EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
+ ...
+ EXPECT_CALL(...)...;
+}
+```
+
+says that all expected calls in the scope of `seq` must occur in strict order.
+The name `seq` is irrelevant.
+
+## Verifying and Resetting a Mock
+
+gMock will verify the expectations on a mock object when it is destructed, or
+you can do it earlier:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Mock;
+...
+// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj;
+// returns true if and only if successful.
+Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_obj);
+...
+// Verifies and removes the expectations on mock_obj;
+// also removes the default actions set by ON_CALL();
+// returns true if and only if successful.
+Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_obj);
+```
+
+You can also tell gMock that a mock object can be leaked and doesn't need to be
+verified:
+
+```cpp
+Mock::AllowLeak(&mock_obj);
+```
+
+## Mock Classes
+
+gMock defines a convenient mock class template
+
+```cpp
+class MockFunction<R(A1, ..., An)> {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(R, Call, (A1, ..., An));
+};
+```
+
+See this [recipe](gmock_cook_book.md#using-check-points) for one application of
+it.
+
+## Flags
+
+| Flag | Description |
+| :----------------------------- | :---------------------------------------- |
+| `--gmock_catch_leaked_mocks=0` | Don't report leaked mock objects as failures. |
+| `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL` | Sets the default verbosity level (`info`, `warning`, or `error`) of Google Mock messages. |
diff --git a/docs/gmock_cook_book.md b/docs/gmock_cook_book.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..891c35c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/gmock_cook_book.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4354 @@
+# gMock Cookbook
+
+You can find recipes for using gMock here. If you haven't yet, please read
+[the dummy guide](gmock_for_dummies.md) first to make sure you understand the
+basics.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**Note:** gMock lives in the `testing` name space. For readability, it is
+recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in your file before using the
+name `Foo` defined by gMock. We omit such `using` statements in this section for
+brevity, but you should do it in your own code.
+
+## Creating Mock Classes
+
+Mock classes are defined as normal classes, using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro to
+generate mocked methods. The macro gets 3 or 4 parameters:
+
+```cpp
+class MyMock {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args...));
+ MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args...), (Specs...));
+};
+```
+
+The first 3 parameters are simply the method declaration, split into 3 parts.
+The 4th parameter accepts a closed list of qualifiers, which affect the
+generated method:
+
+* **`const`** - Makes the mocked method a `const` method. Required if
+ overriding a `const` method.
+* **`override`** - Marks the method with `override`. Recommended if overriding
+ a `virtual` method.
+* **`noexcept`** - Marks the method with `noexcept`. Required if overriding a
+ `noexcept` method.
+* **`Calltype(...)`** - Sets the call type for the method (e.g. to
+ `STDMETHODCALLTYPE`), useful in Windows.
+* **`ref(...)`** - Marks the method with the reference qualification
+ specified. Required if overriding a method that has reference
+ qualifications. Eg `ref(&)` or `ref(&&)`.
+
+### Dealing with unprotected commas
+
+Unprotected commas, i.e. commas which are not surrounded by parentheses, prevent
+`MOCK_METHOD` from parsing its arguments correctly:
+
+{: .bad}
+```cpp
+class MockFoo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(std::pair<bool, int>, GetPair, ()); // Won't compile!
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (std::map<int, double>, bool)); // Won't compile!
+};
+```
+
+Solution 1 - wrap with parentheses:
+
+{: .good}
+```cpp
+class MockFoo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD((std::pair<bool, int>), GetPair, ());
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, ((std::map<int, double>), bool));
+};
+```
+
+Note that wrapping a return or argument type with parentheses is, in general,
+invalid C++. `MOCK_METHOD` removes the parentheses.
+
+Solution 2 - define an alias:
+
+{: .good}
+```cpp
+class MockFoo {
+ public:
+ using BoolAndInt = std::pair<bool, int>;
+ MOCK_METHOD(BoolAndInt, GetPair, ());
+ using MapIntDouble = std::map<int, double>;
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (MapIntDouble, bool));
+};
+```
+
+### 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:
+
+```cpp
+class Foo {
+ public:
+ ...
+ virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0;
+
+ protected:
+ virtual void Resume();
+
+ private:
+ virtual int GetTimeOut();
+};
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, Transform, (Gadget* g), (override));
+
+ // The following must be in the public section, even though the
+ // methods are protected or private in the base class.
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Resume, (), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, GetTimeOut, (), (override));
+};
+```
+
+### Mocking Overloaded Methods
+
+You can mock overloaded functions as usual. No special attention is required:
+
+```cpp
+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_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override));
+
+ MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
+};
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**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:
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ ...
+ using Foo::Add;
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
+ // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x);
+ ...
+};
+```
+
+### Mocking Class Templates
+
+You can mock class templates just like any class.
+
+```cpp
+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_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
+};
+```
+
+### Mocking Non-virtual Methods {#MockingNonVirtualMethods}
+
+gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in 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 (just don't add `override`):
+
+```cpp
+// 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_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
+ MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
+ ...
+};
+```
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
+tests.
+
+```cpp
+ MockPacketStream mock_stream;
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...;
+ .. set more expectations on mock_stream ...
+ PacketReader<MockPacketStream> reader(&mock_stream);
+ ... exercise reader ...
+```
+
+### Mocking Free Functions
+
+It is not possible to directly mock a free function (i.e. a C-style function or
+a static method). If you need to, you can 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:
+
+```cpp
+class FileInterface {
+ public:
+ ...
+ virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0;
+};
+
+class File : public FileInterface {
+ public:
+ ...
+ bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) override {
+ 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 like a lot of hassle, but in practice you often have multiple
+related functions that you can put in the same interface, so the per-function
+syntactic overhead will be much lower.
+
+If you are concerned about the performance overhead incurred by virtual
+functions, and profiling confirms your concern, you can combine this with the
+recipe for [mocking non-virtual methods](#MockingNonVirtualMethods).
+
+### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
+
+Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro
+[was introduced in 2018](https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/c5f08bf91944ce1b19bcf414fa1760e69d20afc2),
+mocks where created using a family of macros collectively called `MOCK_METHODn`.
+These macros are still supported, though migration to the new `MOCK_METHOD` is
+recommended.
+
+The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`:
+
+* The general structure is `MOCK_METHODn(MethodName, ReturnType(Args))`,
+ instead of `MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args))`.
+* The number `n` must equal the number of arguments.
+* When mocking a const method, one must use `MOCK_CONST_METHODn`.
+* When mocking a class template, the macro name must be suffixed with `_T`.
+* In order to specify the call type, the macro name must be suffixed with
+ `_WITH_CALLTYPE`, and the call type is the first macro argument.
+
+Old macros and their new equivalents:
+
+<table>
+ <tr><th colspan=2>Simple</th></tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Old</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>New</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr><th colspan=2>Const Method</th></tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Old</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>New</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr><th colspan=2>Method in a Class Template</th></tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Old</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD1_T(Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>New</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr><th colspan=2>Const Method in a Class Template</th></tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Old</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T(Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>New</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr><th colspan=2>Method with Call Type</th></tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Old</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>New</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr><th colspan=2>Const Method with Call Type</th></tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Old</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>New</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr><th colspan=2>Method with Call Type in a Class Template</th></tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Old</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>New</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+
+ <tr><th colspan=2>Const Method with Call Type in a Class Template</th></tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Old</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>New</td>
+ <td><code>MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))</code></td>
+ </tr>
+</table>
+
+### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
+
+If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, we say that it's an
+"uninteresting call", and the default action (which can be specified using
+`ON_CALL()`) of the method will be taken. Currently, an uninteresting call will
+also by default cause gMock to print a warning. (In the future, we might remove
+this warning by default.)
+
+However, sometimes you may want to ignore these uninteresting calls, and
+sometimes you may want to treat them as errors. gMock lets you make the decision
+on a per-mock-object basis.
+
+Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:
+
+```cpp
+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, you will get a
+warning. However, if you rewrite your test to use `NiceMock<MockFoo>` instead,
+you can suppress the warning:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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.
+}
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only affects *uninteresting* calls (calls of
+*methods* with no expectations); they do not affect *unexpected* calls (calls of
+methods with expectations, but they don't match). See
+[Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls](#uninteresting-vs-unexpected).
+
+There are some caveats though (sadly they are side effects of C++'s
+limitations):
+
+1. `NiceMock<MockFoo>` and `StrictMock<MockFoo>` only work for mock methods
+ defined using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro **directly** in the `MockFoo` class.
+ If a mock method is defined in a **base class** of `MockFoo`, the "nice" or
+ "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. In
+ particular, nesting `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` (e.g.
+ `NiceMock<StrictMock<MockFoo> >`) is **not** supported.
+2. `NiceMock<MockFoo>` and `StrictMock<MockFoo>` may not work correctly if the
+ destructor of `MockFoo` is not virtual. We would like to fix this, but it
+ requires cleaning up existing tests.
+
+Finally, you should be **very cautious** about when to use naggy or strict
+mocks, as they tend to make tests more brittle and harder to maintain. When you
+refactor your code without changing its externally visible behavior, ideally you
+shouldn't need to update any tests. If your code interacts with a naggy mock,
+however, you may start to get spammed with warnings as the result of your
+change. Worse, if your code interacts with a strict mock, your tests may start
+to fail and you'll be forced to fix them. Our general recommendation is to use
+nice mocks (not yet the default) most of the time, use naggy mocks (the current
+default) when developing or debugging tests, and use strict mocks only as the
+last resort.
+
+### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
+
+Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
+For example:
+
+```cpp
+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 (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 redispatch the method in the mock class:
+
+```cpp
+class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink {
+ public:
+ ...
+ 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) override {
+ // 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_METHOD(void, Log,
+ (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 more user-friendly.
+
+This technique may also be applied to make overloaded methods more amenable to
+mocking. For example, when overloads have been used to implement default
+arguments:
+
+```cpp
+class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
+ public:
+ Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
+ Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
+
+ // the above methods delegate to this one:
+ MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
+};
+```
+
+This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
+argument matchers:
+
+```cpp
+ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
+ .WillByDefault(Return(MakeMockTurtle()));
+```
+
+### 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 of `Concrete` 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 of `Concrete`, and they will not be the
+ same code.
+* If enough projects want to use the same interface, they can always share it,
+ just like they have been sharing `Concrete`. You can check in the interface
+ and the adaptor somewhere near `Concrete` (perhaps in a `contrib`
+ sub-directory) and let many projects use it.
+
+You need to weigh the pros and cons carefully for your particular problem, but
+I'd like to assure you that the Java community has been practicing this for a
+long time and it's a proven effective technique applicable in a wide variety of
+situations. :-)
+
+### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
+
+Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
+example:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+ char DoThis(int n) override {
+ return (n > 0) ? '+' :
+ (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
+ }
+
+ void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
+ *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 gMock, you can have it delegate its default
+action to a fake class you already have, using this pattern:
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
+ MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
+
+ // 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([this](int n) {
+ return fake_.DoThis(n);
+ });
+ ON_CALL(*this, DoThat).WillByDefault([this](const char* s, int* p) {
+ fake_.DoThat(s, p);
+ });
+ }
+
+ 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.:
+
+```cpp
+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()`),
+ use [this technique](#SelectOverload); to disambiguate a fake function (the
+ one you place inside `Invoke()`), use a `static_cast` to specify the
+ function's type. For instance, if class `Foo` has methods `char DoThis(int
+ n)` and `bool DoThis(double x) const`, and you want to invoke the latter,
+ you need to write `Invoke(&fake_, static_cast<bool (FakeFoo::*)(double)
+ const>(&FakeFoo::DoThis))` instead of `Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)`
+ (The strange-looking thing inside the angled brackets of `static_cast` is
+ the type of a function pointer to the second `DoThis()` method.).
+
+* Having to mix a mock and a fake is often a sign of something gone wrong.
+ Perhaps you haven't got used to the interaction-based way of testing yet. Or
+ perhaps your interface is taking on too many roles and should be split up.
+ Therefore, **don't abuse this**. We would only recommend to do it as an
+ intermediate step when you are refactoring your code.
+
+Regarding the tip on mixing a mock and a fake, here's an example on why it may
+be a bad sign: Suppose you have a class `System` for low-level system
+operations. In particular, it does file and I/O operations. And suppose you want
+to test how your code uses `System` to do I/O, and you just want the file
+operations to work normally. If you mock out the entire `System` class, you'll
+have to provide a fake implementation for the file operation part, which
+suggests that `System` is taking on too many roles.
+
+Instead, you can define a `FileOps` interface and an `IOOps` interface and split
+`System`'s functionalities into the two. Then you can mock `IOOps` without
+mocking `FileOps`.
+
+### 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](#DelegatingToFake)
+technique, the difference being that we use a real object instead of a fake.
+Here's an example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AtLeast;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MockFoo() {
+ // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
+ ON_CALL(*this, DoThis).WillByDefault([this](int n) {
+ return real_.DoThis(n);
+ });
+ ON_CALL(*this, DoThat).WillByDefault([this](const char* s, int* p) {
+ real_.DoThat(s, p);
+ });
+ ...
+ }
+ MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, 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, gMock will verify that your code made the right calls (with the right
+arguments, in the right order, called the right number of times, etc), and a
+real object will answer the calls (so the behavior will be the same as in
+production). This gives you the best of both worlds.
+
+### 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:
+
+```cpp
+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_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
+ // Mocking a concrete method. Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
+};
+```
+
+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).
+
+You can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by:
+
+```cpp
+...
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
+ return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
+ });
+```
+
+or tell the mock object that you don't want to mock `Concrete()`:
+
+```cpp
+...
+ ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) {
+ return foo.Foo::Concrete(str);
+ });
+```
+
+(Why don't we just write `{ return foo.Concrete(str); }`? If you do that,
+`MockFoo::Concrete()` will be called (and cause an infinite recursion) since
+`Foo::Concrete()` is virtual. That's just how C++ works.)
+
+## Using Matchers
+
+### Matching Argument Values Exactly
+
+You can specify exactly which arguments a mock method is expecting:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
+```
+
+### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
+
+You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
+`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
+
+```cpp
+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));
+```
+
+Matchers are function objects, and parametrized matchers can be composed just
+like any other function. However because their types can be long and rarely
+provide meaningful information, it can be easier to express them with C++14
+generic lambdas to avoid specifying types. For example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Contains;
+using ::testing::Property;
+
+inline constexpr auto HasFoo = [](const auto& f) {
+ return Property(&MyClass::foo, Contains(f));
+};
+...
+ EXPECT_THAT(x, HasFoo("blah"));
+```
+
+### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
+
+gMock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler can catch your
+mistake if you use a matcher of the wrong type (for example, if you use `Eq(5)`
+to match a `string` argument). Good for you!
+
+Sometimes, however, you know what you're doing and want the compiler to give you
+some slack. One example is that you have a matcher for `long` and the argument
+you want to match is `int`. While the two types aren't exactly the same, there
+is nothing really wrong with using a `Matcher<long>` to match an `int` - after
+all, we can first convert the `int` argument to a `long` losslessly before
+giving it to the matcher.
+
+To support this need, gMock gives you the `SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)` function. It
+casts a matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`. To ensure safety, gMock checks that
+(let `U` be the type `m` accepts :
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;
+
+// A base class and a child class.
+class Base { ... };
+class Derived : public Base { ... };
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
+};
+
+...
+ 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 {#SelectOverload}
+
+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.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ReturnRef;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
+};
+
+...
+ 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 gMock 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):
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::An;
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+using ::testing::TypedEq;
+
+class MockPrinter : public Printer {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
+};
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Ne;
+using ::testing::Lt;
+...
+ 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<std::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,
+
+```cpp
+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`. Note that in this example, it wasn't necessary specify the positional
+matchers.
+
+As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
+including the `Lt()` matcher above. See
+[Multi-argument Matchers](reference/matchers.md#MultiArgMatchers) 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 `std::tuple` as its argument; gMock 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 gMock
+matchers were 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,
+
+```cpp
+#include <algorithm>
+#include <vector>
+
+using ::testing::Matches;
+using ::testing::Ge;
+
+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 gMock, this
+gives you a way to conveniently construct composite predicates (doing the same
+using STL's `<functional>` header is just painful). For example, here's a
+predicate that's satisfied by any number that is >= 0, <= 100, and != 50:
+
+```cpp
+using testing::AllOf;
+using testing::Ge;
+using testing::Le;
+using testing::Matches;
+using testing::Ne;
+...
+Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
+```
+
+### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
+
+Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe
+themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in googletest assertions.
+It's called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`:
+
+```cpp
+ ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher); // Asserts that value matches matcher.
+ EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher); // The non-fatal version.
+```
+
+For example, in a googletest test you can write:
+
+```cpp
+#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:
+
+```cpp
+Value of: Foo()
+ Actual: "Hi, world!"
+Expected: starts with "Hello"
+```
+
+**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was borrowed from Joe Walnes'
+Hamcrest project, which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.
+
+### Using Predicates as Matchers
+
+gMock provides a set of built-in matchers for matching arguments with expected
+values—see the [Matchers Reference](reference/matchers.md) for more information.
+In case you find the built-in set lacking, you can use an arbitrary unary
+predicate function or functor as a matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a
+value of the type you want. You do this by wrapping the predicate inside the
+`Truly()` function, for example:
+
+```cpp
+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 in statement
+`if (condition) ...`.
+
+### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
+
+When you do an `EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar))`, gMock saves away a copy of
+`bar`. When `Foo()` is called later, gMock compares the argument to `Foo()` with
+the saved copy of `bar`. This way, you don't need to worry about `bar` being
+modified or destroyed after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. The same is true
+when you use matchers like `Eq(bar)`, `Le(bar)`, and so on.
+
+But what if `bar` cannot be copied (i.e. has no copy constructor)? You could
+define your own matcher function or callback and use it with `Truly()`, as the
+previous couple of recipes have shown. Or, you may be able to get away from it
+if you can guarantee that `bar` won't be changed after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is
+executed. Just tell gMock that it should save a reference to `bar`, instead of a
+copy of it. Here's how:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Eq;
+using ::testing::Lt;
+...
+ // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(std::ref(bar))));
+
+ // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(std::ref(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,
+
+```cpp
+Field(&Foo::bar, m)
+```
+
+is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies
+matcher `m`.
+
+```cpp
+Property(&Foo::baz, m)
+```
+
+is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value
+that satisfies matcher `m`.
+
+For example:
+
+| Expression | Description |
+| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
+| `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`. Don't use `Property()` against member functions that
+you do not own, because taking addresses of functions is fragile and generally
+not part of the contract of the function.
+
+`Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
+instance,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Field;
+using ::testing::Ge;
+...
+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 are [`AllOf()` and `AllOfArray()`](#CombiningMatchers).
+
+Finally `Field()` and `Property()` provide overloads that take the field or
+property names as the first argument to include it in the error message. This
+can be useful when creating combined matchers.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::Field;
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;
+
+Matcher<Foo> IsFoo(const Foo& foo) {
+ return AllOf(Field("some_field", &Foo::some_field, foo.some_field),
+ Field("other_field", &Foo::other_field, foo.other_field),
+ Field("last_field", &Foo::last_field, foo.last_field));
+}
+```
+
+### 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 value *pointed 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 if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer
+points to. For example:
+
+```cpp
+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
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::NotNull;
+using ::testing::Pointee;
+...
+ 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 (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, 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](#NewMatchers). 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 its `baz()` value is a given number. Here's
+how you can define a matcher to do it:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+
+class BarPlusBazEqMatcher {
+ public:
+ explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum)
+ : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {}
+
+ bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
+ std::ostream* /* listener */) const {
+ return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
+ }
+
+ void DescribeTo(std::ostream& os) const {
+ os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
+ }
+
+ void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream& os) const {
+ os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
+ }
+ private:
+ const int expected_sum_;
+};
+
+Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
+ return 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 write `Eq(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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::ElementsAre;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+...
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
+...
+ 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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
+...
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
+...
+ 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.
+
+As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use
+`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
+...
+ int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];
+ ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));
+```
+
+Use `Pair` when comparing maps or other associative containers.
+
+{% raw %}
+
+```cpp
+using testing::ElementsAre;
+using testing::Pair;
+...
+ std::map<string, int> m = {{"a", 1}, {"b", 2}, {"c", 3}};
+ EXPECT_THAT(m, ElementsAre(Pair("a", 1), Pair("b", 2), Pair("c", 3)));
+```
+
+{% endraw %}
+
+**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*()`. If you are using it
+ with containers whose element order are undefined (e.g. `hash_map`) you
+ should use `WhenSorted` around `ElementsAre`.
+
+### Sharing Matchers
+
+Under the hood, a gMock matcher object consists of a pointer to a ref-counted
+implementation object. Copying matchers is allowed and very efficient, as only
+the pointer is copied. When the last matcher that references the implementation
+object dies, the implementation object will be deleted.
+
+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,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+using ::testing::Le;
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+...
+ Matcher<int> in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10));
+ ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ...
+```
+
+### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
+
+{: .callout .warning}
+WARNING: gMock does not guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be
+invoked. Therefore, all matchers must be *purely functional*: they cannot have
+any side effects, and the match result must not depend on anything other than
+the matcher's parameters and the value being matched.
+
+This requirement must be satisfied no matter how a matcher is defined (e.g., if
+it is one of the standard matchers, or a custom matcher). In particular, a
+matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the
+mock object and gMock.
+
+## Setting Expectations
+
+### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
+
+**`ON_CALL`** is likely the *single most under-utilized construct* in gMock.
+
+There are basically two constructs for defining the behavior of a mock object:
+`ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL`. The difference? `ON_CALL` defines what happens when
+a mock method is called, but <em>doesn't imply any expectation on the method
+being called</em>. `EXPECT_CALL` not only defines the behavior, but also sets an
+expectation that <em>the method will be called with the given arguments, for the
+given number of times</em> (and *in the given order* when you specify the order
+too).
+
+Since `EXPECT_CALL` does more, isn't it better than `ON_CALL`? Not really. Every
+`EXPECT_CALL` adds a constraint on the behavior of the code under test. Having
+more constraints than necessary is *baaad* - even worse than not having enough
+constraints.
+
+This may be counter-intuitive. How could tests that verify more be worse than
+tests that verify less? Isn't verification the whole point of tests?
+
+The answer lies in *what* a test should verify. **A good test verifies the
+contract of the code.** If a test over-specifies, it doesn't leave enough
+freedom to the implementation. As a result, changing the implementation without
+breaking the contract (e.g. refactoring and optimization), which should be
+perfectly fine to do, can break such tests. Then you have to spend time fixing
+them, only to see them broken again the next time the implementation is changed.
+
+Keep in mind that one doesn't have to verify more than one property in one test.
+In fact, **it's a good style to verify only one thing in one test.** If you do
+that, a bug will likely break only one or two tests instead of dozens (which
+case would you rather debug?). If you are also in the habit of giving tests
+descriptive names that tell what they verify, you can often easily guess what's
+wrong just from the test log itself.
+
+So use `ON_CALL` by default, and only use `EXPECT_CALL` when you actually intend
+to verify that the call is made. For example, you may have a bunch of `ON_CALL`s
+in your test fixture to set the common mock behavior shared by all tests in the
+same group, and write (scarcely) different `EXPECT_CALL`s in different `TEST_F`s
+to verify different aspects of the code's behavior. Compared with the style
+where each `TEST` has many `EXPECT_CALL`s, this leads to tests that are more
+resilient to implementational changes (and thus less likely to require
+maintenance) and makes the intent of the tests more obvious (so they are easier
+to maintain when you do need to maintain them).
+
+If you are bothered by the "Uninteresting mock function call" message printed
+when a mock method without an `EXPECT_CALL` is called, you may use a `NiceMock`
+instead to suppress all such messages for the mock object, or suppress the
+message for specific methods by adding `EXPECT_CALL(...).Times(AnyNumber())`. DO
+NOT suppress it by blindly adding an `EXPECT_CALL(...)`, or you'll have a test
+that's a pain to maintain.
+
+### 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, gMock will
+perform its default action to allow the test program to continue. If you are not
+happy with the default action taken by gMock, you can override it using
+`DefaultValue<T>::Set()` (described [here](#DefaultValue)) or `ON_CALL()`.
+
+Please note that once you expressed interest in a particular mock method (via
+`EXPECT_CALL()`), all invocations to it must match some expectation. If this
+function is called but the arguments don't match any `EXPECT_CALL()` statement,
+it will be an error.
+
+### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
+
+If a mock method shouldn't be called at all, explicitly say so:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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.
+
+### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
+
+*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
+*Very* different.
+
+A call `x.Y(...)` is **uninteresting** if there's *not even a single*
+`EXPECT_CALL(x, Y(...))` set. In other words, the test isn't interested in the
+`x.Y()` method at all, as evident in that the test doesn't care to say anything
+about it.
+
+A call `x.Y(...)` is **unexpected** if there are *some* `EXPECT_CALL(x,
+Y(...))`s set, but none of them matches the call. Put another way, the test is
+interested in the `x.Y()` method (therefore it explicitly sets some
+`EXPECT_CALL` to verify how it's called); however, the verification fails as the
+test doesn't expect this particular call to happen.
+
+**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
+the way the test expects it to behave.
+
+**By default, an uninteresting call is not an error,** as it violates no
+constraint specified by the test. (gMock's philosophy is that saying nothing
+means there is no constraint.) However, it leads to a warning, as it *might*
+indicate a problem (e.g. the test author might have forgotten to specify a
+constraint).
+
+In gMock, `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` can be used to make a mock class "nice" or
+"strict". How does this affect uninteresting calls and unexpected calls?
+
+A **nice mock** suppresses uninteresting call *warnings*. It is less chatty than
+the default mock, but otherwise is the same. If a test fails with a default
+mock, it will also fail using a nice mock instead. And vice versa. Don't expect
+making a mock nice to change the test's result.
+
+A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
+mock strict may change the test's result.
+
+Let's look at an example:
+
+```cpp
+TEST(...) {
+ NiceMock<MockDomainRegistry> mock_registry;
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com"))
+ .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page"));
+
+ // Use mock_registry in code under test.
+ ... &mock_registry ...
+}
+```
+
+The sole `EXPECT_CALL` here says that all calls to `GetDomainOwner()` must have
+`"google.com"` as the argument. If `GetDomainOwner("yahoo.com")` is called, it
+will be an unexpected call, and thus an error. *Having a nice mock doesn't
+change the severity of an unexpected call.*
+
+So how do we tell gMock that `GetDomainOwner()` can be called with some other
+arguments as well? The standard technique is to add a "catch all" `EXPECT_CALL`:
+
+```cpp
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner(_))
+ .Times(AnyNumber()); // catches all other calls to this method.
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com"))
+ .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page"));
+```
+
+Remember that `_` is the wildcard matcher that matches anything. With this, if
+`GetDomainOwner("google.com")` is called, it will do what the second
+`EXPECT_CALL` says; if it is called with a different argument, it will do what
+the first `EXPECT_CALL` says.
+
+Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
+`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
+
+For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
+["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
+
+### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
+
+If your test doesn't care about the parameters (it only cares about the number
+or order of calls), you can often simply omit the parameter list:
+
+```cpp
+ // Expect foo.Bar( ... ) twice with any arguments.
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar).Times(2);
+
+ // Delegate to the given method whenever the factory is invoked.
+ ON_CALL(foo_factory, MakeFoo)
+ .WillByDefault(&BuildFooForTest);
+```
+
+This functionality is only available when a method is not overloaded; to prevent
+unexpected behavior it is a compilation error to try to set an expectation on a
+method where the specific overload is ambiguous. You can work around this by
+supplying a [simpler mock interface](#SimplerInterfaces) than the mocked class
+provides.
+
+This pattern is also useful when the arguments are interesting, but match logic
+is substantially complex. You can leave the argument list unspecified and use
+SaveArg actions to [save the values for later verification](#SaveArgVerify). If
+you do that, you can easily differentiate calling the method the wrong number of
+times from calling it with the wrong arguments.
+
+### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
+
+Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined later takes precedence when gMock
+tries to match a function call with an expectation, by default calls don't have
+to happen in the order `EXPECT_CALL()` statements are written. For example, if
+the arguments match the matchers in the second `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those in
+the first and third, then the second 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`:
+
+```cpp
+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, gMock will report an
+error.
+
+### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
+
+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.
+
+gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
+calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the
+[After](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#AfterClause) 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 original 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,
+
+```cpp
+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`):
+
+```text
+ +---> 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, gMock only considers expectations that are still
+active. An expectation is active when created, and becomes inactive (aka
+*retires*) when a call that has to occur later has occurred. For example, in
+
+```cpp
+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,
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ReturnRef;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
+};
+...
+ 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*.). Use either `ReturnRef()` or `ReturnPointee()` for this
+purpose.
+
+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, gMock doesn't let you use `ReturnRef()` in a mock function
+whose return type is not a reference, as doing that usually indicates a user
+error. So, what shall you do?
+
+Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `std::ref()`:
+
+```cpp
+using testing::Return;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
+};
+...
+ int x = 0;
+ MockFoo foo;
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
+ .WillRepeatedly(Return(std::ref(x))); // Wrong!
+ x = 42;
+ EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
+```
+
+Unfortunately, it doesn't work here. The above code will fail with error:
+
+```text
+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,
+`std::ref(x)` is converted to an `int` value (instead of a `const int&`) when
+the expectation is set, and `Return(std::ref(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*:
+
+```cpp
+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.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::DoAll;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
+};
+...
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
+ .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
+ action_2,
+ ...
+ action_n));
+```
+
+### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
+
+If you want to verify that a method is called with a particular argument but the
+match criteria is complex, it can be difficult to distinguish between
+cardinality failures (calling the method the wrong number of times) and argument
+match failures. Similarly, if you are matching multiple parameters, it may not
+be easy to distinguishing which argument failed to match. For example:
+
+```cpp
+ // Not ideal: this could fail because of a problem with arg1 or arg2, or maybe
+ // just the method wasn't called.
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, SendValues(_, ElementsAre(1, 4, 4, 7), EqualsProto( ... )));
+```
+
+You can instead save the arguments and test them individually:
+
+```cpp
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, SendValues)
+ .WillOnce(DoAll(SaveArg<1>(&actual_array), SaveArg<2>(&actual_proto)));
+ ... run the test
+ EXPECT_THAT(actual_array, ElementsAre(1, 4, 4, 7));
+ EXPECT_THAT(actual_proto, EqualsProto( ... ));
+```
+
+### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
+
+class MockMutator : public Mutator {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
+ ...
+}
+...
+ 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()`, remembering to put the
+`Return()` statement last:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Return;
+using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
+
+class MockMutator : public Mutator {
+ public:
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
+}
+...
+ MockMutator mutator;
+ EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
+ .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
+ Return(true)));
+```
+
+Note, however, that if you use the `ReturnOKWith()` method, it will override the
+values provided by `SetArgPointee()` in the response parameters of your function
+call.
+
+If the output argument is an array, use the `SetArrayArgument<N>(first, last)`
+action instead. It copies the elements in source range `[first, last)` to the
+array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::NotNull;
+using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
+
+class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
+ ...
+}
+...
+ 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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
+
+class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
+ (override));
+ ...
+}
+...
+ 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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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 {#DefaultValue}
+
+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 gMock doesn't know about. You can do this using the
+`::testing::DefaultValue` class template:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::DefaultValue;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
+};
+
+
+...
+ 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 your tests hard
+to understand. We recommend you to use this feature judiciously. For example,
+you may want to make sure the `Set()` and `Clear()` calls are right next to the
+code that uses your mock.
+
+### 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:
+
+```cpp
+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 newer ones in the order take precedence over the older ones. In other words,
+the **last** one that matches the function arguments will be used. This matching
+order allows you to set up the common behavior in a mock object's constructor or
+the test fixture's set-up phase and specialize the mock's behavior later.
+
+Note that both `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` have the same "later statements take
+precedence" rule, but they don't interact. That is, `EXPECT_CALL`s have their
+own precedence order distinct from the `ON_CALL` precedence order.
+
+### 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.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override));
+};
+
+int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
+int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; }
+
+class Helper {
+ public:
+ bool ComplexJob(int x);
+};
+
+...
+ MockFoo foo;
+ Helper helper;
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))
+ .WillOnce(&CalculateSum)
+ .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).
+ foo.Sum(2, 3); // Invokes Sum3(1, 2, 3).
+ foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10).
+ foo.ComplexJob(-1); // Invokes the inline lambda.
+```
+
+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 (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 that:
+
+* The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the
+ action itself is destructed.
+* If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need
+ to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g.
+
+ ```cpp
+ using ::testing::Invoke;
+ ...
+ ResultCallback<bool>* is_ok = ...;
+ ... Invoke(is_ok) ...; // This works.
+
+ BlockingClosure* done = new BlockingClosure;
+ ... Invoke(implicit_cast<Closure*>(done)) ...; // The cast is necessary.
+ ```
+
+### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
+
+The function or functor you call using `Invoke()` must have the same number of
+arguments as the mock function you use it for. Sometimes you may have a function
+that takes more arguments, and you are willing to pass in the extra arguments
+yourself to fill the gap. You can do this in gMock using callbacks with
+pre-bound arguments. Here's an example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
+};
+
+char SignOfSum(int x, int y) {
+ const int sum = x + y;
+ return (sum > 0) ? '+' : (sum < 0) ? '-' : '0';
+}
+
+TEST_F(FooTest, Test) {
+ MockFoo foo;
+
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(2))
+ .WillOnce(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(SignOfSum, 5)));
+ EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(2)); // Invokes SignOfSum(5, 2).
+}
+```
+
+### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
+
+`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. 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.
+
+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::_;
+using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override));
+};
+
+bool Job1() { ... }
+bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
+
+...
+ MockFoo foo;
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
+ .WillOnce([] { Job1(); });
+ .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
+
+ foo.ComplexJob(10); // Invokes Job1().
+ foo.ComplexJob(20); // Invokes Job2(5, 'a').
+```
+
+Note that:
+
+* The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the
+ action itself is destructed.
+* If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need
+ to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g.
+
+ ```cpp
+ using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;
+ ...
+ ResultCallback<bool>* is_ok = ...;
+ ... InvokeWithoutArgs(is_ok) ...; // This works.
+
+ BlockingClosure* done = ...;
+ ... InvokeWithoutArgs(implicit_cast<Closure*>(done)) ...;
+ // The cast is necessary.
+ ```
+
+### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
+
+Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other
+words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g.
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1<bool, int>* callback)),
+ (override));
+};
+```
+
+and you may want to invoke this callable argument:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+ MockFoo foo;
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
+ .WillOnce(...);
+ // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
+ // second argument DoThis() receives.
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: The section below is legacy documentation from before C++ had lambdas:
+
+Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but C++ has no lambda
+(yet), so you have to define your own action. :-( Or do you really?
+
+Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
+
+```cpp
+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, a functor, or a callback. gMock handles them all.
+
+With that, you could write:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
+...
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
+ .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
+ // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
+ // second argument DoThis() receives.
+```
+
+What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
+inside `std::ref()`:
+
+```cpp
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
+ ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
+ (override));
+ ...
+ using ::testing::_;
+ using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
+ ...
+ MockFoo foo;
+ Helper helper;
+ ...
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
+ .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, std::ref(helper)));
+ // std::ref(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of
+ // it, will be passed to the callback.
+```
+
+What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
+argument in `std::ref()`? 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:
+
+```cpp
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
+ (override));
+ ...
+ 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 in `DoAll()` and it's not the last in the
+list). `IgnoreResult()` lets you do that. For example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::DoAll;
+using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
+using ::testing::Return;
+
+int Process(const MyData& data);
+string DoSomething();
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
+};
+
+ ...
+ 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(Process));
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
+ .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(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 {#SelectingArgs}
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+...
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo,
+ (bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y,
+ (const map<pair<int, int>>), double& weight, double min_weight,
+ double max_wight));
+...
+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 need to define an "adaptor" that has the same
+signature as `Foo()` and calls the custom action with the right arguments:
+
+```cpp
+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?
+
+gMock provides a generic *action adaptor*, so you can spend your time minding
+more important business than writing your own adaptors. Here's the syntax:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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, gMock 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(Invoke(...))`.
+
+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](#SelectingArgs) recipe showed us one way
+to make a mock function and an action with incompatible argument lists fit
+together. The downside is that wrapping the action in `WithArgs<...>()` can get
+tedious for people writing the tests.
+
+If you are defining a function (or method, functor, lambda, callback) to be used
+with `Invoke*()`, and you are not interested in some of its arguments, an
+alternative to `WithArgs` is to declare the uninteresting arguments as `Unused`.
+This makes the definition less cluttered and less fragile in case the types of
+the uninteresting arguments change. It could also increase the chance the action
+function can be reused. For example, given
+
+```cpp
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(double, Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y),
+ (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(double, Bar, (int index, double x, double y), (override));
+```
+
+instead of
+
+```cpp
+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);
+}
+...
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
+ .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
+ .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
+```
+
+you could write
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+using ::testing::Unused;
+
+double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
+ return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
+}
+...
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
+ .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
+ .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
+```
+
+### Sharing Actions
+
+Just like matchers, a gMock action object consists of a pointer to a ref-counted
+implementation object. Therefore copying actions is also allowed and very
+efficient. When the last action that references the implementation object dies,
+the implementation object will be deleted.
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Action;
+using ::testing::DoAll;
+using ::testing::Return;
+using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
+...
+ 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 exhibit different behaviors. Example:
+
+```cpp
+ 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
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Action;
+...
+ 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.
+```
+
+### Testing Asynchronous Behavior
+
+One oft-encountered problem with gMock is that it can be hard to test
+asynchronous behavior. Suppose you had a `EventQueue` class that you wanted to
+test, and you created a separate `EventDispatcher` interface so that you could
+easily mock it out. However, the implementation of the class fired all the
+events on a background thread, which made test timings difficult. You could just
+insert `sleep()` statements and hope for the best, but that makes your test
+behavior nondeterministic. A better way is to use gMock actions and
+`Notification` objects to force your asynchronous test to behave synchronously.
+
+```cpp
+class MockEventDispatcher : public EventDispatcher {
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, DispatchEvent, (int32), (override));
+};
+
+TEST(EventQueueTest, EnqueueEventTest) {
+ MockEventDispatcher mock_event_dispatcher;
+ EventQueue event_queue(&mock_event_dispatcher);
+
+ const int32 kEventId = 321;
+ absl::Notification done;
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_event_dispatcher, DispatchEvent(kEventId))
+ .WillOnce([&done] { done.Notify(); });
+
+ event_queue.EnqueueEvent(kEventId);
+ done.WaitForNotification();
+}
+```
+
+In the example above, we set our normal gMock expectations, but then add an
+additional action to notify the `Notification` object. Now we can just call
+`Notification::WaitForNotification()` in the main thread to wait for the
+asynchronous call to finish. After that, our test suite is complete and we can
+safely exit.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+Note: this example has a downside: namely, if the expectation is not satisfied,
+our test will run forever. It will eventually time-out and fail, but it will
+take longer and be slightly harder to debug. To alleviate this problem, you can
+use `WaitForNotificationWithTimeout(ms)` instead of `WaitForNotification()`.
+
+## Misc Recipes on Using gMock
+
+### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types
+
+C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from
+one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr<T>` is probably
+the most commonly used move-only type.
+
+Mocking a method that takes and/or returns move-only types presents some
+challenges, but nothing insurmountable. This recipe shows you how you can do it.
+Note that the support for move-only method arguments was only introduced to
+gMock in April 2017; in older code, you may find more complex
+[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature.
+
+Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
+snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
+
+```cpp
+enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic };
+
+class Buzz {
+ public:
+ explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... }
+ ...
+};
+
+class Buzzer {
+ public:
+ virtual ~Buzzer() {}
+ virtual std::unique_ptr<Buzz> MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0;
+ virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0;
+ ...
+};
+```
+
+A `Buzz` object represents a snippet being posted. A class that implements the
+`Buzzer` interface is capable of creating and sharing `Buzz`es. Methods in
+`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr<Buzz>` or take a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`. Now we
+need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests.
+
+To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the
+familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual:
+
+```cpp
+class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr<Buzz>, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp),
+ (override));
+};
+```
+
+Now that we have the mock class defined, we can use it in tests. In the
+following code examples, we assume that we have defined a `MockBuzzer` object
+named `mock_buzzer_`:
+
+```cpp
+ MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
+```
+
+First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which
+returns a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`.
+
+As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or
+`.WillRepeatedly()` clause), when that expectation fires, the default action for
+that method will be taken. Since `unique_ptr<>` has a default constructor that
+returns a null `unique_ptr`, that’s what you’ll get if you don’t specify an
+action:
+
+```cpp
+ // Use the default action.
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello"));
+
+ // Triggers the previous EXPECT_CALL.
+ EXPECT_EQ(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"));
+```
+
+If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
+[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
+
+If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
+`Return(ByMove(...))` action:
+
+```cpp
+ // When this fires, the unique_ptr<> specified by ByMove(...) will
+ // be returned.
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("world"))
+ .WillOnce(Return(ByMove(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal))));
+
+ EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("world"));
+```
+
+Note that `ByMove()` is essential here - if you drop it, the code won’t compile.
+
+Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is
+performed more than once (e.g. you write `...
+.WillRepeatedly(Return(ByMove(...)));`)? Come think of it, after the first time
+the action runs, the source value will be consumed (since it’s a move-only
+value), so the next time around, there’s no value to move from -- you’ll get a
+run-time error that `Return(ByMove(...))` can only be run once.
+
+If you need your mock method to do more than just moving a pre-defined value,
+remember that you can always use a lambda or a callable object, which can do
+pretty much anything you want:
+
+```cpp
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x"))
+ .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
+ return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
+ });
+
+ EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x"));
+ EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x"));
+```
+
+Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr<Buzz>` will be created
+and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`.
+
+That covers returning move-only values; but how do we work with methods
+accepting move-only arguments? The answer is that they work normally, although
+some actions will not compile when any of method's arguments are move-only. You
+can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions):
+
+```cpp
+ using ::testing::Unused;
+
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
+ 0);
+
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce(
+ [](std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; });
+ EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0));
+```
+
+Many built-in actions (`WithArgs`, `WithoutArgs`,`DeleteArg`, `SaveArg`, ...)
+could in principle support move-only arguments, but the support for this is not
+implemented yet. If this is blocking you, please file a bug.
+
+A few actions (e.g. `DoAll`) copy their arguments internally, so they can never
+work with non-copyable objects; you'll have to use functors instead.
+
+#### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly}
+
+Support for move-only function arguments was only introduced to gMock in April
+of 2017. In older code, you may encounter the following workaround for the lack
+of this feature (it is no longer necessary - we're including it just for
+reference):
+
+```cpp
+class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp));
+ bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Time timestamp) override {
+ return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp);
+ }
+};
+```
+
+The trick is to delegate the `ShareBuzz()` method to a mock method (let’s call
+it `DoShareBuzz()`) that does not take move-only parameters. Then, instead of
+setting expectations on `ShareBuzz()`, you set them on the `DoShareBuzz()` mock
+method:
+
+```cpp
+ MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _));
+
+ // When one calls ShareBuzz() on the MockBuzzer like this, the call is
+ // forwarded to DoShareBuzz(), which is mocked. Therefore this statement
+ // will trigger the above EXPECT_CALL.
+ mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal), 0);
+```
+
+### 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 `.cc`
+file. This way, even if you `#include` your mock class in N files, the compiler
+only needs to generate its constructor and destructor once, resulting in a much
+faster compilation.
+
+Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock
+class before applying this recipe:
+
+```cpp
+// 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_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
+ ... more mock methods ...
+};
+```
+
+After the change, it would look like:
+
+```cpp
+// File mock_foo.h.
+...
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.
+ MockFoo();
+ virtual ~MockFoo();
+
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
+ ... more mock methods ...
+};
+```
+
+and
+
+```cpp
+// File mock_foo.cc.
+#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 destroyed, your friendly mock object will automatically verify
+that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will generate googletest
+failures if not. This is convenient as it leaves you with one less thing to
+worry about. That is, unless you are not sure if your mock object will be
+destroyed.
+
+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 is not 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want to *force* gMock
+to verify a mock object before it is (hopefully) destructed. You can do this
+with `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)`:
+
+```cpp
+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.
+```
+
+{: .callout .tip}
+**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 {#UsingCheckPoints}
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+ 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:
+
+```cpp
+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](#OrderedCalls) 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_METHOD` macro doesn't
+work for it:
+
+```cpp
+MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ()); // 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:
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ ...
+ // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
+ ~MockFoo() override { 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:
+
+```cpp
+ 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 gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
+
+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 most programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something we need to
+pound on it from more than one thread. gMock works for this purpose too.
+
+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 together:
+
+* Execute your *test code* (as opposed to the code being tested) in *one*
+ thread. This makes your test easy to follow.
+* Obviously, you can do step #1 without locking.
+* When doing step #2 and #5, make sure no other thread is accessing `foo`.
+ Obvious too, huh?
+* #3 and #4 can be done either in one thread or in multiple threads - anyway
+ you want. gMock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any -
+ unless required by your test logic.
+
+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.
+
+gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
+that called the mock function. For example, in
+
+```cpp
+ 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, gMock will
+execute `action1` in thread 1 and `action2` in thread 2.
+
+gMock does *not* impose a sequence on actions performed in different threads
+(doing so may create deadlocks as the actions may need to cooperate). This means
+that the execution of `action1` and `action2` in the above example *may*
+interleave. If this is a problem, you should add proper synchronization logic to
+`action1` and `action2` to make the test thread-safe.
+
+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 gMock Prints
+
+When gMock sees something that has the potential of being an error (e.g. a mock
+function with no expectation is called, a.k.a. an uninteresting call, which is
+allowed but perhaps you forgot to explicitly ban the call), it prints some
+warning messages, including the arguments of the function, the return value, and
+the stack trace. Hopefully this will remind you to take a look and see if there
+is indeed a problem.
+
+Sometimes you are confident that your tests are correct and may not appreciate
+such friendly messages. Some other times, you are debugging your tests or
+learning about the behavior of the code you are testing, and wish you could
+observe every mock call that happens (including argument values, the return
+value, and the stack trace). Clearly, one size doesn't fit all.
+
+You can control how much gMock tells you using the `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL`
+command-line flag, where `LEVEL` is a string with three possible values:
+
+* `info`: gMock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors
+ (most verbose). At this setting, gMock will also log any calls to the
+ `ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL` macros. It will include a stack trace in
+ "uninteresting call" warnings.
+* `warning`: gMock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose); it will
+ omit the stack traces in "uninteresting call" warnings. This is the default.
+* `error`: gMock will print errors only (least verbose).
+
+Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
+so:
+
+```cpp
+ ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
+```
+
+If you find gMock printing too many stack frames with its informational or
+warning messages, remember that you can control their amount with the
+`--gtest_stack_trace_depth=max_depth` flag.
+
+Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable gMock serve you better!
+
+### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
+
+You have a test using gMock. It fails: gMock tells you some expectations aren't
+satisfied. However, you aren't sure why: Is there a typo somewhere in the
+matchers? Did you mess up the order of the `EXPECT_CALL`s? Or is the code under
+test doing something wrong? How can you find out the cause?
+
+Won't it be nice if you have X-ray vision and can actually see the trace of all
+`EXPECT_CALL`s and mock method calls as they are made? For each call, would you
+like to see its actual argument values and which `EXPECT_CALL` gMock thinks it
+matches? If you still need some help to figure out who made these calls, how
+about being able to see the complete stack trace at each mock call?
+
+You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
+flag. For example, given the test program:
+
+```cpp
+#include "gmock/gmock.h"
+
+using testing::_;
+using testing::HasSubstr;
+using testing::Return;
+
+class MockFoo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (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:
+
+```shell
+[ RUN ] Foo.Bar
+
+foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
+ Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
+ Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
+Stack trace: ...
+
+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 first `EXPECT_CALL`, not the third as
+you thought. From that it should be obvious that the third `EXPECT_CALL` is
+written wrong. Case solved.
+
+If you are interested in the mock call trace but not the stack traces, you can
+combine `--gmock_verbose=info` with `--gtest_stack_trace_depth=0` on the test
+command line.
+
+### Running Tests in Emacs
+
+If you build and run your tests in Emacs using the `M-x google-compile` command
+(as many googletest users do), the source file locations of gMock and googletest
+errors will be highlighted. Just press `<Enter>` on one of them and you'll be
+taken to the offending line. Or, you can just type `C-x`` to jump to the next
+error.
+
+To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your `~/.emacs` file:
+
+```text
+(global-set-key "\M-m" 'google-compile) ; m is for make
+(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 (if you want to run the test as well,
+just make sure `foo_test.run` or `runtests` is in the build command you supply
+after typing `M-m`), or `M-up`/`M-down` to move back and forth between errors.
+
+## Extending gMock
+
+### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
+
+{: .callout .warning}
+WARNING: gMock does not guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be
+invoked. Therefore, all matchers must be functionally pure. See
+[this section](#PureMatchers) for more details.
+
+The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
+The syntax:
+
+```cpp
+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 gMock will use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the
+description.
+
+For example:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
+```
+
+allows you to write
+
+```cpp
+ // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
+```
+
+or,
+
+```cpp
+ using ::testing::Not;
+ ...
+ // Verifies that two values are divisible by 7.
+ EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
+ EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
+```
+
+If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
+
+```shell
+ 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:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
+ absl::StrCat(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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```shell
+ 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 gMock already prints it for you.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: The type of the value being matched (`arg_type`) is determined by the
+context in which you use the matcher and is supplied to you by the compiler, so
+you don't need to worry about declaring it (nor can you). This allows the
+matcher to be polymorphic. For example, `IsDivisibleBy7()` can be used to match
+any type where the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a
+`bool`. In the `Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())` example above, if method `Bar()` takes an
+`int`, `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will
+be `unsigned long`; and so on.
+
+### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
+
+Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
+use the macro:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
+```
+
+will allow you to write:
+
+```cpp
+ EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
+```
+
+which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
+
+```shell
+ 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 write `value_type` to refer
+to the type of `value`.
+
+gMock also provides `MATCHER_P2`, `MATCHER_P3`, ..., up to `MATCHER_P10` to
+support multi-parameter matchers:
+
+```cpp
+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. gMock
+lets you do that by referencing the matcher parameters in the description string
+expression.
+
+For example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::PrintToString;
+MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi,
+ absl::StrFormat("%s in range [%s, %s]", negation ? "isn't" : "is",
+ PrintToString(low), PrintToString(hi))) {
+ return low <= arg && arg <= hi;
+}
+...
+EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
+```
+
+would generate a failure that contains the message:
+
+```shell
+ 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,
+
+```cpp
+ MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
+ ...
+ EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
+```
+
+would generate a failure that contains the text:
+
+```shell
+ Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
+```
+
+For the purpose of typing, you can view
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
+```
+
+as shorthand for
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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 the matcher interface directly
+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 the matcher interface for `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.
+
+A matcher of `T` must declare a typedef like:
+
+```cpp
+using is_gtest_matcher = void;
+```
+
+and supports the following operations:
+
+```cpp
+// Match a value and optionally explain into an ostream.
+bool matched = matcher.MatchAndExplain(value, maybe_os);
+// where `value` is of type `T` and
+// `maybe_os` is of type `std::ostream*`, where it can be null if the caller
+// is not interested in there textual explanation.
+
+matcher.DescribeTo(os);
+matcher.DescribeNegationTo(os);
+// where `os` is of type `std::ostream*`.
+```
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+
+class DivisibleBy7Matcher {
+ public:
+ using is_gtest_matcher = void;
+
+ bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream*) const {
+ return (n % 7) == 0;
+ }
+
+ void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
+ *os << "is divisible by 7";
+ }
+
+ void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const {
+ *os << "is not divisible by 7";
+ }
+};
+
+Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
+ return DivisibleBy7Matcher();
+}
+
+...
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
+```
+
+You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
+`os` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
+
+```cpp
+class DivisibleBy7Matcher {
+ public:
+ bool MatchAndExplain(int n, std::ostream* os) const {
+ const int remainder = n % 7;
+ if (remainder != 0 && os != nullptr) {
+ *os << "the remainder is " << remainder;
+ }
+ return remainder == 0;
+ }
+ ...
+};
+```
+
+Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:
+
+```shell
+Value of: x
+Expected: is divisible by 7
+ Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
+```
+
+{: .callout .tip}
+Tip: for convenience, `MatchAndExplain()` can take a `MatchResultListener*`
+instead of `std::ostream*`.
+
+### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
+
+Expanding what we learned above to *polymorphic* matchers is now just as simple
+as adding templates in the right place.
+
+```cpp
+
+class NotNullMatcher {
+ public:
+ using is_gtest_matcher = void;
+
+ // To implement a polymorphic matcher, we just need to make MatchAndExplain a
+ // template on its first argument.
+
+ // 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, std::ostream*) const {
+ return p != nullptr;
+ }
+
+ // 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"; }
+};
+
+NotNullMatcher NotNull() {
+ return NotNullMatcher();
+}
+
+...
+
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull())); // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer.
+```
+
+### Legacy Matcher Implementation
+
+Defining matchers used to be somewhat more complicated, in which it required
+several supporting classes and virtual functions. To implement a matcher for
+type `T` using the legacy API you have to derive from `MatcherInterface<T>` and
+call `MakeMatcher` to construct the object.
+
+The interface looks like this:
+
+```cpp
+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 if and only if 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;
+};
+```
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
+using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
+using ::testing::PolymorphicMatcher;
+
+class NotNullMatcher {
+ public:
+ // To implement a polymorphic matcher, first define a COPYABLE class
+ // that has three members MatchAndExplain(), DescribeTo(), and
+ // DescribeNegationTo(), like the following.
+
+ // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so
+ // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument.
+ // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or
+ // a method template, or even overload it.
+ template <typename T>
+ bool MatchAndExplain(T* p,
+ MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const {
+ return p != NULL;
+ }
+
+ // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher.
+ 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.
+PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
+ return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
+}
+
+...
+
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull())); // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer.
+```
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**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 gMock how many times you expect a
+call to occur. It doesn't have to be exact. For example, you can say
+`AtLeast(5)` or `Between(2, 4)`.
+
+If the [built-in set](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList) of cardinalities
+doesn't suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following
+interface (in namespace `testing`):
+
+```cpp
+class CardinalityInterface {
+ public:
+ virtual ~CardinalityInterface();
+
+ // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality.
+ virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;
+
+ // Returns true if and only if 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
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Cardinality;
+using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
+using ::testing::MakeCardinality;
+
+class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
+ public:
+ bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
+ return (call_count % 2) == 0;
+ }
+
+ bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ 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 {#QuickNewActions}
+
+If the built-in actions don't work for you, you can easily define your own one.
+Just define a functor class with a (possibly templated) call operator, matching
+the signature of your action.
+
+```cpp
+struct Increment {
+ template <typename T>
+ T operator()(T* arg) {
+ return ++(*arg);
+ }
+}
+```
+
+The same approach works with stateful functors (or any callable, really):
+
+```
+struct MultiplyBy {
+ template <typename T>
+ T operator()(T arg) { return arg * multiplier; }
+
+ int multiplier;
+}
+
+// Then use:
+// EXPECT_CALL(...).WillOnce(MultiplyBy{7});
+```
+
+#### Legacy macro-based Actions
+
+Before C++11, the functor-based actions were not supported; the old way of
+writing actions was through a set of `ACTION*` macros. We suggest to avoid them
+in new code; they hide a lot of logic behind the macro, potentially leading to
+harder-to-understand compiler errors. Nevertheless, we cover them here for
+completeness.
+
+By writing
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
+```
+
+allows you to write
+
+```cpp
+... 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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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 `std::tuple<bool, int*>`
+`return_type` | the type `int`
+`function_type` | the type `int(bool, int*)`
+
+#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
+
+Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
+another macro
+
+```cpp
+ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
+```
+
+For example,
+
+```cpp
+ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
+```
+
+will allow you to write
+
+```cpp
+// 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 gMock-defined symbol
+`param_type` to refer to the type of the parameter as inferred by the compiler.
+For example, in the body of `ACTION_P(Add, n)` above, you can write `n_type` for
+the type of `n`.
+
+gMock also provides `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support multi-parameter
+actions. For example,
+
+```cpp
+ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
+ double dx = arg0 - x;
+ double dy = arg1 - y;
+ return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
+}
+```
+
+lets you write
+
+```cpp
+... 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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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 googletest 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 to `ACTION()` and `ACTION_P*()`.
+
+The syntax:
+
+```cpp
+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 in [1, 10] and *n* is in [0, 10]. `name_i` is the
+name of the *i*-th template parameter, and `kind_i` specifies whether it's a
+`typename`, an integral constant, or a template. `p_i` is the name of the *i*-th
+value parameter.
+
+Example:
+
+```cpp
+// 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(std::get<k>(args));
+}
+```
+
+To create an instance of an action template, write:
+
+```cpp
+ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
+```
+
+where the `t`s are the template arguments and the `v`s are the value arguments.
+The value argument types are inferred by the compiler. For example:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+ 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)` | `BarActionP<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)` | `BazActionP2<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 {#NewMonoActions}
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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 std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
+ virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
+};
+```
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Action;
+using ::testing::ActionInterface;
+using ::testing::MakeAction;
+
+typedef int IncrementMethod(int*);
+
+class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface<IncrementMethod> {
+ public:
+ int Perform(const std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
+ int* p = std::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 {#NewPolyActions}
+
+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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
+ public:
+ template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
+ Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
+ // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use std::get(args).
+ return std::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:
+
+```cpp
+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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
+ (override));
+};
+
+ ...
+ 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 gMock How to Print Your Values
+
+When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, gMock prints the argument
+values and the stack trace to help you debug. Assertion macros like
+`EXPECT_THAT` and `EXPECT_EQ` also print the values in question when the
+assertion fails. gMock and googletest do this using googletest's user-extensible
+value printer.
+
+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.
+[The GoogleTest advanced guide](advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values)
+explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at printing your
+particular type than to dump the bytes.
+
+## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
+
+<!--#include file="includes/g3_testing_LOGs.md"-->
+<!--#include file="includes/g3_mock_callbacks.md"-->
+
+### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
+
+`std::function` is a general function type introduced in C++11. It is a
+preferred way of passing callbacks to new interfaces. Functions are copiable,
+and are not usually passed around by pointer, which makes them tricky to mock.
+But fear not - `MockFunction` can help you with that.
+
+`MockFunction<R(T1, ..., Tn)>` has a mock method `Call()` with the signature:
+
+```cpp
+ R Call(T1, ..., Tn);
+```
+
+It also has a `AsStdFunction()` method, which creates a `std::function` proxy
+forwarding to Call:
+
+```cpp
+ std::function<R(T1, ..., Tn)> AsStdFunction();
+```
+
+To use `MockFunction`, first create `MockFunction` object and set up
+expectations on its `Call` method. Then pass proxy obtained from
+`AsStdFunction()` to the code you are testing. For example:
+
+```cpp
+TEST(FooTest, RunsCallbackWithBarArgument) {
+ // 1. Create a mock object.
+ MockFunction<int(string)> mock_function;
+
+ // 2. Set expectations on Call() method.
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_function, Call("bar")).WillOnce(Return(1));
+
+ // 3. Exercise code that uses std::function.
+ Foo(mock_function.AsStdFunction());
+ // Foo's signature can be either of:
+ // void Foo(const std::function<int(string)>& fun);
+ // void Foo(std::function<int(string)> fun);
+
+ // 4. All expectations will be verified when mock_function
+ // goes out of scope and is destroyed.
+}
+```
+
+Remember that function objects created with `AsStdFunction()` are just
+forwarders. If you create multiple of them, they will share the same set of
+expectations.
+
+Although `std::function` supports unlimited number of arguments, `MockFunction`
+implementation is limited to ten. If you ever hit that limit... well, your
+callback has bigger problems than being mockable. :-)
diff --git a/docs/gmock_faq.md b/docs/gmock_faq.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..09623b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/gmock_faq.md
@@ -0,0 +1,390 @@
+# Legacy gMock FAQ
+
+### When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead. What's the problem?
+
+In order for a method to be mocked, it must be *virtual*, unless you use the
+[high-perf dependency injection technique](gmock_cook_book.md#MockingNonVirtualMethods).
+
+### Can I mock a variadic function?
+
+You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis (`...`)
+arguments) directly in gMock.
+
+The problem is that in general, there is *no way* for a mock object to know how
+many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what the arguments' types
+are. Only the *author of the base class* knows the protocol, and we cannot look
+into his or her head.
+
+Therefore, to mock such a function, the *user* must teach the mock object how to
+figure out the number of arguments and their types. One way to do it is to
+provide overloaded versions of the function.
+
+Ellipsis arguments are inherited from C and not really a C++ feature. They are
+unsafe to use and don't work with arguments that have constructors or
+destructors. Therefore we recommend to avoid them in C++ as much as possible.
+
+### MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter. Why?
+
+If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1:
+
+```cpp
+class Foo {
+ ...
+ virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0;
+};
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Bar, (const int i), (override));
+};
+```
+
+You may get the following warning:
+
+```shell
+warning C4301: 'MockFoo::Bar': overriding virtual function only differs from 'Foo::Bar' by const/volatile qualifier
+```
+
+This is a MSVC bug. The same code compiles fine with gcc, for example. If you
+use Visual C++ 2008 SP1, you would get the warning:
+
+```shell
+warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous versions of the compiler did not override when parameters only differed by const/volatile qualifiers
+```
+
+In C++, if you *declare* a function with a `const` parameter, the `const`
+modifier is ignored. Therefore, the `Foo` base class above is equivalent to:
+
+```cpp
+class Foo {
+ ...
+ virtual void Bar(int i) = 0; // int or const int? Makes no difference.
+};
+```
+
+In fact, you can *declare* `Bar()` with an `int` parameter, and define it with a
+`const int` parameter. The compiler will still match them up.
+
+Since making a parameter `const` is meaningless in the method declaration, we
+recommend to remove it in both `Foo` and `MockFoo`. That should workaround the
+VC bug.
+
+Note that we are talking about the *top-level* `const` modifier here. If the
+function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring the pointee or
+referee as `const` is still meaningful. For example, the following two
+declarations are *not* equivalent:
+
+```cpp
+void Bar(int* p); // Neither p nor *p is const.
+void Bar(const int* p); // p is not const, but *p is.
+```
+
+### I can't figure out why gMock thinks my expectations are not satisfied. What should I do?
+
+You might want to run your test with `--gmock_verbose=info`. This flag lets
+gMock print a trace of every mock function call it receives. By studying the
+trace, you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met.
+
+If you see the message "The mock function has no default action set, and its
+return type has no default value set.", then try
+[adding a default action](gmock_for_dummies.md#DefaultValue). Due to a known
+issue, unexpected calls on mocks without default actions don't print out a
+detailed comparison between the actual arguments and the expected arguments.
+
+### My program crashed and `ScopedMockLog` spit out tons of messages. Is it a gMock bug?
+
+gMock and `ScopedMockLog` are likely doing the right thing here.
+
+When a test crashes, the failure signal handler will try to log a lot of
+information (the stack trace, and the address map, for example). The messages
+are compounded if you have many threads with depth stacks. When `ScopedMockLog`
+intercepts these messages and finds that they don't match any expectations, it
+prints an error for each of them.
+
+You can learn to ignore the errors, or you can rewrite your expectations to make
+your test more robust, for example, by adding something like:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AnyNumber;
+using ::testing::Not;
+...
+ // Ignores any log not done by us.
+ EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(_, Not(EndsWith("/my_file.cc")), _))
+ .Times(AnyNumber());
+```
+
+### How can I assert that a function is NEVER called?
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
+ .Times(0);
+```
+
+### I have a failed test where gMock tells me TWICE that a particular expectation is not satisfied. Isn't this redundant?
+
+When gMock detects a failure, it prints relevant information (the mock function
+arguments, the state of relevant expectations, and etc) to help the user debug.
+If another failure is detected, gMock will do the same, including printing the
+state of relevant expectations.
+
+Sometimes an expectation's state didn't change between two failures, and you'll
+see the same description of the state twice. They are however *not* redundant,
+as they refer to *different points in time*. The fact they are the same *is*
+interesting information.
+
+### I get a heapcheck failure when using a mock object, but using a real object is fine. What can be wrong?
+
+Does the class (hopefully a pure interface) you are mocking have a virtual
+destructor?
+
+Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is virtual.
+Otherwise Bad Things will happen. Consider the following code:
+
+```cpp
+class Base {
+ public:
+ // Not virtual, but should be.
+ ~Base() { ... }
+ ...
+};
+
+class Derived : public Base {
+ public:
+ ...
+ private:
+ std::string value_;
+};
+
+...
+ Base* p = new Derived;
+ ...
+ delete p; // Surprise! ~Base() will be called, but ~Derived() will not
+ // - value_ is leaked.
+```
+
+By changing `~Base()` to virtual, `~Derived()` will be correctly called when
+`delete p` is executed, and the heap checker will be happy.
+
+### The "newer expectations override older ones" rule makes writing expectations awkward. Why does gMock do that?
+
+When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+ // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
+ // 2 the second time. However, I have to write the expectations in the
+ // reverse order. This sucks big time!!!
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
+ .WillOnce(Return(2))
+ .RetiresOnSaturation();
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
+ .WillOnce(Return(1))
+ .RetiresOnSaturation();
+```
+
+The problem, is that they didn't pick the **best** way to express the test's
+intent.
+
+By default, expectations don't have to be matched in *any* particular order. If
+you want them to match in a certain order, you need to be explicit. This is
+gMock's (and jMock's) fundamental philosophy: it's easy to accidentally
+over-specify your tests, and we want to make it harder to do so.
+
+There are two better ways to write the test spec. You could either put the
+expectations in sequence:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+ // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
+ // 2 the second time. Using a sequence, we can write the expectations
+ // in their natural order.
+ {
+ InSequence s;
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
+ .WillOnce(Return(1))
+ .RetiresOnSaturation();
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
+ .WillOnce(Return(2))
+ .RetiresOnSaturation();
+ }
+```
+
+or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+ // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
+ // 2 the second time.
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
+ .WillOnce(Return(1))
+ .WillOnce(Return(2))
+ .RetiresOnSaturation();
+```
+
+Back to the original questions: why does gMock search the expectations (and
+`ON_CALL`s) from back to front? Because this allows a user to set up a mock's
+behavior for the common case early (e.g. in the mock's constructor or the test
+fixture's set-up phase) and customize it with more specific rules later. If
+gMock searches from front to back, this very useful pattern won't be possible.
+
+### gMock prints a warning when a function without EXPECT_CALL is called, even if I have set its behavior using ON_CALL. Would it be reasonable not to show the warning in this case?
+
+When choosing between being neat and being safe, we lean toward the latter. So
+the answer is that we think it's better to show the warning.
+
+Often people write `ON_CALL`s in the mock object's constructor or `SetUp()`, as
+the default behavior rarely changes from test to test. Then in the test body
+they set the expectations, which are often different for each test. Having an
+`ON_CALL` in the set-up part of a test doesn't mean that the calls are expected.
+If there's no `EXPECT_CALL` and the method is called, it's possibly an error. If
+we quietly let the call go through without notifying the user, bugs may creep in
+unnoticed.
+
+If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+ EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
+ .WillRepeatedly(...);
+```
+
+instead of
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+ ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
+ .WillByDefault(...);
+```
+
+This tells gMock that you do expect the calls and no warning should be printed.
+
+Also, you can control the verbosity by specifying `--gmock_verbose=error`. Other
+values are `info` and `warning`. If you find the output too noisy when
+debugging, just choose a less verbose level.
+
+### How can I delete the mock function's argument in an action?
+
+If your mock function takes a pointer argument and you want to delete that
+argument, you can use testing::DeleteArg<N>() to delete the N'th (zero-indexed)
+argument:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Bar, (X* x, const Y& y));
+ ...
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo_, Bar(_, _))
+ .WillOnce(testing::DeleteArg<0>()));
+```
+
+### How can I perform an arbitrary action on a mock function's argument?
+
+If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not supported by
+gMock directly, remember that you can define your own actions using
+[`MakeAction()`](#NewMonoActions) or
+[`MakePolymorphicAction()`](#NewPolyActions), or you can write a stub function
+and invoke it using [`Invoke()`](#FunctionsAsActions).
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Bar, (X* p));
+ ...
+ EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo_, Bar(_))
+ .WillOnce(Invoke(MyAction(...)));
+```
+
+### My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it?
+
+You can, but you need to make some changes.
+
+In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function, it's a sign
+that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less flexible, less reusable,
+less testable, etc). You are probably better off defining a small interface and
+call the function through that interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's
+a bit of work initially, but usually pays for itself quickly.
+
+This Google Testing Blog
+[post](https://testing.googleblog.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html) says it
+excellently. Check it out.
+
+### My mock object needs to do complex stuff. It's a lot of pain to specify the actions. gMock sucks!
+
+I know it's not a question, but you get an answer for free any way. :-)
+
+With gMock, you can create mocks in C++ easily. And people might be tempted to
+use them everywhere. Sometimes they work great, and sometimes you may find them,
+well, a pain to use. So, what's wrong in the latter case?
+
+When you write a test without using mocks, you exercise the code and assert that
+it returns the correct value or that the system is in an expected state. This is
+sometimes called "state-based testing".
+
+Mocks are great for what some call "interaction-based" testing: instead of
+checking the system state at the very end, mock objects verify that they are
+invoked the right way and report an error as soon as it arises, giving you a
+handle on the precise context in which the error was triggered. This is often
+more effective and economical to do than state-based testing.
+
+If you are doing state-based testing and using a test double just to simulate
+the real object, you are probably better off using a fake. Using a mock in this
+case causes pain, as it's not a strong point for mocks to perform complex
+actions. If you experience this and think that mocks suck, you are just not
+using the right tool for your problem. Or, you might be trying to solve the
+wrong problem. :-)
+
+### I got a warning "Uninteresting function call encountered - default action taken.." Should I panic?
+
+By all means, NO! It's just an FYI. :-)
+
+What it means is that you have a mock function, you haven't set any expectations
+on it (by gMock's rule this means that you are not interested in calls to this
+function and therefore it can be called any number of times), and it is called.
+That's OK - you didn't say it's not OK to call the function!
+
+What if you actually meant to disallow this function to be called, but forgot to
+write `EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar()).Times(0)`? While one can argue that it's the
+user's fault, gMock tries to be nice and prints you a note.
+
+So, when you see the message and believe that there shouldn't be any
+uninteresting calls, you should investigate what's going on. To make your life
+easier, gMock dumps the stack trace when an uninteresting call is encountered.
+From that you can figure out which mock function it is, and how it is called.
+
+### I want to define a custom action. Should I use Invoke() or implement the ActionInterface interface?
+
+Either way is fine - you want to choose the one that's more convenient for your
+circumstance.
+
+Usually, if your action is for a particular function type, defining it using
+`Invoke()` should be easier; if your action can be used in functions of
+different types (e.g. if you are defining `Return(*value*)`),
+`MakePolymorphicAction()` is easiest. Sometimes you want precise control on what
+types of functions the action can be used in, and implementing `ActionInterface`
+is the way to go here. See the implementation of `Return()` in
+`testing/base/public/gmock-actions.h` for an example.
+
+### I use SetArgPointee() in WillOnce(), but gcc complains about "conflicting return type specified". What does it mean?
+
+You got this error as gMock has no idea what value it should return when the
+mock method is called. `SetArgPointee()` says what the side effect is, but
+doesn't say what the return value should be. You need `DoAll()` to chain a
+`SetArgPointee()` with a `Return()` that provides a value appropriate to the API
+being mocked.
+
+See this [recipe](gmock_cook_book.md#mocking-side-effects) for more details and
+an example.
+
+### I have a huge mock class, and Microsoft Visual C++ runs out of memory when compiling it. What can I do?
+
+We've noticed that when the `/clr` compiler flag is used, Visual C++ uses 5~6
+times as much memory when compiling a mock class. We suggest to avoid `/clr`
+when compiling native C++ mocks.
diff --git a/docs/gmock_for_dummies.md b/docs/gmock_for_dummies.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..370f17e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/gmock_for_dummies.md
@@ -0,0 +1,699 @@
+# gMock for Dummies
+
+## What Is gMock?
+
+When you write a prototype or test, often it's not feasible or wise to rely on
+real objects entirely. A **mock object** implements the same interface as a real
+object (so it can be used as one), but lets you specify at run time how it will
+be used and what it should do (which methods will be called? in which order? how
+many times? with what arguments? what will they return? etc).
+
+It is easy to confuse the term *fake objects* with mock objects. Fakes and mocks
+actually mean very different things in the Test-Driven Development (TDD)
+community:
+
+* **Fake** objects have working implementations, but usually take some
+ shortcut (perhaps to make the operations less expensive), which makes them
+ not suitable for production. An in-memory file system would be an example of
+ a fake.
+* **Mocks** are objects pre-programmed with *expectations*, which form a
+ specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
+
+If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing
+to remember is that a mock allows you to check the *interaction* between itself
+and code that uses it. The difference between fakes and mocks shall become much
+clearer once you start to use mocks.
+
+**gMock** is a library (sometimes we also call it a "framework" to make it sound
+cool) for creating mock classes and using them. It does to C++ what
+jMock/EasyMock does to Java (well, more or less).
+
+When using gMock,
+
+1. first, you use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to
+ mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class;
+2. next, you create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior
+ using an intuitive syntax;
+3. then you exercise code that uses the mock objects. gMock will catch any
+ violation to the expectations as soon as it arises.
+
+## Why gMock?
+
+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.
+* The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next
+ one.
+
+In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks (jMock,
+EasyMock, etc), 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.
+
+gMock was built to help C++ programmers. It was inspired by jMock and EasyMock,
+but designed with C++'s specifics in mind. It is your friend if any of the
+following problems is bothering you:
+
+* You are stuck with a sub-optimal design and wish you had done more
+ prototyping before it was too late, but prototyping in C++ is by no means
+ "rapid".
+* Your tests are slow as they depend on too many libraries or use expensive
+ resources (e.g. a database).
+* Your tests are brittle as some resources they use are unreliable (e.g. the
+ network).
+* You want to test how your code handles a failure (e.g. a file checksum
+ error), but it's not easy to cause one.
+* You need to make sure that your module interacts with other modules in the
+ right way, but it's hard to observe the interaction; therefore you resort to
+ observing the side effects at the end of the action, but it's awkward at
+ best.
+* You want to "mock out" your dependencies, except that they don't have mock
+ implementations yet; and, frankly, you aren't thrilled by some of those
+ hand-written mocks.
+
+We encourage you to use gMock as
+
+* a *design* tool, for it lets you experiment with your interface design early
+ and often. More iterations lead to better designs!
+* a *testing* tool to cut your tests' outbound dependencies and probe the
+ interaction between your module and its collaborators.
+
+## Getting Started
+
+gMock is bundled with googletest.
+
+## A Case for Mock Turtles
+
+Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that
+relies on a [LOGO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_programming_language)-like
+API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can
+run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it:
+tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a
+shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to
+update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are
+like this. Fortunately, you learned about
+[Dependency Injection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection) and know the right thing
+to do: instead of having your application talk to the system API directly, wrap
+the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface:
+
+```cpp
+class Turtle {
+ ...
+ virtual ~Turtle() {}
+ virtual void PenUp() = 0;
+ virtual void PenDown() = 0;
+ virtual void Forward(int distance) = 0;
+ virtual void Turn(int degrees) = 0;
+ virtual void GoTo(int x, int y) = 0;
+ virtual int GetX() const = 0;
+ virtual int GetY() const = 0;
+};
+```
+
+(Note that the destructor of `Turtle` **must** be virtual, as is the case for
+**all** classes you intend to inherit from - otherwise the destructor of the
+derived class will not be called when you delete an object through a base
+pointer, and you'll get corrupted program states like memory leaks.)
+
+You can control whether the turtle's movement will leave a trace using `PenUp()`
+and `PenDown()`, and control its movement using `Forward()`, `Turn()`, and
+`GoTo()`. Finally, `GetX()` and `GetY()` tell you the current position of the
+turtle.
+
+Your program will normally use a real implementation of this interface. In
+tests, you can use a mock implementation instead. This allows you to easily
+check what drawing primitives your program is calling, with what arguments, and
+in which order. Tests written this way are much more robust (they won't break
+because your new machine does anti-aliasing differently), easier to read and
+maintain (the intent of a test is expressed in the code, not in some binary
+images), and run *much, much faster*.
+
+## Writing the Mock Class
+
+If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by
+some nice people. If, however, you find yourself in the position to write a mock
+class, relax - gMock turns this task into a fun game! (Well, almost.)
+
+### How to Define It
+
+Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to
+follow:
+
+* Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`.
+* Take a *virtual* function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to
+ [mock non-virtual methods using templates](gmock_cook_book.md#MockingNonVirtualMethods),
+ it's much more involved).
+* In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHOD();`
+* Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste it
+ into the macro, and add two commas - one between the return type and the
+ name, another between the name and the argument list.
+* If you're mocking a const method, add a 4th parameter containing `(const)`
+ (the parentheses are required).
+* Since you're overriding a virtual method, we suggest adding the `override`
+ keyword. For const methods the 4th parameter becomes `(const, override)`,
+ for non-const methods just `(override)`. This isn't mandatory.
+* Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done. (It goes
+ without saying that *all* pure virtual methods in your abstract class must
+ be either mocked or overridden.)
+
+After the process, you should have something like:
+
+```cpp
+#include "gmock/gmock.h" // Brings in gMock.
+
+class MockTurtle : public Turtle {
+ public:
+ ...
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, PenUp, (), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, PenDown, (), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Forward, (int distance), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, Turn, (int degrees), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(void, GoTo, (int x, int y), (override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, GetX, (), (const, override));
+ MOCK_METHOD(int, GetY, (), (const, override));
+};
+```
+
+You don't need to define these mock methods somewhere else - the `MOCK_METHOD`
+macro will generate the definitions for you. It's that simple!
+
+### Where to Put It
+
+When you define a mock class, you need to decide where to put its definition.
+Some people put it in a `_test.cc`. This is fine when the interface being mocked
+(say, `Foo`) is owned by the same person or team. Otherwise, when the owner of
+`Foo` changes it, your test could break. (You can't really expect `Foo`'s
+maintainer to fix every test that uses `Foo`, can you?)
+
+So, the rule of thumb is: if you need to mock `Foo` and it's owned by others,
+define the mock class in `Foo`'s package (better, in a `testing` sub-package
+such that you can clearly separate production code and testing utilities), put
+it in a `.h` and a `cc_library`. Then everyone can reference them from their
+tests. If `Foo` ever changes, there is only one copy of `MockFoo` to change, and
+only tests that depend on the changed methods need to be fixed.
+
+Another way to do it: you can introduce a thin layer `FooAdaptor` on top of
+`Foo` and code to this new interface. Since you own `FooAdaptor`, you can absorb
+changes in `Foo` much more easily. While this is more work initially, carefully
+choosing the adaptor interface can make your code easier to write and more
+readable (a net win in the long run), as you can choose `FooAdaptor` to fit your
+specific domain much better than `Foo` does.
+
+## Using Mocks in Tests
+
+Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is:
+
+1. Import the gMock names from the `testing` namespace such that you can use
+ them unqualified (You only have to do it once per file). Remember that
+ namespaces are a good idea.
+2. Create some mock objects.
+3. Specify your expectations on them (How many times will a method be called?
+ With what arguments? What should it do? etc.).
+4. Exercise some code that uses the mocks; optionally, check the result using
+ googletest assertions. If a mock method is called more than expected or with
+ wrong arguments, you'll get an error immediately.
+5. When a mock is destructed, gMock will automatically check whether all
+ expectations on it have been satisfied.
+
+Here's an example:
+
+```cpp
+#include "path/to/mock-turtle.h"
+#include "gmock/gmock.h"
+#include "gtest/gtest.h"
+
+using ::testing::AtLeast; // #1
+
+TEST(PainterTest, CanDrawSomething) {
+ MockTurtle turtle; // #2
+ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown()) // #3
+ .Times(AtLeast(1));
+
+ Painter painter(&turtle); // #4
+
+ EXPECT_TRUE(painter.DrawCircle(0, 0, 10)); // #5
+}
+```
+
+As you might have guessed, this test checks that `PenDown()` is called at least
+once. If the `painter` object didn't call this method, your test will fail with
+a message like this:
+
+```text
+path/to/my_test.cc:119: Failure
+Actual function call count doesn't match this expectation:
+Actually: never called;
+Expected: called at least once.
+Stack trace:
+...
+```
+
+**Tip 1:** If you run the test from an Emacs buffer, you can hit `<Enter>` on
+the line number to jump right to the failed expectation.
+
+**Tip 2:** If your mock objects are never deleted, the final verification won't
+happen. Therefore it's a good idea to turn on the heap checker in your tests
+when you allocate mocks on the heap. You get that automatically if you use the
+`gtest_main` library already.
+
+**Important note:** gMock requires expectations to be set **before** the mock
+functions are called, otherwise the behavior is **undefined**. In particular,
+you mustn't interleave `EXPECT_CALL()s` and calls to the mock functions.
+
+This means `EXPECT_CALL()` should be read as expecting that a call will occur
+*in the future*, not that a call has occurred. Why does gMock work like that?
+Well, specifying the expectation beforehand allows gMock to report a violation
+as soon as it rises, when the context (stack trace, etc) is still available.
+This makes debugging much easier.
+
+Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve
+the same effect without using gMock. However, as we shall reveal soon, gMock
+allows you to do *so much more* with the mocks.
+
+## Setting Expectations
+
+The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the *right expectations*
+on it. If you set the expectations too strict, your test will fail as the result
+of unrelated changes. If you set them too loose, bugs can slip through. You want
+to do it just right such that your test can catch exactly the kind of bugs you
+intend it to catch. gMock provides the necessary means for you to do it "just
+right."
+
+### General Syntax
+
+In gMock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock
+method. The general syntax is:
+
+```cpp
+EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
+ .Times(cardinality)
+ .WillOnce(action)
+ .WillRepeatedly(action);
+```
+
+The macro has two arguments: first the mock object, and then the method and its
+arguments. Note that the two are separated by a comma (`,`), not a period (`.`).
+(Why using a comma? The answer is that it was necessary for technical reasons.)
+If the method is not overloaded, the macro can also be called without matchers:
+
+```cpp
+EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, non-overloaded-method)
+ .Times(cardinality)
+ .WillOnce(action)
+ .WillRepeatedly(action);
+```
+
+This syntax allows the test writer to specify "called with any arguments"
+without explicitly specifying the number or types of arguments. To avoid
+unintended ambiguity, this syntax may only be used for methods that are not
+overloaded.
+
+Either form of the macro can be followed by some optional *clauses* that provide
+more information about the expectation. We'll discuss how each clause works in
+the coming sections.
+
+This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example,
+you can probably guess that
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
+ .Times(5)
+ .WillOnce(Return(100))
+ .WillOnce(Return(150))
+ .WillRepeatedly(Return(200));
+```
+
+says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it
+will return 100 the first time, 150 the second time, and then 200 every time.
+Some people like to call this style of syntax a Domain-Specific Language (DSL).
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**Note:** Why do we use a macro to do this? Well it serves two purposes: first
+it makes expectations easily identifiable (either by `grep` or by a human
+reader), and second it allows gMock to include the source file location of a
+failed expectation in messages, making debugging easier.
+
+### Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect?
+
+When a mock function takes arguments, we may specify what arguments we are
+expecting, for example:
+
+```cpp
+// Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units.
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
+```
+
+Oftentimes you do not want to be too specific. Remember that talk about tests
+being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the
+intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary—no
+more, no less. If you aren't interested in the value of an argument, write `_`
+as the argument, which means "anything goes":
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+// Expects that the turtle jumps to somewhere on the x=50 line.
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(50, _));
+```
+
+`_` is an instance of what we call **matchers**. A matcher is like a predicate
+and can test whether an argument is what we'd expect. You can use a matcher
+inside `EXPECT_CALL()` wherever a function argument is expected. `_` is a
+convenient way of saying "any value".
+
+In the above examples, `100` and `50` are also matchers; implicitly, they are
+the same as `Eq(100)` and `Eq(50)`, which specify that the argument must be
+equal (using `operator==`) to the matcher argument. There are many
+[built-in matchers](reference/matchers.md) for common types (as well as
+[custom matchers](gmock_cook_book.md#NewMatchers)); for example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Ge;
+...
+// Expects the turtle moves forward by at least 100.
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100)));
+```
+
+If you don't care about *any* arguments, rather than specify `_` for each of
+them you may instead omit the parameter list:
+
+```cpp
+// Expects the turtle to move forward.
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward);
+// Expects the turtle to jump somewhere.
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo);
+```
+
+This works for all non-overloaded methods; if a method is overloaded, you need
+to help gMock resolve which overload is expected by specifying the number of
+arguments and possibly also the
+[types of the arguments](gmock_cook_book.md#SelectOverload).
+
+### Cardinalities: How Many Times Will It Be Called?
+
+The first clause we can specify following an `EXPECT_CALL()` is `Times()`. We
+call its argument a **cardinality** as it tells *how many times* the call should
+occur. It allows us to repeat an expectation many times without actually writing
+it as many times. More importantly, a cardinality can be "fuzzy", just like a
+matcher can be. This allows a user to express the intent of a test exactly.
+
+An interesting special case is when we say `Times(0)`. You may have guessed - it
+means that the function shouldn't be called with the given arguments at all, and
+gMock will report a googletest failure whenever the function is (wrongfully)
+called.
+
+We've seen `AtLeast(n)` as an example of fuzzy cardinalities earlier. For the
+list of built-in cardinalities you can use, see
+[here](gmock_cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList).
+
+The `Times()` clause can be omitted. **If you omit `Times()`, gMock will infer
+the cardinality for you.** The rules are easy to remember:
+
+* If **neither** `WillOnce()` **nor** `WillRepeatedly()` is in the
+ `EXPECT_CALL()`, the inferred cardinality is `Times(1)`.
+* If there are *n* `WillOnce()`'s but **no** `WillRepeatedly()`, where *n* >=
+ 1, the cardinality is `Times(n)`.
+* If there are *n* `WillOnce()`'s and **one** `WillRepeatedly()`, where *n* >=
+ 0, the cardinality is `Times(AtLeast(n))`.
+
+**Quick quiz:** what do you think will happen if a function is expected to be
+called twice but actually called four times?
+
+### Actions: What Should It Do?
+
+Remember that a mock object doesn't really have a working implementation? We as
+users have to tell it what to do when a method is invoked. This is easy in
+gMock.
+
+First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer,
+the function has a **default action** (a `void` function will just return, a
+`bool` function will return `false`, and other functions will return 0). In
+addition, in C++ 11 and above, a mock function whose return type is
+default-constructible (i.e. has a default constructor) has a default action of
+returning a default-constructed value. If you don't say anything, this behavior
+will be used.
+
+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,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
+ .WillOnce(Return(100))
+ .WillOnce(Return(200))
+ .WillOnce(Return(300));
+```
+
+says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called *exactly three times* (gMock 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.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
+ .WillOnce(Return(100))
+ .WillOnce(Return(200))
+ .WillRepeatedly(Return(300));
+```
+
+says that `turtle.GetY()` will be called *at least twice* (gMock knows this as
+we've written two `WillOnce()` clauses and a `WillRepeatedly()` while having no
+explicit `Times()`), will return 100 and 200 respectively the first two times,
+and 300 from the third time on.
+
+Of course, if you explicitly write a `Times()`, gMock will not try to infer the
+cardinality itself. What if the number you specified is larger than there are
+`WillOnce()` clauses? Well, after all `WillOnce()`s are used up, gMock will do
+the *default* action for the function every time (unless, of course, you have a
+`WillRepeatedly()`.).
+
+What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a
+reference using `ReturnRef(*variable*)`, or invoke a pre-defined function, among
+[others](gmock_cook_book.md#using-actions).
+
+**Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause
+only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you
+must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+int n = 100;
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
+ .Times(4)
+ .WillRepeatedly(Return(n++));
+```
+
+Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will
+always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)`
+will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will
+return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every
+time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the
+[cook book](gmock_cook_book.md).
+
+Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means?
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
+ .Times(4)
+ .WillOnce(Return(100));
+```
+
+Obviously `turtle.GetY()` is expected to be called four times. But if you think
+it will return 100 every time, think twice! Remember that one `WillOnce()`
+clause will be consumed each time the function is invoked and the default action
+will be taken afterwards. So the right answer is that `turtle.GetY()` will
+return 100 the first time, but **return 0 from the second time on**, as
+returning 0 is the default action for `int` functions.
+
+### Using Multiple Expectations {#MultiExpectations}
+
+So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More
+realistically, you'll specify expectations on multiple mock methods which may be
+from multiple mock objects.
+
+By default, when a mock method is invoked, gMock 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:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_)); // #1
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10)) // #2
+ .Times(2);
+```
+
+If `Forward(10)` is called three times in a row, the third time it will be an
+error, as the last matching expectation (#2) has been saturated. If, however,
+the third `Forward(10)` call is replaced by `Forward(20)`, then it would be OK,
+as now #1 will be the matching expectation.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**Note:** Why does gMock search for a match in the *reverse* order of the
+expectations? The reason is that this allows a user to set up the default
+expectations in a mock object's constructor or the test fixture's set-up phase
+and then customize the mock by writing more specific expectations in the test
+body. So, if you have two expectations on the same method, you want to put the
+one with more specific matchers **after** the other, or the more specific rule
+would be shadowed by the more general one that comes after it.
+
+{: .callout .tip}
+**Tip:** It is very common to start with a catch-all expectation for a method
+and `Times(AnyNumber())` (omitting arguments, or with `_` for all arguments, if
+overloaded). This makes any calls to the method expected. This is not necessary
+for methods that are not mentioned at all (these are "uninteresting"), but is
+useful for methods that have some expectations, but for which other calls are
+ok. See
+[Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls](gmock_cook_book.md#uninteresting-vs-unexpected).
+
+### Ordered vs Unordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
+
+By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation
+hasn't been satisfied. In other words, the calls don't have to occur in the
+order the expectations are specified.
+
+Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To
+say this in gMock is easy:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::InSequence;
+...
+TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) {
+ ...
+ {
+ InSequence seq;
+
+ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenDown());
+ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
+ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, PenUp());
+ }
+ Foo();
+}
+```
+
+By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are
+put into a *sequence* and have to occur *sequentially*. Since we are just
+relying on the constructor and destructor of this object to do the actual work,
+its name is really irrelevant.
+
+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! The
+details can be found [here](gmock_cook_book.md#OrderedCalls).)
+
+### All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) {#StickyExpectations}
+
+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)?
+
+After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes
+(solve it yourself first - don't cheat!):
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::AnyNumber;
+...
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _)) // #1
+ .Times(AnyNumber());
+EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0)) // #2
+ .Times(2);
+```
+
+Suppose `turtle.GoTo(0, 0)` is called three times. In the third time, gMock will
+see that the arguments match expectation #2 (remember that we always pick the
+last matching expectation). Now, since we said that there should be only two
+such calls, gMock will report an error immediately. This is basically what we've
+told you in the [Using Multiple Expectations](#MultiExpectations) section above.
+
+This example shows that **expectations in gMock are "sticky" by default**, in
+the sense that they remain active even after we have reached their invocation
+upper bounds. This is an important rule to remember, as it affects the meaning
+of the spec, and is **different** to how it's done in many other mocking
+frameworks (Why'd we do that? Because we think our rule makes the common cases
+easier to express and understand.).
+
+Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code
+say?
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
+ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
+ .WillOnce(Return(10*i));
+}
+```
+
+If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will
+return 10, 20, 30, ..., consecutively, think twice! The problem is that, as we
+said, expectations are sticky. So, the second time `turtle.GetX()` is called,
+the last (latest) `EXPECT_CALL()` statement will match, and will immediately
+lead to an "upper bound violated" error - this piece of code is not very useful!
+
+One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is
+to explicitly say that the expectations are *not* sticky. In other words, they
+should *retire* as soon as they are saturated:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
+ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
+ .WillOnce(Return(10*i))
+ .RetiresOnSaturation();
+}
+```
+
+And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur
+in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the
+order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::InSequence;
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+{
+ InSequence s;
+
+ for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
+ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
+ .WillOnce(Return(10*i))
+ .RetiresOnSaturation();
+ }
+}
+```
+
+By the way, the other situation where an expectation may *not* be sticky is when
+it's in a sequence - as soon as another expectation that comes after it in the
+sequence has been used, it automatically retires (and will never be used to
+match any call).
+
+### Uninteresting Calls
+
+A mock object may have many methods, and not all of them are that interesting.
+For example, in some tests we may not care about how many times `GetX()` and
+`GetY()` get called.
+
+In gMock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything about
+it. If a call to this method occurs, you'll see a warning in the test output,
+but it won't be a failure. This is called "naggy" behavior; to change, see
+[The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy](gmock_cook_book.md#NiceStrictNaggy).
diff --git a/docs/index.md b/docs/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b162c74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# GoogleTest User's Guide
+
+## Welcome to GoogleTest!
+
+GoogleTest is Google's C++ testing and mocking framework. This user's guide has
+the following contents:
+
+* [GoogleTest Primer](primer.md) - Teaches you how to write simple tests using
+ GoogleTest. Read this first if you are new to GoogleTest.
+* [GoogleTest Advanced](advanced.md) - Read this when you've finished the
+ Primer and want to utilize GoogleTest to its full potential.
+* [GoogleTest Samples](samples.md) - Describes some GoogleTest samples.
+* [GoogleTest FAQ](faq.md) - Have a question? Want some tips? Check here
+ first.
+* [Mocking for Dummies](gmock_for_dummies.md) - Teaches you how to create mock
+ objects and use them in tests.
+* [Mocking Cookbook](gmock_cook_book.md) - Includes tips and approaches to
+ common mocking use cases.
+* [Mocking Cheat Sheet](gmock_cheat_sheet.md) - A handy reference for
+ matchers, actions, invariants, and more.
+* [Mocking FAQ](gmock_faq.md) - Contains answers to some mocking-specific
+ questions.
diff --git a/docs/pkgconfig.md b/docs/pkgconfig.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..768e9b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/pkgconfig.md
@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+## Using GoogleTest from various build systems
+
+GoogleTest comes with pkg-config files that can be used to determine all
+necessary flags for compiling and linking to GoogleTest (and GoogleMock).
+Pkg-config is a standardised plain-text format containing
+
+* the includedir (-I) path
+* necessary macro (-D) definitions
+* further required flags (-pthread)
+* the library (-L) path
+* the library (-l) to link to
+
+All current build systems support pkg-config in one way or another. For all
+examples here we assume you want to compile the sample
+`samples/sample3_unittest.cc`.
+
+### CMake
+
+Using `pkg-config` in CMake is fairly easy:
+
+```cmake
+cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.0)
+
+cmake_policy(SET CMP0048 NEW)
+project(my_gtest_pkgconfig VERSION 0.0.1 LANGUAGES CXX)
+
+find_package(PkgConfig)
+pkg_search_module(GTEST REQUIRED gtest_main)
+
+add_executable(testapp samples/sample3_unittest.cc)
+target_link_libraries(testapp ${GTEST_LDFLAGS})
+target_compile_options(testapp PUBLIC ${GTEST_CFLAGS})
+
+include(CTest)
+add_test(first_and_only_test testapp)
+```
+
+It is generally recommended that you use `target_compile_options` + `_CFLAGS`
+over `target_include_directories` + `_INCLUDE_DIRS` as the former includes not
+just -I flags (GoogleTest might require a macro indicating to internal headers
+that all libraries have been compiled with threading enabled. In addition,
+GoogleTest might also require `-pthread` in the compiling step, and as such
+splitting the pkg-config `Cflags` variable into include dirs and macros for
+`target_compile_definitions()` might still miss this). The same recommendation
+goes for using `_LDFLAGS` over the more commonplace `_LIBRARIES`, which happens
+to discard `-L` flags and `-pthread`.
+
+### Help! pkg-config can't find GoogleTest!
+
+Let's say you have a `CMakeLists.txt` along the lines of the one in this
+tutorial and you try to run `cmake`. It is very possible that you get a failure
+along the lines of:
+
+```
+-- Checking for one of the modules 'gtest_main'
+CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindPkgConfig.cmake:640 (message):
+ None of the required 'gtest_main' found
+```
+
+These failures are common if you installed GoogleTest yourself and have not
+sourced it from a distro or other package manager. If so, you need to tell
+pkg-config where it can find the `.pc` files containing the information. Say you
+installed GoogleTest to `/usr/local`, then it might be that the `.pc` files are
+installed under `/usr/local/lib64/pkgconfig`. If you set
+
+```
+export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/local/lib64/pkgconfig
+```
+
+pkg-config will also try to look in `PKG_CONFIG_PATH` to find `gtest_main.pc`.
+
+### Using pkg-config in a cross-compilation setting
+
+Pkg-config can be used in a cross-compilation setting too. To do this, let's
+assume the final prefix of the cross-compiled installation will be `/usr`, and
+your sysroot is `/home/MYUSER/sysroot`. Configure and install GTest using
+
+```
+mkdir build && cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr ..
+```
+
+Install into the sysroot using `DESTDIR`:
+
+```
+make -j install DESTDIR=/home/MYUSER/sysroot
+```
+
+Before we continue, it is recommended to **always** define the following two
+variables for pkg-config in a cross-compilation setting:
+
+```
+export PKG_CONFIG_ALLOW_SYSTEM_CFLAGS=yes
+export PKG_CONFIG_ALLOW_SYSTEM_LIBS=yes
+```
+
+otherwise `pkg-config` will filter `-I` and `-L` flags against standard prefixes
+such as `/usr` (see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28264#c3 for
+reasons why this stripping needs to occur usually).
+
+If you look at the generated pkg-config file, it will look something like
+
+```
+libdir=/usr/lib64
+includedir=/usr/include
+
+Name: gtest
+Description: GoogleTest (without main() function)
+Version: 1.10.0
+URL: https://github.com/google/googletest
+Libs: -L${libdir} -lgtest -lpthread
+Cflags: -I${includedir} -DGTEST_HAS_PTHREAD=1 -lpthread
+```
+
+Notice that the sysroot is not included in `libdir` and `includedir`! If you try
+to run `pkg-config` with the correct
+`PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR=/home/MYUSER/sysroot/usr/lib64/pkgconfig` against this `.pc`
+file, you will get
+
+```
+$ pkg-config --cflags gtest
+-DGTEST_HAS_PTHREAD=1 -lpthread -I/usr/include
+$ pkg-config --libs gtest
+-L/usr/lib64 -lgtest -lpthread
+```
+
+which is obviously wrong and points to the `CBUILD` and not `CHOST` root. In
+order to use this in a cross-compilation setting, we need to tell pkg-config to
+inject the actual sysroot into `-I` and `-L` variables. Let us now tell
+pkg-config about the actual sysroot
+
+```
+export PKG_CONFIG_DIR=
+export PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR=/home/MYUSER/sysroot
+export PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR=${PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR}/usr/lib64/pkgconfig
+```
+
+and running `pkg-config` again we get
+
+```
+$ pkg-config --cflags gtest
+-DGTEST_HAS_PTHREAD=1 -lpthread -I/home/MYUSER/sysroot/usr/include
+$ pkg-config --libs gtest
+-L/home/MYUSER/sysroot/usr/lib64 -lgtest -lpthread
+```
+
+which contains the correct sysroot now. For a more comprehensive guide to also
+including `${CHOST}` in build system calls, see the excellent tutorial by Diego
+Elio Pettenò: <https://autotools.io/pkgconfig/cross-compiling.html>
diff --git a/docs/platforms.md b/docs/platforms.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..eba6ef8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/platforms.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Supported Platforms
+
+GoogleTest requires a codebase and compiler compliant with the C++11 standard or
+newer.
+
+The GoogleTest code is officially supported on the following platforms.
+Operating systems or tools not listed below are community-supported. For
+community-supported platforms, patches that do not complicate the code may be
+considered.
+
+If you notice any problems on your platform, please file an issue on the
+[GoogleTest GitHub Issue Tracker](https://github.com/google/googletest/issues).
+Pull requests containing fixes are welcome!
+
+### Operating systems
+
+* Linux
+* macOS
+* Windows
+
+### Compilers
+
+* gcc 5.0+
+* clang 5.0+
+* MSVC 2015+
+
+**macOS users:** Xcode 9.3+ provides clang 5.0+.
+
+### Build systems
+
+* [Bazel](https://bazel.build/)
+* [CMake](https://cmake.org/)
+
+Bazel is the build system used by the team internally and in tests. CMake is
+supported on a best-effort basis and by the community.
diff --git a/docs/primer.md b/docs/primer.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..44a1cb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/primer.md
@@ -0,0 +1,578 @@
+# Googletest Primer
+
+## Introduction: Why googletest?
+
+*googletest* helps you write better C++ tests.
+
+googletest is a testing framework developed by the Testing Technology team with
+Google's specific requirements and constraints in mind. Whether you work on
+Linux, Windows, or a Mac, if you write C++ code, googletest can help you. And it
+supports *any* kind of tests, not just unit tests.
+
+So what makes a good test, and how does googletest fit in? We believe:
+
+1. Tests should be *independent* and *repeatable*. It's a pain to debug a test
+ that succeeds or fails as a result of other tests. googletest isolates the
+ tests by running each of them on a different object. When a test fails,
+ googletest allows you to run it in isolation for quick debugging.
+2. Tests should be well *organized* and reflect the structure of the tested
+ code. googletest groups related tests into test suites that can share data
+ and subroutines. This common pattern is easy to recognize and makes tests
+ easy to maintain. Such consistency is especially helpful when people switch
+ projects and start to work on a new code base.
+3. Tests should be *portable* and *reusable*. Google has a lot of code that is
+ platform-neutral; its tests should also be platform-neutral. googletest
+ works on different OSes, with different compilers, with or without
+ exceptions, so googletest tests can work with a variety of configurations.
+4. When tests fail, they should provide as much *information* about the problem
+ as possible. googletest doesn't stop at the first test failure. Instead, it
+ only stops the current test and continues with the next. You can also set up
+ tests that report non-fatal failures after which the current test continues.
+ Thus, you can detect and fix multiple bugs in a single run-edit-compile
+ cycle.
+5. The testing framework should liberate test writers from housekeeping chores
+ and let them focus on the test *content*. googletest automatically keeps
+ track of all tests defined, and doesn't require the user to enumerate them
+ in order to run them.
+6. Tests should be *fast*. With googletest, you can reuse shared resources
+ across tests and pay for the set-up/tear-down only once, without making
+ tests depend on each other.
+
+Since googletest is based on the popular xUnit architecture, you'll feel right
+at home if you've used JUnit or PyUnit before. If not, it will take you about 10
+minutes to learn the basics and get started. So let's go!
+
+## Beware of the nomenclature
+
+{: .callout .note}
+_Note:_ There might be some confusion arising from different definitions of the
+terms _Test_, _Test Case_ and _Test Suite_, so beware of misunderstanding these.
+
+Historically, googletest started to use the term _Test Case_ for grouping
+related tests, whereas current publications, including International Software
+Testing Qualifications Board ([ISTQB](http://www.istqb.org/)) materials and
+various textbooks on software quality, use the term
+_[Test Suite][istqb test suite]_ for this.
+
+The related term _Test_, as it is used in googletest, corresponds to the term
+_[Test Case][istqb test case]_ of ISTQB and others.
+
+The term _Test_ is commonly of broad enough sense, including ISTQB's definition
+of _Test Case_, so it's not much of a problem here. But the term _Test Case_ as
+was used in Google Test is of contradictory sense and thus confusing.
+
+googletest recently started replacing the term _Test Case_ with _Test Suite_.
+The preferred API is *TestSuite*. The older TestCase API is being slowly
+deprecated and refactored away.
+
+So please be aware of the different definitions of the terms:
+
+
+Meaning | googletest Term | [ISTQB](http://www.istqb.org/) Term
+:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------- | :----------------------------------
+Exercise a particular program path with specific input values and verify the results | [TEST()](#simple-tests) | [Test Case][istqb test case]
+
+
+[istqb test case]: http://glossary.istqb.org/en/search/test%20case
+[istqb test suite]: http://glossary.istqb.org/en/search/test%20suite
+
+## Basic Concepts
+
+When using googletest, you start by writing *assertions*, which are statements
+that check whether a condition is true. An assertion's result can be *success*,
+*nonfatal failure*, or *fatal failure*. If a fatal failure occurs, it aborts the
+current function; otherwise the program continues normally.
+
+*Tests* use assertions to verify the tested code's behavior. If a test crashes
+or has a failed assertion, then it *fails*; otherwise it *succeeds*.
+
+A *test suite* contains one or many tests. You should group your tests into test
+suites that reflect the structure of the tested code. When multiple tests in a
+test suite need to share common objects and subroutines, you can put them into a
+*test fixture* class.
+
+A *test program* can contain multiple test suites.
+
+We'll now explain how to write a test program, starting at the individual
+assertion level and building up to tests and test suites.
+
+## Assertions
+
+googletest assertions are macros that resemble function calls. You test a class
+or function by making assertions about its behavior. When an assertion fails,
+googletest prints the assertion's source file and line number location, along
+with a failure message. You may also supply a custom failure message which will
+be appended to googletest's message.
+
+The assertions come in pairs that test the same thing but have different effects
+on the current function. `ASSERT_*` versions generate fatal failures when they
+fail, and **abort the current function**. `EXPECT_*` versions generate nonfatal
+failures, which don't abort the current function. Usually `EXPECT_*` are
+preferred, as they allow more than one failure to be reported in a test.
+However, you should use `ASSERT_*` if it doesn't make sense to continue when the
+assertion in question fails.
+
+Since a failed `ASSERT_*` returns from the current function immediately,
+possibly skipping clean-up code that comes after it, it may cause a space leak.
+Depending on the nature of the leak, it may or may not be worth fixing - so keep
+this in mind if you get a heap checker error in addition to assertion errors.
+
+To provide a custom failure message, simply stream it into the macro using the
+`<<` operator or a sequence of such operators. An example:
+
+```c++
+ASSERT_EQ(x.size(), y.size()) << "Vectors x and y are of unequal length";
+
+for (int i = 0; i < x.size(); ++i) {
+ EXPECT_EQ(x[i], y[i]) << "Vectors x and y differ at index " << i;
+}
+```
+
+Anything that can be streamed to an `ostream` can be streamed to an assertion
+macro--in particular, C strings and `string` objects. If a wide string
+(`wchar_t*`, `TCHAR*` in `UNICODE` mode on Windows, or `std::wstring`) is
+streamed to an assertion, it will be translated to UTF-8 when printed.
+
+### Basic Assertions
+
+These assertions do basic true/false condition testing.
+
+Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies
+-------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------
+`ASSERT_TRUE(condition);` | `EXPECT_TRUE(condition);` | `condition` is true
+`ASSERT_FALSE(condition);` | `EXPECT_FALSE(condition);` | `condition` is false
+
+Remember, when they fail, `ASSERT_*` yields a fatal failure and returns from the
+current function, while `EXPECT_*` yields a nonfatal failure, allowing the
+function to continue running. In either case, an assertion failure means its
+containing test fails.
+
+**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac.
+
+### Binary Comparison
+
+This section describes assertions that compare two values.
+
+Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies
+------------------------ | ------------------------ | --------------
+`ASSERT_EQ(val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_EQ(val1, val2);` | `val1 == val2`
+`ASSERT_NE(val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_NE(val1, val2);` | `val1 != val2`
+`ASSERT_LT(val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_LT(val1, val2);` | `val1 < val2`
+`ASSERT_LE(val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_LE(val1, val2);` | `val1 <= val2`
+`ASSERT_GT(val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_GT(val1, val2);` | `val1 > val2`
+`ASSERT_GE(val1, val2);` | `EXPECT_GE(val1, val2);` | `val1 >= val2`
+
+Value arguments must be comparable by the assertion's comparison operator or
+you'll get a compiler error. We used to require the arguments to support the
+`<<` operator for streaming to an `ostream`, but this is no longer necessary. If
+`<<` is supported, it will be called to print the arguments when the assertion
+fails; otherwise googletest will attempt to print them in the best way it can.
+For more details and how to customize the printing of the arguments, see the
+[documentation](./advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values).
+
+These assertions can work with a user-defined type, but only if you define the
+corresponding comparison operator (e.g., `==` or `<`). Since this is discouraged
+by the Google
+[C++ Style Guide](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Operator_Overloading),
+you may need to use `ASSERT_TRUE()` or `EXPECT_TRUE()` to assert the equality of
+two objects of a user-defined type.
+
+However, when possible, `ASSERT_EQ(actual, expected)` is preferred to
+`ASSERT_TRUE(actual == expected)`, since it tells you `actual` and `expected`'s
+values on failure.
+
+Arguments are always evaluated exactly once. Therefore, it's OK for the
+arguments to have side effects. However, as with any ordinary C/C++ function,
+the arguments' evaluation order is undefined (i.e., the compiler is free to
+choose any order), and your code should not depend on any particular argument
+evaluation order.
+
+`ASSERT_EQ()` does pointer equality on pointers. If used on two C strings, it
+tests if they are in the same memory location, not if they have the same value.
+Therefore, if you want to compare C strings (e.g. `const char*`) by value, use
+`ASSERT_STREQ()`, which will be described later on. In particular, to assert
+that a C string is `NULL`, use `ASSERT_STREQ(c_string, NULL)`. Consider using
+`ASSERT_EQ(c_string, nullptr)` if c++11 is supported. To compare two `string`
+objects, you should use `ASSERT_EQ`.
+
+When doing pointer comparisons use `*_EQ(ptr, nullptr)` and `*_NE(ptr, nullptr)`
+instead of `*_EQ(ptr, NULL)` and `*_NE(ptr, NULL)`. This is because `nullptr` is
+typed, while `NULL` is not. See the [FAQ](faq.md) for more details.
+
+If you're working with floating point numbers, you may want to use the floating
+point variations of some of these macros in order to avoid problems caused by
+rounding. See [Advanced googletest Topics](advanced.md) for details.
+
+Macros in this section work with both narrow and wide string objects (`string`
+and `wstring`).
+
+**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac.
+
+**Historical note**: Before February 2016 `*_EQ` had a convention of calling it
+as `ASSERT_EQ(expected, actual)`, so lots of existing code uses this order. Now
+`*_EQ` treats both parameters in the same way.
+
+### String Comparison
+
+The assertions in this group compare two **C strings**. If you want to compare
+two `string` objects, use `EXPECT_EQ`, `EXPECT_NE`, and etc instead.
+
+
+| Fatal assertion | Nonfatal assertion | Verifies |
+| -------------------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------- |
+| `ASSERT_STREQ(str1,str2);` | `EXPECT_STREQ(str1,str2);` | the two C strings have the same content |
+| `ASSERT_STRNE(str1,str2);` | `EXPECT_STRNE(str1,str2);` | the two C strings have different contents |
+| `ASSERT_STRCASEEQ(str1,str2);` | `EXPECT_STRCASEEQ(str1,str2);` | the two C strings have the same content, ignoring case |
+| `ASSERT_STRCASENE(str1,str2);` | `EXPECT_STRCASENE(str1,str2);` | the two C strings have different contents, ignoring case |
+
+
+Note that "CASE" in an assertion name means that case is ignored. A `NULL`
+pointer and an empty string are considered *different*.
+
+`*STREQ*` and `*STRNE*` also accept wide C strings (`wchar_t*`). If a comparison
+of two wide strings fails, their values will be printed as UTF-8 narrow strings.
+
+**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac.
+
+**See also**: For more string comparison tricks (substring, prefix, suffix, and
+regular expression matching, for example), see [this](advanced.md) in the
+Advanced googletest Guide.
+
+## Simple Tests
+
+To create a test:
+
+1. Use the `TEST()` macro to define and name a test function. These are
+ ordinary C++ functions that don't return a value.
+2. In this function, along with any valid C++ statements you want to include,
+ use the various googletest assertions to check values.
+3. The test's result is determined by the assertions; if any assertion in the
+ test fails (either fatally or non-fatally), or if the test crashes, the
+ entire test fails. Otherwise, it succeeds.
+
+```c++
+TEST(TestSuiteName, TestName) {
+ ... test body ...
+}
+```
+
+`TEST()` arguments go from general to specific. The *first* argument is the name
+of the test suite, and the *second* argument is the test's name within the test
+suite. Both names must be valid C++ identifiers, and they should not contain
+any underscores (`_`). A test's *full name* consists of its containing test suite and
+its individual name. Tests from different test suites can have the same
+individual name.
+
+For example, let's take a simple integer function:
+
+```c++
+int Factorial(int n); // Returns the factorial of n
+```
+
+A test suite for this function might look like:
+
+```c++
+// Tests factorial of 0.
+TEST(FactorialTest, HandlesZeroInput) {
+ EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(0), 1);
+}
+
+// Tests factorial of positive numbers.
+TEST(FactorialTest, HandlesPositiveInput) {
+ EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(1), 1);
+ EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(2), 2);
+ EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(3), 6);
+ EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(8), 40320);
+}
+```
+
+googletest groups the test results by test suites, so logically related tests
+should be in the same test suite; in other words, the first argument to their
+`TEST()` should be the same. In the above example, we have two tests,
+`HandlesZeroInput` and `HandlesPositiveInput`, that belong to the same test
+suite `FactorialTest`.
+
+When naming your test suites and tests, you should follow the same convention as
+for
+[naming functions and classes](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Function_Names).
+
+**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac.
+
+## Test Fixtures: Using the Same Data Configuration for Multiple Tests {#same-data-multiple-tests}
+
+If you find yourself writing two or more tests that operate on similar data, you
+can use a *test fixture*. This allows you to reuse the same configuration of
+objects for several different tests.
+
+To create a fixture:
+
+1. Derive a class from `::testing::Test` . Start its body with `protected:`, as
+ we'll want to access fixture members from sub-classes.
+2. Inside the class, declare any objects you plan to use.
+3. If necessary, write a default constructor or `SetUp()` function to prepare
+ the objects for each test. A common mistake is to spell `SetUp()` as
+ **`Setup()`** with a small `u` - Use `override` in C++11 to make sure you
+ spelled it correctly.
+4. If necessary, write a destructor or `TearDown()` function to release any
+ resources you allocated in `SetUp()` . To learn when you should use the
+ constructor/destructor and when you should use `SetUp()/TearDown()`, read
+ the [FAQ](faq.md#CtorVsSetUp).
+5. If needed, define subroutines for your tests to share.
+
+When using a fixture, use `TEST_F()` instead of `TEST()` as it allows you to
+access objects and subroutines in the test fixture:
+
+```c++
+TEST_F(TestFixtureName, TestName) {
+ ... test body ...
+}
+```
+
+Like `TEST()`, the first argument is the test suite name, but for `TEST_F()`
+this must be the name of the test fixture class. You've probably guessed: `_F`
+is for fixture.
+
+Unfortunately, the C++ macro system does not allow us to create a single macro
+that can handle both types of tests. Using the wrong macro causes a compiler
+error.
+
+Also, you must first define a test fixture class before using it in a
+`TEST_F()`, or you'll get the compiler error "`virtual outside class
+declaration`".
+
+For each test defined with `TEST_F()`, googletest will create a *fresh* test
+fixture at runtime, immediately initialize it via `SetUp()`, run the test,
+clean up by calling `TearDown()`, and then delete the test fixture. Note that
+different tests in the same test suite have different test fixture objects, and
+googletest always deletes a test fixture before it creates the next one.
+googletest does **not** reuse the same test fixture for multiple tests. Any
+changes one test makes to the fixture do not affect other tests.
+
+As an example, let's write tests for a FIFO queue class named `Queue`, which has
+the following interface:
+
+```c++
+template <typename E> // E is the element type.
+class Queue {
+ public:
+ Queue();
+ void Enqueue(const E& element);
+ E* Dequeue(); // Returns NULL if the queue is empty.
+ size_t size() const;
+ ...
+};
+```
+
+First, define a fixture class. By convention, you should give it the name
+`FooTest` where `Foo` is the class being tested.
+
+```c++
+class QueueTest : public ::testing::Test {
+ protected:
+ void SetUp() override {
+ q1_.Enqueue(1);
+ q2_.Enqueue(2);
+ q2_.Enqueue(3);
+ }
+
+ // void TearDown() override {}
+
+ Queue<int> q0_;
+ Queue<int> q1_;
+ Queue<int> q2_;
+};
+```
+
+In this case, `TearDown()` is not needed since we don't have to clean up after
+each test, other than what's already done by the destructor.
+
+Now we'll write tests using `TEST_F()` and this fixture.
+
+```c++
+TEST_F(QueueTest, IsEmptyInitially) {
+ EXPECT_EQ(q0_.size(), 0);
+}
+
+TEST_F(QueueTest, DequeueWorks) {
+ int* n = q0_.Dequeue();
+ EXPECT_EQ(n, nullptr);
+
+ n = q1_.Dequeue();
+ ASSERT_NE(n, nullptr);
+ EXPECT_EQ(*n, 1);
+ EXPECT_EQ(q1_.size(), 0);
+ delete n;
+
+ n = q2_.Dequeue();
+ ASSERT_NE(n, nullptr);
+ EXPECT_EQ(*n, 2);
+ EXPECT_EQ(q2_.size(), 1);
+ delete n;
+}
+```
+
+The above uses both `ASSERT_*` and `EXPECT_*` assertions. The rule of thumb is
+to use `EXPECT_*` when you want the test to continue to reveal more errors after
+the assertion failure, and use `ASSERT_*` when continuing after failure doesn't
+make sense. For example, the second assertion in the `Dequeue` test is
+`ASSERT_NE(nullptr, n)`, as we need to dereference the pointer `n` later, which
+would lead to a segfault when `n` is `NULL`.
+
+When these tests run, the following happens:
+
+1. googletest constructs a `QueueTest` object (let's call it `t1`).
+2. `t1.SetUp()` initializes `t1`.
+3. The first test (`IsEmptyInitially`) runs on `t1`.
+4. `t1.TearDown()` cleans up after the test finishes.
+5. `t1` is destructed.
+6. The above steps are repeated on another `QueueTest` object, this time
+ running the `DequeueWorks` test.
+
+**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac.
+
+## Invoking the Tests
+
+`TEST()` and `TEST_F()` implicitly register their tests with googletest. So,
+unlike with many other C++ testing frameworks, you don't have to re-list all
+your defined tests in order to run them.
+
+After defining your tests, you can run them with `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`, which
+returns `0` if all the tests are successful, or `1` otherwise. Note that
+`RUN_ALL_TESTS()` runs *all tests* in your link unit--they can be from
+different test suites, or even different source files.
+
+When invoked, the `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` macro:
+
+* Saves the state of all googletest flags.
+
+* Creates a test fixture object for the first test.
+
+* Initializes it via `SetUp()`.
+
+* Runs the test on the fixture object.
+
+* Cleans up the fixture via `TearDown()`.
+
+* Deletes the fixture.
+
+* Restores the state of all googletest flags.
+
+* Repeats the above steps for the next test, until all tests have run.
+
+If a fatal failure happens the subsequent steps will be skipped.
+
+{: .callout .important}
+> IMPORTANT: You must **not** ignore the return value of `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`, or
+> you will get a compiler error. The rationale for this design is that the
+> automated testing service determines whether a test has passed based on its
+> exit code, not on its stdout/stderr output; thus your `main()` function must
+> return the value of `RUN_ALL_TESTS()`.
+>
+> Also, you should call `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` only **once**. Calling it more than
+> once conflicts with some advanced googletest features (e.g., thread-safe
+> [death tests](advanced.md#death-tests)) and thus is not supported.
+
+**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac.
+
+## Writing the main() Function
+
+Most users should _not_ need to write their own `main` function and instead link
+with `gtest_main` (as opposed to with `gtest`), which defines a suitable entry
+point. See the end of this section for details. The remainder of this section
+should only apply when you need to do something custom before the tests run that
+cannot be expressed within the framework of fixtures and test suites.
+
+If you write your own `main` function, it should return the value of
+`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`.
+
+You can start from this boilerplate:
+
+```c++
+#include "this/package/foo.h"
+
+#include "gtest/gtest.h"
+
+namespace my {
+namespace project {
+namespace {
+
+// The fixture for testing class Foo.
+class FooTest : public ::testing::Test {
+ protected:
+ // You can remove any or all of the following functions if their bodies would
+ // be empty.
+
+ FooTest() {
+ // You can do set-up work for each test here.
+ }
+
+ ~FooTest() override {
+ // You can do clean-up work that doesn't throw exceptions here.
+ }
+
+ // If the constructor and destructor are not enough for setting up
+ // and cleaning up each test, you can define the following methods:
+
+ void SetUp() override {
+ // Code here will be called immediately after the constructor (right
+ // before each test).
+ }
+
+ void TearDown() override {
+ // Code here will be called immediately after each test (right
+ // before the destructor).
+ }
+
+ // Class members declared here can be used by all tests in the test suite
+ // for Foo.
+};
+
+// Tests that the Foo::Bar() method does Abc.
+TEST_F(FooTest, MethodBarDoesAbc) {
+ const std::string input_filepath = "this/package/testdata/myinputfile.dat";
+ const std::string output_filepath = "this/package/testdata/myoutputfile.dat";
+ Foo f;
+ EXPECT_EQ(f.Bar(input_filepath, output_filepath), 0);
+}
+
+// Tests that Foo does Xyz.
+TEST_F(FooTest, DoesXyz) {
+ // Exercises the Xyz feature of Foo.
+}
+
+} // namespace
+} // namespace project
+} // namespace my
+
+int main(int argc, char **argv) {
+ ::testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv);
+ return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
+}
+```
+
+The `::testing::InitGoogleTest()` function parses the command line for
+googletest flags, and removes all recognized flags. This allows the user to
+control a test program's behavior via various flags, which we'll cover in
+the [AdvancedGuide](advanced.md). You **must** call this function before calling
+`RUN_ALL_TESTS()`, or the flags won't be properly initialized.
+
+On Windows, `InitGoogleTest()` also works with wide strings, so it can be used
+in programs compiled in `UNICODE` mode as well.
+
+But maybe you think that writing all those `main` functions is too much work? We
+agree with you completely, and that's why Google Test provides a basic
+implementation of main(). If it fits your needs, then just link your test with
+the `gtest_main` library and you are good to go.
+
+{: .callout .note}
+NOTE: `ParseGUnitFlags()` is deprecated in favor of `InitGoogleTest()`.
+
+## Known Limitations
+
+* Google Test is designed to be thread-safe. The implementation is thread-safe
+ on systems where the `pthreads` library is available. It is currently
+ _unsafe_ to use Google Test assertions from two threads concurrently on
+ other systems (e.g. Windows). In most tests this is not an issue as usually
+ the assertions are done in the main thread. If you want to help, you can
+ volunteer to implement the necessary synchronization primitives in
+ `gtest-port.h` for your platform.
diff --git a/docs/quickstart-bazel.md b/docs/quickstart-bazel.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..362ee6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/quickstart-bazel.md
@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+# Quickstart: Building with Bazel
+
+This tutorial aims to get you up and running with GoogleTest using the Bazel
+build system. If you're using GoogleTest for the first time or need a refresher,
+we recommend this tutorial as a starting point.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+To complete this tutorial, you'll need:
+
+* A compatible operating system (e.g. Linux, macOS, Windows).
+* A compatible C++ compiler that supports at least C++11.
+* [Bazel](https://bazel.build/), the preferred build system used by the
+ GoogleTest team.
+
+See [Supported Platforms](platforms.md) for more information about platforms
+compatible with GoogleTest.
+
+If you don't already have Bazel installed, see the
+[Bazel installation guide](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/install.html).
+
+{: .callout .note}
+Note: The terminal commands in this tutorial show a Unix shell prompt, but the
+commands work on the Windows command line as well.
+
+## Set up a Bazel workspace
+
+A
+[Bazel workspace](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/build-ref.html#workspace)
+is a directory on your filesystem that you use to manage source files for the
+software you want to build. Each workspace directory has a text file named
+`WORKSPACE` which may be empty, or may contain references to external
+dependencies required to build the outputs.
+
+First, create a directory for your workspace:
+
+```
+$ mkdir my_workspace && cd my_workspace
+```
+
+Next, you’ll create the `WORKSPACE` file to specify dependencies. A common and
+recommended way to depend on GoogleTest is to use a
+[Bazel external dependency](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/external.html)
+via the
+[`http_archive` rule](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/repo/http.html#http_archive).
+To do this, in the root directory of your workspace (`my_workspace/`), create a
+file named `WORKSPACE` with the following contents:
+
+```
+load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive")
+
+http_archive(
+ name = "com_google_googletest",
+ urls = ["https://github.com/google/googletest/archive/609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5.zip"],
+ strip_prefix = "googletest-609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5",
+)
+```
+
+The above configuration declares a dependency on GoogleTest which is downloaded
+as a ZIP archive from GitHub. In the above example,
+`609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5` is the Git commit hash of the
+GoogleTest version to use; we recommend updating the hash often to point to the
+latest version.
+
+Bazel also needs a dependency on the
+[`rules_cc` repository](https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_cc) to build C++
+code, so add the following to the `WORKSPACE` file:
+
+```
+http_archive(
+ name = "rules_cc",
+ urls = ["https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_cc/archive/40548a2974f1aea06215272d9c2b47a14a24e556.zip"],
+ strip_prefix = "rules_cc-40548a2974f1aea06215272d9c2b47a14a24e556",
+)
+```
+
+Now you're ready to build C++ code that uses GoogleTest.
+
+## Create and run a binary
+
+With your Bazel workspace set up, you can now use GoogleTest code within your
+own project.
+
+As an example, create a file named `hello_test.cc` in your `my_workspace`
+directory with the following contents:
+
+```cpp
+#include <gtest/gtest.h>
+
+// Demonstrate some basic assertions.
+TEST(HelloTest, BasicAssertions) {
+ // Expect two strings not to be equal.
+ EXPECT_STRNE("hello", "world");
+ // Expect equality.
+ EXPECT_EQ(7 * 6, 42);
+}
+```
+
+GoogleTest provides [assertions](primer.md#assertions) that you use to test the
+behavior of your code. The above sample includes the main GoogleTest header file
+and demonstrates some basic assertions.
+
+To build the code, create a file named `BUILD` in the same directory with the
+following contents:
+
+```
+load("@rules_cc//cc:defs.bzl", "cc_test")
+
+cc_test(
+ name = "hello_test",
+ size = "small",
+ srcs = ["hello_test.cc"],
+ deps = ["@com_google_googletest//:gtest_main"],
+)
+```
+
+This `cc_test` rule declares the C++ test binary you want to build, and links to
+GoogleTest (`//:gtest_main`) using the prefix you specified in the `WORKSPACE`
+file (`@com_google_googletest`). For more information about Bazel `BUILD` files,
+see the
+[Bazel C++ Tutorial](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/tutorial/cpp.html).
+
+Now you can build and run your test:
+
+<pre>
+<strong>my_workspace$ bazel test --test_output=all //:hello_test</strong>
+INFO: Analyzed target //:hello_test (26 packages loaded, 362 targets configured).
+INFO: Found 1 test target...
+INFO: From Testing //:hello_test:
+==================== Test output for //:hello_test:
+Running main() from gmock_main.cc
+[==========] Running 1 test from 1 test suite.
+[----------] Global test environment set-up.
+[----------] 1 test from HelloTest
+[ RUN ] HelloTest.BasicAssertions
+[ OK ] HelloTest.BasicAssertions (0 ms)
+[----------] 1 test from HelloTest (0 ms total)
+
+[----------] Global test environment tear-down
+[==========] 1 test from 1 test suite ran. (0 ms total)
+[ PASSED ] 1 test.
+================================================================================
+Target //:hello_test up-to-date:
+ bazel-bin/hello_test
+INFO: Elapsed time: 4.190s, Critical Path: 3.05s
+INFO: 27 processes: 8 internal, 19 linux-sandbox.
+INFO: Build completed successfully, 27 total actions
+//:hello_test PASSED in 0.1s
+
+INFO: Build completed successfully, 27 total actions
+</pre>
+
+Congratulations! You've successfully built and run a test binary using
+GoogleTest.
+
+## Next steps
+
+* [Check out the Primer](primer.md) to start learning how to write simple
+ tests.
+* [See the code samples](samples.md) for more examples showing how to use a
+ variety of GoogleTest features.
diff --git a/docs/quickstart-cmake.md b/docs/quickstart-cmake.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..420f1d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/quickstart-cmake.md
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# Quickstart: Building with CMake
+
+This tutorial aims to get you up and running with GoogleTest using CMake. If
+you're using GoogleTest for the first time or need a refresher, we recommend
+this tutorial as a starting point. If your project uses Bazel, see the
+[Quickstart for Bazel](quickstart-bazel.md) instead.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+To complete this tutorial, you'll need:
+
+* A compatible operating system (e.g. Linux, macOS, Windows).
+* A compatible C++ compiler that supports at least C++11.
+* [CMake](https://cmake.org/) and a compatible build tool for building the
+ project.
+ * Compatible build tools include
+ [Make](https://www.gnu.org/software/make/),
+ [Ninja](https://ninja-build.org/), and others - see
+ [CMake Generators](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/manual/cmake-generators.7.html)
+ for more information.
+
+See [Supported Platforms](platforms.md) for more information about platforms
+compatible with GoogleTest.
+
+If you don't already have CMake installed, see the
+[CMake installation guide](https://cmake.org/install).
+
+{: .callout .note}
+Note: The terminal commands in this tutorial show a Unix shell prompt, but the
+commands work on the Windows command line as well.
+
+## Set up a project
+
+CMake uses a file named `CMakeLists.txt` to configure the build system for a
+project. You'll use this file to set up your project and declare a dependency on
+GoogleTest.
+
+First, create a directory for your project:
+
+```
+$ mkdir my_project && cd my_project
+```
+
+Next, you'll create the `CMakeLists.txt` file and declare a dependency on
+GoogleTest. There are many ways to express dependencies in the CMake ecosystem;
+in this quickstart, you'll use the
+[`FetchContent` CMake module](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/module/FetchContent.html).
+To do this, in your project directory (`my_project`), create a file named
+`CMakeLists.txt` with the following contents:
+
+```cmake
+cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.14)
+project(my_project)
+
+# GoogleTest requires at least C++11
+set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 11)
+
+include(FetchContent)
+FetchContent_Declare(
+ googletest
+ URL https://github.com/google/googletest/archive/609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5.zip
+)
+# For Windows: Prevent overriding the parent project's compiler/linker settings
+set(gtest_force_shared_crt ON CACHE BOOL "" FORCE)
+FetchContent_MakeAvailable(googletest)
+```
+
+The above configuration declares a dependency on GoogleTest which is downloaded
+from GitHub. In the above example, `609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5` is
+the Git commit hash of the GoogleTest version to use; we recommend updating the
+hash often to point to the latest version.
+
+For more information about how to create `CMakeLists.txt` files, see the
+[CMake Tutorial](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/guide/tutorial/index.html).
+
+## Create and run a binary
+
+With GoogleTest declared as a dependency, you can use GoogleTest code within
+your own project.
+
+As an example, create a file named `hello_test.cc` in your `my_project`
+directory with the following contents:
+
+```cpp
+#include <gtest/gtest.h>
+
+// Demonstrate some basic assertions.
+TEST(HelloTest, BasicAssertions) {
+ // Expect two strings not to be equal.
+ EXPECT_STRNE("hello", "world");
+ // Expect equality.
+ EXPECT_EQ(7 * 6, 42);
+}
+```
+
+GoogleTest provides [assertions](primer.md#assertions) that you use to test the
+behavior of your code. The above sample includes the main GoogleTest header file
+and demonstrates some basic assertions.
+
+To build the code, add the following to the end of your `CMakeLists.txt` file:
+
+```cmake
+enable_testing()
+
+add_executable(
+ hello_test
+ hello_test.cc
+)
+target_link_libraries(
+ hello_test
+ gtest_main
+)
+
+include(GoogleTest)
+gtest_discover_tests(hello_test)
+```
+
+The above configuration enables testing in CMake, declares the C++ test binary
+you want to build (`hello_test`), and links it to GoogleTest (`gtest_main`). The
+last two lines enable CMake's test runner to discover the tests included in the
+binary, using the
+[`GoogleTest` CMake module](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/git-stage/module/GoogleTest.html).
+
+Now you can build and run your test:
+
+<pre>
+<strong>my_project$ cmake -S . -B build</strong>
+-- The C compiler identification is GNU 10.2.1
+-- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 10.2.1
+...
+-- Build files have been written to: .../my_project/build
+
+<strong>my_project$ cmake --build build</strong>
+Scanning dependencies of target gtest
+...
+[100%] Built target gmock_main
+
+<strong>my_project$ cd build && ctest</strong>
+Test project .../my_project/build
+ Start 1: HelloTest.BasicAssertions
+1/1 Test #1: HelloTest.BasicAssertions ........ Passed 0.00 sec
+
+100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1
+
+Total Test time (real) = 0.01 sec
+</pre>
+
+Congratulations! You've successfully built and run a test binary using
+GoogleTest.
+
+## Next steps
+
+* [Check out the Primer](primer.md) to start learning how to write simple
+ tests.
+* [See the code samples](samples.md) for more examples showing how to use a
+ variety of GoogleTest features.
diff --git a/docs/reference/matchers.md b/docs/reference/matchers.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a2ded43
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/reference/matchers.md
@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+# Matchers Reference
+
+A **matcher** matches a *single* argument. You can use it inside `ON_CALL()` or
+`EXPECT_CALL()`, or use it to validate a value directly using two macros:
+
+| Macro | Description |
+| :----------------------------------- | :------------------------------------ |
+| `EXPECT_THAT(actual_value, matcher)` | Asserts that `actual_value` matches `matcher`. |
+| `ASSERT_THAT(actual_value, matcher)` | The same as `EXPECT_THAT(actual_value, matcher)`, except that it generates a **fatal** failure. |
+
+{: .callout .note}
+**Note:** Although equality matching via `EXPECT_THAT(actual_value,
+expected_value)` is supported, prefer to make the comparison explicit via
+`EXPECT_THAT(actual_value, Eq(expected_value))` or `EXPECT_EQ(actual_value,
+expected_value)`.
+
+Built-in matchers (where `argument` is the function argument, e.g.
+`actual_value` in the example above, or when used in the context of
+`EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))`, the arguments of `method`) are
+divided into several categories:
+
+### Wildcard
+
+Matcher | Description
+:-------------------------- | :-----------------------------------------------
+`_` | `argument` can be any value of the correct type.
+`A<type>()` or `An<type>()` | `argument` can be any value of type `type`.
+
+### Generic Comparison
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :--------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------- |
+| `Eq(value)` or `value` | `argument == value` |
+| `Ge(value)` | `argument >= value` |
+| `Gt(value)` | `argument > value` |
+| `Le(value)` | `argument <= value` |
+| `Lt(value)` | `argument < value` |
+| `Ne(value)` | `argument != value` |
+| `IsFalse()` | `argument` evaluates to `false` in a Boolean context. |
+| `IsTrue()` | `argument` evaluates to `true` in a Boolean context. |
+| `IsNull()` | `argument` is a `NULL` pointer (raw or smart). |
+| `NotNull()` | `argument` is a non-null pointer (raw or smart). |
+| `Optional(m)` | `argument` is `optional<>` that contains a value matching `m`. (For testing whether an `optional<>` is set, check for equality with `nullopt`. You may need to use `Eq(nullopt)` if the inner type doesn't have `==`.)|
+| `VariantWith<T>(m)` | `argument` is `variant<>` that holds the alternative of type T with a value matching `m`. |
+| `Ref(variable)` | `argument` is a reference to `variable`. |
+| `TypedEq<type>(value)` | `argument` has type `type` and is equal to `value`. You may need to use this instead of `Eq(value)` when the mock function is overloaded. |
+
+Except `Ref()`, these matchers make a *copy* of `value` in case it's modified or
+destructed later. If the compiler complains that `value` doesn't have a public
+copy constructor, try wrap it in `std::ref()`, e.g.
+`Eq(std::ref(non_copyable_value))`. If you do that, make sure
+`non_copyable_value` is not changed afterwards, or the meaning of your matcher
+will be changed.
+
+`IsTrue` and `IsFalse` are useful when you need to use a matcher, or for types
+that can be explicitly converted to Boolean, but are not implicitly converted to
+Boolean. In other cases, you can use the basic
+[`EXPECT_TRUE` and `EXPECT_FALSE`](primer.md#basic-assertions) assertions.
+
+### Floating-Point Matchers {#FpMatchers}
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :------------------------------- | :--------------------------------- |
+| `DoubleEq(a_double)` | `argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as unequal. |
+| `FloatEq(a_float)` | `argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as unequal. |
+| `NanSensitiveDoubleEq(a_double)` | `argument` is a `double` value approximately equal to `a_double`, treating two NaNs as equal. |
+| `NanSensitiveFloatEq(a_float)` | `argument` is a `float` value approximately equal to `a_float`, treating two NaNs as equal. |
+| `IsNan()` | `argument` is any floating-point type with a NaN value. |
+
+The above matchers use ULP-based comparison (the same as used in googletest).
+They automatically pick a reasonable error bound based on the absolute value of
+the expected value. `DoubleEq()` and `FloatEq()` conform to the IEEE standard,
+which requires comparing two NaNs for equality to return false. The
+`NanSensitive*` version instead treats two NaNs as equal, which is often what a
+user wants.
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :------------------------------------------------ | :----------------------- |
+| `DoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)` | `argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal. |
+| `FloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)` | `argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as unequal. |
+| `NanSensitiveDoubleNear(a_double, max_abs_error)` | `argument` is a `double` value close to `a_double` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. |
+| `NanSensitiveFloatNear(a_float, max_abs_error)` | `argument` is a `float` value close to `a_float` (absolute error <= `max_abs_error`), treating two NaNs as equal. |
+
+### String Matchers
+
+The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object:
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :---------------------- | :------------------------------------------------- |
+| `ContainsRegex(string)` | `argument` matches the given regular expression. |
+| `EndsWith(suffix)` | `argument` ends with string `suffix`. |
+| `HasSubstr(string)` | `argument` contains `string` as a sub-string. |
+| `IsEmpty()` | `argument` is an empty string. |
+| `MatchesRegex(string)` | `argument` matches the given regular expression with the match starting at the first character and ending at the last character. |
+| `StartsWith(prefix)` | `argument` starts with string `prefix`. |
+| `StrCaseEq(string)` | `argument` is equal to `string`, ignoring case. |
+| `StrCaseNe(string)` | `argument` is not equal to `string`, ignoring case. |
+| `StrEq(string)` | `argument` is equal to `string`. |
+| `StrNe(string)` | `argument` is not equal to `string`. |
+
+`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` take ownership of the `RE` object. They
+use the regular expression syntax defined
+[here](advanced.md#regular-expression-syntax). All of these matchers, except
+`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` work for wide strings as well.
+
+### Container Matchers
+
+Most STL-style containers support `==`, so you can use `Eq(expected_container)`
+or simply `expected_container` to match a container exactly. If you want to
+write the elements in-line, match them more flexibly, or get more informative
+messages, you can use:
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :---------------------------------------- | :------------------------------- |
+| `BeginEndDistanceIs(m)` | `argument` is a container whose `begin()` and `end()` iterators are separated by a number of increments matching `m`. E.g. `BeginEndDistanceIs(2)` or `BeginEndDistanceIs(Lt(2))`. For containers that define a `size()` method, `SizeIs(m)` may be more efficient. |
+| `ContainerEq(container)` | The same as `Eq(container)` except that the failure message also includes which elements are in one container but not the other. |
+| `Contains(e)` | `argument` contains an element that matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. |
+| `Each(e)` | `argument` is a container where *every* element matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. |
+| `ElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, where the *i*-th element matches `ei`, which can be a value or a matcher. |
+| `ElementsAreArray({e0, e1, ..., en})`, `ElementsAreArray(a_container)`, `ElementsAreArray(begin, end)`, `ElementsAreArray(array)`, or `ElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `ElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, iterator range, or C-style array. |
+| `IsEmpty()` | `argument` is an empty container (`container.empty()`). |
+| `IsSubsetOf({e0, e1, ..., en})`, `IsSubsetOf(a_container)`, `IsSubsetOf(begin, end)`, `IsSubsetOf(array)`, or `IsSubsetOf(array, count)` | `argument` matches `UnorderedElementsAre(x0, x1, ..., xk)` for some subset `{x0, x1, ..., xk}` of the expected matchers. |
+| `IsSupersetOf({e0, e1, ..., en})`, `IsSupersetOf(a_container)`, `IsSupersetOf(begin, end)`, `IsSupersetOf(array)`, or `IsSupersetOf(array, count)` | Some subset of `argument` matches `UnorderedElementsAre(`expected matchers`)`. |
+| `Pointwise(m, container)`, `Pointwise(m, {e0, e1, ..., en})` | `argument` contains the same number of elements as in `container`, and for all i, (the i-th element in `argument`, the i-th element in `container`) match `m`, which is a matcher on 2-tuples. E.g. `Pointwise(Le(), upper_bounds)` verifies that each element in `argument` doesn't exceed the corresponding element in `upper_bounds`. See more detail below. |
+| `SizeIs(m)` | `argument` is a container whose size matches `m`. E.g. `SizeIs(2)` or `SizeIs(Lt(2))`. |
+| `UnorderedElementsAre(e0, e1, ..., en)` | `argument` has `n + 1` elements, and under *some* permutation of the elements, each element matches an `ei` (for a different `i`), which can be a value or a matcher. |
+| `UnorderedElementsAreArray({e0, e1, ..., en})`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(a_container)`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(begin, end)`, `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array)`, or `UnorderedElementsAreArray(array, count)` | The same as `UnorderedElementsAre()` except that the expected element values/matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, iterator range, or C-style array. |
+| `UnorderedPointwise(m, container)`, `UnorderedPointwise(m, {e0, e1, ..., en})` | Like `Pointwise(m, container)`, but ignores the order of elements. |
+| `WhenSorted(m)` | When `argument` is sorted using the `<` operator, it matches container matcher `m`. E.g. `WhenSorted(ElementsAre(1, 2, 3))` verifies that `argument` contains elements 1, 2, and 3, ignoring order. |
+| `WhenSortedBy(comparator, m)` | The same as `WhenSorted(m)`, except that the given comparator instead of `<` is used to sort `argument`. E.g. `WhenSortedBy(std::greater(), ElementsAre(3, 2, 1))`. |
+
+**Notes:**
+
+* These matchers can also match:
+ 1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`),
+ and
+ 2. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer,
+ int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#MultiArgMatchers)).
+* The array being matched may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be
+ arrays).
+* `m` in `Pointwise(m, ...)` and `UnorderedPointwise(m, ...)` should be a
+ matcher for `::std::tuple<T, U>` where `T` and `U` are the element type of
+ the actual container and the expected container, respectively. For example,
+ to compare two `Foo` containers where `Foo` doesn't support `operator==`,
+ one might write:
+
+ ```cpp
+ using ::std::get;
+ MATCHER(FooEq, "") {
+ return std::get<0>(arg).Equals(std::get<1>(arg));
+ }
+ ...
+ EXPECT_THAT(actual_foos, Pointwise(FooEq(), expected_foos));
+ ```
+
+### Member Matchers
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :------------------------------ | :----------------------------------------- |
+| `Field(&class::field, m)` | `argument.field` (or `argument->field` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_. |
+| `Field(field_name, &class::field, m)` | The same as the two-parameter version, but provides a better error message. |
+| `Key(e)` | `argument.first` matches `e`, which can be either a value or a matcher. E.g. `Contains(Key(Le(5)))` can verify that a `map` contains a key `<= 5`. |
+| `Pair(m1, m2)` | `argument` is an `std::pair` whose `first` field matches `m1` and `second` field matches `m2`. |
+| `FieldsAre(m...)` | `argument` is a compatible object where each field matches piecewise with the matchers `m...`. A compatible object is any that supports the `std::tuple_size<Obj>`+`get<I>(obj)` protocol. In C++17 and up this also supports types compatible with structured bindings, like aggregates. |
+| `Property(&class::property, m)` | `argument.property()` (or `argument->property()` when `argument` is a plain pointer) matches matcher `m`, where `argument` is an object of type _class_. The method `property()` must take no argument and be declared as `const`. |
+| `Property(property_name, &class::property, m)` | The same as the two-parameter version, but provides a better error message.
+
+**Notes:**
+
+* You can use `FieldsAre()` to match any type that supports structured
+ bindings, such as `std::tuple`, `std::pair`, `std::array`, and aggregate
+ types. For example:
+
+ ```cpp
+ std::tuple<int, std::string> my_tuple{7, "hello world"};
+ EXPECT_THAT(my_tuple, FieldsAre(Ge(0), HasSubstr("hello")));
+
+ struct MyStruct {
+ int value = 42;
+ std::string greeting = "aloha";
+ };
+ MyStruct s;
+ EXPECT_THAT(s, FieldsAre(42, "aloha"));
+ ```
+
+* Don't use `Property()` against member functions that you do not own, because
+ taking addresses of functions is fragile and generally not part of the
+ contract of the function.
+
+### Matching the Result of a Function, Functor, or Callback
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :--------------- | :------------------------------------------------ |
+| `ResultOf(f, m)` | `f(argument)` matches matcher `m`, where `f` is a function or functor. |
+
+### Pointer Matchers
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :------------------------ | :---------------------------------------------- |
+| `Address(m)` | the result of `std::addressof(argument)` matches `m`. |
+| `Pointee(m)` | `argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) points to a value that matches matcher `m`. |
+| `Pointer(m)` | `argument` (either a smart pointer or a raw pointer) contains a pointer that matches `m`. `m` will match against the raw pointer regardless of the type of `argument`. |
+| `WhenDynamicCastTo<T>(m)` | when `argument` is passed through `dynamic_cast<T>()`, it matches matcher `m`. |
+
+### Multi-argument Matchers {#MultiArgMatchers}
+
+Technically, all matchers match a *single* value. A "multi-argument" matcher is
+just one that matches a *tuple*. The following matchers can be used to match a
+tuple `(x, y)`:
+
+Matcher | Description
+:------ | :----------
+`Eq()` | `x == y`
+`Ge()` | `x >= y`
+`Gt()` | `x > y`
+`Le()` | `x <= y`
+`Lt()` | `x < y`
+`Ne()` | `x != y`
+
+You can use the following selectors to pick a subset of the arguments (or
+reorder them) to participate in the matching:
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------- |
+| `AllArgs(m)` | Equivalent to `m`. Useful as syntactic sugar in `.With(AllArgs(m))`. |
+| `Args<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(m)` | The tuple of the `k` selected (using 0-based indices) arguments matches `m`, e.g. `Args<1, 2>(Eq())`. |
+
+### Composite Matchers
+
+You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers:
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------- |
+| `AllOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)` | `argument` matches all of the matchers `m1` to `mn`. |
+| `AllOfArray({m0, m1, ..., mn})`, `AllOfArray(a_container)`, `AllOfArray(begin, end)`, `AllOfArray(array)`, or `AllOfArray(array, count)` | The same as `AllOf()` except that the matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, iterator range, or C-style array. |
+| `AnyOf(m1, m2, ..., mn)` | `argument` matches at least one of the matchers `m1` to `mn`. |
+| `AnyOfArray({m0, m1, ..., mn})`, `AnyOfArray(a_container)`, `AnyOfArray(begin, end)`, `AnyOfArray(array)`, or `AnyOfArray(array, count)` | The same as `AnyOf()` except that the matchers come from an initializer list, STL-style container, iterator range, or C-style array. |
+| `Not(m)` | `argument` doesn't match matcher `m`. |
+
+### Adapters for Matchers
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :---------------------- | :------------------------------------ |
+| `MatcherCast<T>(m)` | casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`. |
+| `SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)` | [safely casts](gmock_cook_book.md#casting-matchers) matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`. |
+| `Truly(predicate)` | `predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor. |
+
+`AddressSatisfies(callback)` and `Truly(callback)` take ownership of `callback`,
+which must be a permanent callback.
+
+### Using Matchers as Predicates {#MatchersAsPredicatesCheat}
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :---------------------------- | :------------------------------------------ |
+| `Matches(m)(value)` | evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. You can use `Matches(m)` alone as a unary functor. |
+| `ExplainMatchResult(m, value, result_listener)` | evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`, explaining the result to `result_listener`. |
+| `Value(value, m)` | evaluates to `true` if `value` matches `m`. |
+
+### Defining Matchers
+
+| Matcher | Description |
+| :----------------------------------- | :------------------------------------ |
+| `MATCHER(IsEven, "") { return (arg % 2) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsEven()` to match an even number. |
+| `MATCHER_P(IsDivisibleBy, n, "") { *result_listener << "where the remainder is " << (arg % n); return (arg % n) == 0; }` | Defines a matcher `IsDivisibleBy(n)` to match a number divisible by `n`. |
+| `MATCHER_P2(IsBetween, a, b, absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " between ", PrintToString(a), " and ", PrintToString(b))) { return a <= arg && arg <= b; }` | Defines a matcher `IsBetween(a, b)` to match a value in the range [`a`, `b`]. |
+
+**Notes:**
+
+1. The `MATCHER*` macros cannot be used inside a function or class.
+2. The matcher body 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).
+3. You can use `PrintToString(x)` to convert a value `x` of any type to a
+ string.
+4. You can use `ExplainMatchResult()` in a custom matcher to wrap another
+ matcher, for example:
+
+ ```cpp
+ MATCHER_P(NestedPropertyMatches, matcher, "") {
+ return ExplainMatchResult(matcher, arg.nested().property(), result_listener);
+ }
+ ```
diff --git a/docs/samples.md b/docs/samples.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2d97ca5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/samples.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Googletest Samples
+
+If you're like us, you'd like to look at
+[googletest samples.](https://github.com/google/googletest/tree/master/googletest/samples)
+The sample directory has a number of well-commented samples showing how to use a
+variety of googletest features.
+
+* Sample #1 shows the basic steps of using googletest to test C++ functions.
+* Sample #2 shows a more complex unit test for a class with multiple member
+ functions.
+* Sample #3 uses a test fixture.
+* Sample #4 teaches you how to use googletest and `googletest.h` together to
+ get the best of both libraries.
+* Sample #5 puts shared testing logic in a base test fixture, and reuses it in
+ derived fixtures.
+* Sample #6 demonstrates type-parameterized tests.
+* Sample #7 teaches the basics of value-parameterized tests.
+* Sample #8 shows using `Combine()` in value-parameterized tests.
+* Sample #9 shows use of the listener API to modify Google Test's console
+ output and the use of its reflection API to inspect test results.
+* Sample #10 shows use of the listener API to implement a primitive memory
+ leak checker.