description:Let us know that something does not work as expected.
title:"[Bug]: Please title this bug report"
body:
- type:textarea
id:what-happened
attributes:
label:Describe the issue
description:What happened, and what did you expect to happen?
validations:
required:true
- type:textarea
id:steps
attributes:
label:Steps to reproduce the problem
description:It is important that we are able to reproduce the problem that you are experiencing. Please provide all code and relevant steps to reproduce the problem, including your `BUILD`/`CMakeLists.txt` file and build commands. Links to a GitHub branch or [godbolt.org](https://godbolt.org/) that demonstrate the problem are also helpful.
validations:
required:true
- type:textarea
id:version
attributes:
label:What version of GoogleTest are you using?
description:Please include the output of `git rev-parse HEAD` or the GoogleTest release version number that you are using.
validations:
required:true
- type:textarea
id:os
attributes:
label:What operating system and version are you using?
description:If you are using a Linux distribution please include the name and version of the distribution as well.
validations:
required:true
- type:textarea
id:compiler
attributes:
label:What compiler and version are you using?
description:Please include the output of `gcc -v` or `clang -v`, or the equivalent for your compiler.
validations:
required:true
- type:textarea
id:buildsystem
attributes:
label:What build system are you using?
description:Please include the output of `bazel --version` or `cmake --version`, or the equivalent for your build system.
validations:
required:true
- type:textarea
id:additional
attributes:
label:Additional context
description:Add any other context about the problem here.
[Abseil Live at Head philosophy](https://abseil.io/about/philosophy#upgrade-support).
We recommend
[updating to the latest commit in the `main` branch as often as possible](https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/FAQ.md#what-is-live-at-head-and-how-do-i-do-it).
We do publish occasional semantic versions, tagged with
`v${major}.${minor}.${patch}` (e.g. `v1.14.0`).
#### Documentation Updates
@ -15,13 +17,19 @@ Our documentation is now live on GitHub Pages at
https://google.github.io/googletest/. We recommend browsing the documentation on
GitHub Pages rather than directly in the repository.
## Why should test suite names and test names not contain underscore?
{: .callout .note}
Note: GoogleTest reserves underscore (`_`) for specialpurpose keywords, such as
Note: GoogleTest reserves underscore (`_`) for special-purpose keywords, such as
[the `DISABLED_` prefix](advanced.md#temporarily-disabling-tests), in addition
to the following rationale.
@ -33,9 +33,9 @@ contains `_`?
`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 `_`.).
(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:
@ -128,30 +128,9 @@ 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
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
@ -192,16 +171,16 @@ class Foo {
};
```
You also need to define it *outside* of the class body in `foo.cc`:
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. :-)
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
@ -311,7 +290,7 @@ 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()`.
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
@ -352,7 +331,7 @@ You may still want to use `SetUp()/TearDown()` in the following cases:
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?
## The compiler complains "no matching function to call" when I use `ASSERT_PRED*`. How do I fix it?
See details for [`EXPECT_PRED*`](reference/assertions.md#EXPECT_PRED) in the
Assertions Reference.
@ -410,7 +389,7 @@ 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.
## 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
@ -545,7 +524,7 @@ 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?
## 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
@ -570,7 +549,7 @@ 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?
## 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
@ -607,7 +586,7 @@ 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.
[Tip of the Week #49](https://abseil.io/tips/49) for details.
## How do I suppress the memory leak messages on Windows?
@ -628,10 +607,10 @@ mistake in production. Such cleverness also leads to
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
test is [Dependency Injection](https://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
[`testonly`](https://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
@ -654,7 +633,7 @@ the `--gtest_also_run_disabled_tests` flag.
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
class**. This means that the following is **allowed** because both tests use the
@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ The `argument` can be either a C string or a C++ string object:
| `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`. |
| `WhenBase64Unescaped(m)` | `argument` is a base-64 escaped string whose unescaped string matches `m`. |
| `WhenBase64Unescaped(m)` | `argument` is a base-64 escaped string whose unescaped string matches `m`. The web-safe format from [RFC 4648](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4648#section-5) is supported. |
`ContainsRegex()` and `MatchesRegex()` take ownership of the `RE` object. They
use the regular expression syntax defined
@ -288,3 +288,15 @@ which must be a permanent callback.
This page lists the facilities provided by GoogleTest for writing test programs.
To use them, include the header `gtest/gtest.h`.
To use them, add `#include <gtest/gtest.h>`.
## Macros
@ -94,7 +94,8 @@ Instantiates the value-parameterized test suite *`TestSuiteName`* (defined with
The argument *`InstantiationName`* is a unique name for the instantiation of the
test suite, to distinguish between multiple instantiations. In test output, the
instantiation name is added as a prefix to the test suite name
*`TestSuiteName`*.
*`TestSuiteName`*. If *`InstantiationName`* is empty
(`INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(, ...)`), no prefix is added.
The argument *`param_generator`* is one of the following GoogleTest-provided
functions that generate the test parameters, all defined in the `::testing`
@ -109,6 +110,7 @@ namespace:
| `ValuesIn(container)` or `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 as `std::tuple`*n*-tuples all combinations (Cartesian product) of the values generated by the given *n* generators `g1`, `g2`, ..., `gN`. |
| `ConvertGenerator<T>(g)` | Yields values generated by generator `g`, `static_cast` to `T`. |
The optional last argument *`name_generator`* is a function or functor that
generates custom test name suffixes based on the test parameters. The function
@ -121,8 +123,8 @@ custom function can be used for more control:
Uninteresting mock function call - returning default value.
Function call: Bar2(0, 1)
Returns: false
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/gmock_cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect for details.
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/gmock_cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect-useoncall for details.
[ OK ] GMockOutputTest.UninterestingCall
[ RUN ] GMockOutputTest.UninterestingCallToVoidFunction
GMOCK WARNING:
Uninteresting mock function call - returning directly.
Function call: Bar3(0, 1)
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/gmock_cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect for details.
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/gmock_cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect-useoncall for details.
[ OK ] GMockOutputTest.UninterestingCallToVoidFunction
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/gmock_cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect for details.
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/gmock_cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect-useoncall for details.
GMOCK WARNING:
Uninteresting mock function call - taking default action specified at:
FILE:#:
Function call: Bar2(1, 1)
Returns: false
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/gmock_cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect for details.
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/main/docs/gmock_cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect-useoncall for details.
[ OK ] GMockOutputTest.UninterestingCallWithDefaultAction
[ RUN ] GMockOutputTest.ExplicitActionsRunOutWithDefaultAction
Paul Groke
7 months ago
committed by
GitHub