gitMirror/googletest
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update GoogleTest documentation's spelling of "GoogleTest".

Browse Source 
PiperOrigin-RevId: 451067898
Change-Id: I658ab92c4ea616736f0170ac4d1548bb15a944e2
This commit is contained in:
Abseil Team 2022-05-25 19:16:56 -07:00 committed by Copybara-Service
parent 7041051488
commit cf942a5d69
1 changed files with 29 additions and 29 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

58
docs/faq.md
View File

@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
# Googletest FAQ # GoogleTest FAQ
## Why should test suite names and test names not contain underscore? ## Why should test suite names and test names not contain underscore?
{: .callout .note} {: .callout .note}
Note: Googletest reserves underscore (`_`) for special purpose keywords, such as Note: GoogleTest reserves underscore (`_`) for special purpose keywords, such as
[the `DISABLED_` prefix](advanced.md#temporarily-disabling-tests), in addition [the `DISABLED_` prefix](advanced.md#temporarily-disabling-tests), in addition
to the following rationale. to the following rationale.
@ -50,15 +50,15 @@ Now, the two `TEST`s will both generate the same class
So for simplicity, we just ask the users to avoid `_` in `TestSuiteName` and 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 `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 easy to remember. It also gives GoogleTest some wiggle room in case its
implementation needs to change in the future. implementation needs to change in the future.
If you violate the rule, there may not be immediate consequences, but your test 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 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 are using) or with a new version of GoogleTest. Therefore it's best to follow
the rule. 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)`? ## 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. 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)`, `EXPECT_EQ(ptr, nullptr)`, `EXPECT_NE(ptr, nullptr)`, `ASSERT_EQ(ptr, nullptr)`,
@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ because `nullptr` does not have the type problems that `NULL` does.
Due to some peculiarity of C++, it requires some non-trivial template meta 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()` 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 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 (otherwise we make the implementation of GoogleTest harder to maintain and more
error-prone than necessary). error-prone than necessary).
Historically, the `EXPECT_EQ()` macro took the *expected* value as its first Historically, the `EXPECT_EQ()` macro took the *expected* value as its first
@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ 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` you may want to move your `EXPECT_CALL` statements inside the `EXPECT_DEATH`
macro. macro.
## EXPECT_EQ(htonl(blah), blah_blah) generates weird compiler errors in opt mode. Is this a googletest bug? ## EXPECT_EQ(htonl(blah), blah_blah) generates weird compiler errors in opt mode. Is this a GoogleTest bug?
Actually, the bug is in `htonl()`. Actually, the bug is in `htonl()`.
@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ const int Foo::kBar; // No initializer here.
``` ```
Otherwise your code is **invalid C++**, and may break in unexpected ways. In Otherwise your code is **invalid C++**, and may break in unexpected ways. In
particular, using it in googletest comparison assertions (`EXPECT_EQ`, etc) will particular, using it in GoogleTest comparison assertions (`EXPECT_EQ`, etc) will
generate an "undefined reference" linker error. The fact that "it used to work" 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. :-) doesn't mean it's valid. It just means that you were lucky. :-)
@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ 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 may want to make sure that all of a GUI library's test suites don't leak
important system resources like fonts and brushes. important system resources like fonts and brushes.
In googletest, you share a fixture among test suites by putting the shared logic 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 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 test suite that wants to use this common logic. You then use `TEST_F()` to write
tests using each derived fixture. tests using each derived fixture.
@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ TEST_F(FooTest, Baz) { ... }
``` ```
If necessary, you can continue to derive test fixtures from a derived fixture. If necessary, you can continue to derive test fixtures from a derived fixture.
googletest has no limit on how deep the hierarchy can be. GoogleTest has no limit on how deep the hierarchy can be.
For a complete example using derived test fixtures, see For a complete example using derived test fixtures, see
[sample5_unittest.cc](https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample5_unittest.cc). [sample5_unittest.cc](https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/samples/sample5_unittest.cc).
@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ disabled by our build system. Please see more details
## My death test hangs (or seg-faults). How do I fix it? ## 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 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—see delicate. To write death tests you really need to understand how they work—see
the details at [Death Assertions](reference/assertions.md#death) in the the details at [Death Assertions](reference/assertions.md#death) in the
Assertions Reference. Assertions Reference.
@ -305,8 +305,8 @@ bullet - sorry!
## Should I use the constructor/destructor of the test fixture or SetUp()/TearDown()? {#CtorVsSetUp} ## 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 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 fixture object across multiple tests. For each `TEST_F`, GoogleTest will create
a **fresh** test fixture object, immediately call `SetUp()`, run the test body, a **fresh** test fixture object, immediately call `SetUp()`, run the test body,
call `TearDown()`, and then delete the test fixture object. call `TearDown()`, and then delete the test fixture object.
@ -345,11 +345,11 @@ You may still want to use `SetUp()/TearDown()` in the following cases:
that many standard libraries (like STL) may throw when exceptions are that many standard libraries (like STL) may throw when exceptions are
enabled in the compiler. Therefore you should prefer `TearDown()` if you enabled in the compiler. Therefore you should prefer `TearDown()` if you
want to write portable tests that work with or without exceptions. want to write portable tests that work with or without exceptions.
* The googletest team is considering making the assertion macros throw on * The GoogleTest team is considering making the assertion macros throw on
platforms where exceptions are enabled (e.g. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux platforms where exceptions are enabled (e.g. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux
client-side), which will eliminate the need for the user to propagate client-side), which will eliminate the need for the user to propagate
failures from a subroutine to its caller. Therefore, you shouldn't use 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 GoogleTest assertions in a destructor if your code could run on such a
platform. 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?
@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ they write
This is **wrong and dangerous**. The testing services needs to see the return 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 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 `main()` function ignores it, your test will be considered successful even if it
has a googletest assertion failure. Very bad. has a GoogleTest assertion failure. Very bad.
We have decided to fix this (thanks to Michael Chastain for the idea). Now, your 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 code will no longer be able to ignore `RUN_ALL_TESTS()` when compiled with
@ -440,14 +440,14 @@ TEST_F(BarTest, Abc) { ... }
TEST_F(BarTest, Def) { ... } TEST_F(BarTest, Def) { ... }
``` ```
## googletest output is buried in a whole bunch of LOG messages. What do I do? ## 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 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 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 output, making it hard to read. However, there is an easy solution to this
problem. problem.
Since `LOG` messages go to stderr, we decided to let googletest output go to 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 stdout. This way, you can easily separate the two using redirection. For
example: example:
@ -520,7 +520,7 @@ TEST(MyDeathTest, CompoundStatement) {
## I have a fixture class `FooTest`, but `TEST_F(FooTest, Bar)` gives me error ``"no matching function for call to `FooTest::FooTest()'"``. Why? ## 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 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. must have a default constructor. Normally the compiler will define one for you.
However, there are cases where you have to define your own: However, there are cases where you have to define your own:
@ -545,11 +545,11 @@ 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 create a manager thread. However, if you don't control which machine your test
runs on, you shouldn't depend on this. 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 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 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 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 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 the test case would require multiple set-up and tear-down processes, which is
inefficient and makes the semantics unclean. inefficient and makes the semantics unclean.
@ -588,11 +588,11 @@ TEST_F(FooDeathTest, Uvw) { ... EXPECT_DEATH(...) ... }
TEST_F(FooDeathTest, Xyz) { ... ASSERT_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? ## 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()` 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, makes it harder to search for real problems in the parent's log. Therefore,
googletest only prints them when the death test has failed. GoogleTest only prints them when the death test has failed.
If you really need to see such LOG messages, a workaround is to temporarily 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 break the death test (e.g. by changing the regex pattern it is expected to
@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ needs to be defined in the *same* name space. See
## How do I suppress the memory leak messages on Windows? ## How do I suppress the memory leak messages on Windows?
Since the statically initialized googletest singleton requires allocations on Since the statically initialized GoogleTest singleton requires allocations on
the heap, the Visual C++ memory leak detector will report memory leaks at the 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 end of the program run. The easiest way to avoid this is to use the
`_CrtMemCheckpoint` and `_CrtMemDumpAllObjectsSince` calls to not report any `_CrtMemCheckpoint` and `_CrtMemDumpAllObjectsSince` calls to not report any
@ -625,7 +625,7 @@ 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 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 mistake in production. Such cleverness also leads to
[Heisenbugs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug). Therefore we strongly [Heisenbugs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug). Therefore we strongly
advise against the practice, and googletest doesn't provide a way to do it. 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 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection). You can inject
@ -672,7 +672,7 @@ TEST(CoolTest, DoSomething) {
``` ```
However, the following code is **not allowed** and will produce a runtime error However, the following code is **not allowed** and will produce a runtime error
from googletest because the test methods are using different test fixture from GoogleTest because the test methods are using different test fixture
classes with the same test suite name. classes with the same test suite name.
```c++ ```c++