If you cannot find the answer to your question here, and you have read
[Primer](primer.md) and [AdvancedGuide](advanced.md), send it to
googletestframework@googlegroups.com.
## Why should test case names and test names not contain underscore?
## Why should I use Google Test instead of my favorite C++ testing framework? ##
Underscore (`_`) is special, as C++ reserves the following to be used by the
compiler and the standard library:
First, let us say clearly that we don't want to get into the debate of
which C++ testing framework is **the best**. There exist many fine
frameworks for writing C++ tests, and we have tremendous respect for
the developers and users of them. We don't think there is (or will
be) a single best framework - you have to pick the right tool for the
particular task you are tackling.
1. any identifier that starts with an `_` followed by an upper-case letter, and
1. any identifier that contains two consecutive underscores (i.e. `__`)
*anywhere* in its name.
We created Google Test because we couldn't find the right combination
of features and conveniences in an existing framework to satisfy _our_
needs. The following is a list of things that _we_ like about Google
Test. We don't claim them to be unique to Google Test - rather, the
combination of them makes Google Test the choice for us. We hope this
list can help you decide whether it is for you too.
* Google Test is designed to be portable: it doesn't require exceptions or RTTI; it works around various bugs in various compilers and environments; etc. As a result, it works on Linux, Mac OS X, Windows and several embedded operating systems.
* Nonfatal assertions (`EXPECT_*`) have proven to be great time savers, as they allow a test to report multiple failures in a single edit-compile-test cycle.
* It's easy to write assertions that generate informative messages: you just use the stream syntax to append any additional information, e.g. `ASSERT_EQ(5, Foo(i)) << " where i = " << i;`. It doesn't require a new set of macros or special functions.
* Google Test automatically detects your tests and doesn't require you to enumerate them in order to run them.
* Death tests are pretty handy for ensuring that your asserts in production code are triggered by the right conditions.
*`SCOPED_TRACE` helps you understand the context of an assertion failure when it comes from inside a sub-routine or loop.
* You can decide which tests to run using name patterns. This saves time when you want to quickly reproduce a test failure.
* Google Test can generate XML test result reports that can be parsed by popular continuous build system like Hudson.
* Simple things are easy in Google Test, while hard things are possible: in addition to advanced features like [global test environments](advanced.md#global-set-up-and-tear-down) and tests parameterized by [values](advanced.md#value-parameterized-tests) or [types](docs/advanced.md#typed-tests), Google Test supports various ways for the user to extend the framework -- if Google Test doesn't do something out of the box, chances are that a user can implement the feature using Google Test's public API, without changing Google Test itself. In particular, you can:
* expand your testing vocabulary by defining [custom predicates](advanced.md#predicate-assertions-for-better-error-messages),
* teach Google Test how to [print your types](advanced.md#teaching-google-test-how-to-print-your-values),
* define your own testing macros or utilities and verify them using Google Test's [Service Provider Interface](advanced.md#catching-failures), and
* reflect on the test cases or change the test output format by intercepting the [test events](advanced.md#extending-google-test-by-handling-test-events).
## I'm getting warnings when compiling Google Test. Would you fix them? ##
We strive to minimize compiler warnings Google Test generates. Before releasing a new version, we test to make sure that it doesn't generate warnings when compiled using its CMake script on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS.
Unfortunately, this doesn't mean you are guaranteed to see no warnings when compiling Google Test in your environment:
* You may be using a different compiler as we use, or a different version of the same compiler. We cannot possibly test for all compilers.
* You may be compiling on a different platform as we do.
* Your project may be using different compiler flags as we do.
It is not always possible to make Google Test warning-free for everyone. Or, it may not be desirable if the warning is rarely enabled and fixing the violations makes the code more complex.
If you see warnings when compiling Google Test, we suggest that you use the `-isystem` flag (assuming your are using GCC) to mark Google Test headers as system headers. That'll suppress warnings from Google Test headers.
## Why should not test case names and test names contain underscore? ##
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
1. any identifier that contains two consecutive underscores (i.e. `__`) _anywhere_ in its name.
User code is _prohibited_ from using such identifiers.
User code is *prohibited* from using such identifiers.
Now let's look at what this means for `TEST` and `TEST_F`.
Currently `TEST(TestCaseName, TestName)` generates a class named
`TestCaseName_TestName_Test`. What happens if `TestCaseName` or `TestName`
`TestCaseName_TestName_Test`. What happens if `TestCaseName` or `TestName`
contains `_`?
1. If `TestCaseName` starts with an `_` followed by an upper-case letter (say, `_Foo`), we end up with `_Foo_TestName_Test`, which is reserved and thus invalid.
1. If `TestCaseName` ends with an `_` (say, `Foo_`), we get `Foo__TestName_Test`, which is invalid.
1. If `TestName` starts with an `_` (say, `_Bar`), we get `TestCaseName__Bar_Test`, which is invalid.
1. If `TestName` ends with an `_` (say, `Bar_`), we get `TestCaseName_Bar__Test`, which is invalid.
1. If `TestCaseName` starts with an `_` followed by an upper-case letter (say,
`_Foo`), we end up with `_Foo_TestName_Test`, which is reserved and thus
invalid.
1. If `TestCaseName` ends with an `_` (say, `Foo_`), we get
`Foo__TestName_Test`, which is invalid.
1. If `TestName` starts with an `_` (say, `_Bar`), we get
`TestCaseName__Bar_Test`, which is invalid.
1. If `TestName` ends with an `_` (say, `Bar_`), we get
`TestCaseName_Bar__Test`, which is invalid.
So clearly `TestCaseName` and `TestName` cannot start or end with `_` (Actually,
`TestCaseName` 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 `_`.).
So clearly `TestCaseName` and `TestName` cannot start or end with `_`
(Actually, `TestCaseName` 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 `TestCaseName` and `TestName` to contain `_` in the middle.
However, consider this:
It may seem fine for `TestCaseName` 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_Files_Like_An_Arrow_Test`). That's not good.
So for simplicity, we just ask the users to avoid `_` in `TestCaseName`
and `TestName`. The rule is more constraining than necessary, but it's
simple and easy to remember. It also gives Google Test some wiggle
room in case its implementation needs to change in the future.
If you violate the rule, there may not be immediately 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 Google
Test. Therefore it's best to follow the rule.
## Why is it not recommended to install a pre-compiled copy of Google Test (for example, into /usr/local)? ##
In the early days, we said that you could install
compiled Google Test libraries on `*`nix systems using `make install`.
Then every user of your machine can write tests without
recompiling Google Test.
This seemed like a good idea, but it has a
got-cha: every user needs to compile their tests using the _same_ compiler
flags used to compile the installed Google Test libraries; otherwise
they may run into undefined behaviors (i.e. the tests can behave
strangely and may even crash for no obvious reasons).
Why? Because C++ has this thing called the One-Definition Rule: if
two C++ source files contain different definitions of the same
class/function/variable, and you link them together, you violate the
rule. The linker may or may not catch the error (in many cases it's
not required by the C++ standard to catch the violation). If it
doesn't, you get strange run-time behaviors that are unexpected and
hard to debug.
If you compile Google Test and your test code using different compiler
flags, they may see different definitions of the same
class/function/variable (e.g. due to the use of `#if` in Google Test).
Therefore, for your sanity, we recommend to avoid installing pre-compiled
Google Test libraries. Instead, each project should compile
Google Test itself such that it can be sure that the same flags are
used for both Google Test and the tests.
## How do I generate 64-bit binaries on Windows (using Visual Studio 2008)? ##
(Answered by Trevor Robinson)
Load the supplied Visual Studio solution file, either `msvc\gtest-md.sln` or
`msvc\gtest.sln`. Go through the migration wizard to migrate the
solution and project files to Visual Studio 2008. Select
`Configuration Manager...` from the `Build` menu. Select `<New...>` from
the `Active solution platform` dropdown. Select `x64` from the new
platform dropdown, leave `Copy settings from` set to `Win32` and
`Create new project platforms` checked, then click `OK`. You now have
`Win32` and `x64` platform configurations, selectable from the
`Standard` toolbar, which allow you to toggle between building 32-bit or
64-bit binaries (or both at once using Batch Build).
In order to prevent build output files from overwriting one another,
you'll need to change the `Intermediate Directory` settings for the
newly created platform configuration across all the projects. To do
this, multi-select (e.g. using shift-click) all projects (but not the
solution) in the `Solution Explorer`. Right-click one of them and
select `Properties`. In the left pane, select `Configuration Properties`,
and from the `Configuration` dropdown, select `All Configurations`.
Make sure the selected platform is `x64`. For the
`Intermediate Directory` setting, change the value from
`$(PlatformName)\$(ConfigurationName)` to
`$(OutDir)\$(ProjectName)`. Click `OK` and then build the
solution. When the build is complete, the 64-bit binaries will be in
the `msvc\x64\Debug` directory.
## Can I use Google Test on MinGW? ##
We haven't tested this ourselves, but Per Abrahamsen reported that he
was able to compile and install Google Test successfully when using
MinGW from Cygwin. You'll need to configure it with:
Please contact `googletestframework@googlegroups.com` if you are
interested in improving the support for MinGW.
## Why does Google Test support EXPECT\_EQ(NULL, ptr) and ASSERT\_EQ(NULL, ptr) but not EXPECT\_NE(NULL, ptr) and ASSERT\_NE(NULL, ptr)? ##
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 Google Test
harder to maintain and more error-prone than necessary).
The `EXPECT_EQ()` macro takes the _expected_ value as its first
argument and the _actual_ value as the second. It's reasonable that
someone wants 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)` isn'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'll
have to support `EXPECT_NE(ptr, NULL)` as well, as unlike `EXPECT_EQ`,
we don't have a convention on the order of the two arguments for
`EXPECT_NE`. 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 Google Mock's [matcher](../../googlemock/docs/CookBook.md#using-matchers-in-google-test-assertions) 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
(`Time_Flies_Like_An_Arrow_Test`). That's not good.
So for simplicity, we just ask the users to avoid `_` in `TestCaseName` 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 `EXPECT_NE(nullptr, ptr)` and `ASSERT_NE(nullptr,
ptr)`. This is the preferred syntax in the style guide because nullptr does not
have the type problems that NULL does. Which is why NULL does not work.
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).
The `EXPECT_EQ()` macro takes the *expected* value as its first argument and the
*actual* value as the second. It's reasonable that someone wants 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)` isn'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'll have to
support `EXPECT_NE(ptr, NULL)` as well, as unlike `EXPECT_EQ`, we don't have a
convention on the order of the two arguments for `EXPECT_NE`. 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.
## Does Google Test support running tests in parallel? ##
Test runners tend to be tightly coupled with the build/test
environment, and Google Test doesn't try to solve the problem of
running tests in parallel. Instead, we tried to make Google Test work
nicely with test runners. For example, Google Test's XML report
contains the time spent on each test, and its `gtest_list_tests` and
`gtest_filter` flags can be used for splitting the execution of test
methods into multiple processes. These functionalities can help the
test runner run the tests in parallel.
## I need to test that different implementations of an interface satisfy some common requirements. Should I use typed tests or value-parameterized tests?
## Why don't Google Test run the tests in different threads to speed things up? ##
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:
It's difficult to write thread-safe code. Most tests are not written
with thread-safety in mind, and thus may not work correctly in a
multi-threaded setting.
* 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 output includes the name of the type, which can
help you quickly identify which implementation is wrong. Value-parameterized
tests cannot do this, so there you'll have to look at the iteration number
to know which implementation the failure is from, which is less direct.
* If you make a mistake writing a typed test, the compiler errors can be
harder to digest, as the code is templatized.
* 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.
If you think about it, it's already hard to make your code work when
you know what other threads are doing. It's much harder, and
sometimes even impossible, to make your code work when you don't know
what other threads are doing (remember that test methods can be added,
deleted, or modified after your test was written). If you want to run
the tests in parallel, you'd better run them in different processes.
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.
## Why aren't Google Test assertions implemented using exceptions? ##
## My death tests became very slow - what happened?
Our original motivation was to be able to use Google Test in projects
that disable exceptions. Later we realized some additional benefits
of this approach:
1. Throwing in a destructor is undefined behavior in C++. Not using exceptions means Google Test's assertions are safe to use in destructors.
1. The `EXPECT_*` family of macros will continue even after a failure, allowing multiple failures in a `TEST` to be reported in a single run. This is a popular feature, as in C++ the edit-compile-test cycle is usually quite long and being able to fixing more than one thing at a time is a blessing.
1. If assertions are implemented using exceptions, a test may falsely ignore a failure if it's caught by user code:
```c++
try{...ASSERT_TRUE(...)...}
catch(...){...}
```
The above code will pass even if the `ASSERT_TRUE` throws. While it's unlikely for someone to write this in a test, it's possible to run into this pattern when you write assertions in callbacks that are called by the code under test.
In August 2008 we had to switch the default death test style from `fast` to
`threadsafe`, as the former is no longer safe now that threaded logging is the
default. This caused many death tests to slow down. Unfortunately this change
was necessary.
The downside of not using exceptions is that `ASSERT_*` (implemented
using `return`) will only abort the current function, not the current
`TEST`.
Please read [Fixing Failing Death Tests](death_test_styles.md) for what you can
do.
## Why do we use two different macros for tests with and without fixtures? ##
## I got some run-time errors about invalid proto descriptors when using `ProtocolMessageEquals`. Help!
Unfortunately, C++'s macro system doesn't allow us to use the same
macro for both cases. One possibility is to provide only one macro
for tests with fixtures, and require the user to define an empty
fixture sometimes:
**Note:**`ProtocolMessageEquals` and `ProtocolMessageEquiv` are *deprecated*
now. Please use `EqualsProto`, etc instead.
```c++
classFooTest:public::testing::Test{};
`ProtocolMessageEquals` and `ProtocolMessageEquiv` were redefined recently and
are now less tolerant on 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:
TEST_F(FooTest,DoesThis){...}
```
or
```c++
typedef::testing::TestFooTest;
TEST_F(FooTest,DoesThat){...}
... descriptor.cc:...] Invalid proto descriptor for file "path/to/foo.proto":
... descriptor.cc:...] blah.MyMessage.my_field: ".Bar" is not defined.
```
Yet, many people think this is one line too many. :-) Our goal was to
make it really easy to write tests, so we tried to make simple tests
trivial to create. That means using a separate macro for such tests.
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.
We think neither approach is ideal, yet either of them is reasonable.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter much either way.
## My death test modifies some state, but the change seems lost after the death test finishes. Why?
## Why don't we use structs as test fixtures? ##
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.
We like to use structs only when representing passive data. This
distinction between structs and classes is good for documenting the
intent of the code's author. Since test fixtures have logic like
`SetUp()` and `TearDown()`, they are better defined as classes.
In particular, if you use [gMock](http://go/gmock) 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.
## Why are death tests implemented as assertions instead of using a test runner? ##
## EXPECT_EQ(htonl(blah), blah_blah) generates weird compiler errors in opt mode. Is this a googletest bug?
Our goal was to make death tests as convenient for a user as C++
possibly allows. In particular:
Actually, the bug is in `htonl()`.
* The runner-style requires to split the information into two pieces: the definition of the death test itself, and the specification for the runner on how to run the death test and what to expect. The death test would be written in C++, while the runner spec may or may not be. A user needs to carefully keep the two in sync. `ASSERT_DEATH(statement, expected_message)` specifies all necessary information in one place, in one language, without boilerplate code. It is very declarative.
*`ASSERT_DEATH` has a similar syntax and error-reporting semantics as other Google Test assertions, and thus is easy to learn.
*`ASSERT_DEATH` can be mixed with other assertions and other logic at your will. You are not limited to one death test per test method. For example, you can write something like:
```c++
if(FooCondition()){
ASSERT_DEATH(Bar(),"blah");
}else{
ASSERT_EQ(5,Bar());
}
```
If you prefer one death test per test method, you can write your tests in that style too, but we don't want to impose that on the users. The fewer artificial limitations the better.
*`ASSERT_DEATH` can reference local variables in the current function, and you can decide how many death tests you want based on run-time information. For example,
```c++
constintcount=GetCount();// Only known at run time.
for(inti=1;i<=count;i++){
ASSERT_DEATH({
double*buffer=newdouble[i];
...initializesbuffer...
Foo(buffer,i)
},"blah blah");
}
```
The runner-based approach tends to be more static and less flexible, or requires more user effort to get this kind of flexibility.
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.
Another interesting thing about `ASSERT_DEATH` is that it calls `fork()`
to create a child process to run the death test. This is lightening
fast, as `fork()` uses copy-on-write pages and incurs almost zero
overhead, and the child process starts from the user-supplied
statement directly, skipping all global and local initialization and
any code leading to the given statement. If you launch the child
process from scratch, it can take seconds just to load everything and
start running if the test links to many libraries dynamically.
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.
## My death test modifies some state, but the change seems lost after the death test finishes. Why? ##
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.
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.
`htonl()` has some other problems as described in `//util/endian/endian.h`,
which defines `ghtonl()` to replace it. `ghtonl()` does the same thing `htonl()`
does, only without its problems. We suggest you to use `ghtonl()` instead of
`htonl()`, both in your tests and production code.
`//util/endian/endian.h` also defines `ghtons()`, which solves similar problems
in `htons()`.
## The compiler complains about "undefined references" to some static const member variables, but I did define them in the class body. What's wrong? ##
Don't forget to add `//util/endian` to the list of dependencies in the `BUILD`
file wherever `ghtonl()` and `ghtons()` are used. The library consists of a
single header file and will not bloat your binary.
## 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:
...
...
@@ -343,23 +209,18 @@ 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++
constintFoo::kBar;// No initializer here.
```
Otherwise your code is **invalid C++**, and may break in unexpected ways. In
particular, using it in Google Test comparison assertions (`EXPECT_EQ`, etc)
will generate an "undefined reference" linker error.
## I have an interface that has several implementations. Can I write a set of tests once and repeat them over all the implementations? ##
Google Test doesn't yet have good support for this kind of tests, or
data-driven tests in general. We hope to be able to make improvements in this
area soon.
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. :-)
## Can I derive a test fixture from another? ##
## Can I derive a test fixture from another?
Yes.
...
...
@@ -369,33 +230,35 @@ 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 cases don't leak
important system resources like fonts and brushes.
In Google Test, you share a fixture among test cases by putting the shared
logic in a base test fixture, then deriving from that base a separate fixture
for each test case that wants to use this common logic. You then use `TEST_F()`
to write tests using each derived fixture.
In googletest, you share a fixture among test cases by putting the shared logic
in a base test fixture, then deriving from that base a separate fixture for each
test case 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.
classBaseTest:public::testing::Test{
protected:
...
protected:
...
};
// Derives a fixture FooTest from BaseTest.
classFooTest:publicBaseTest{
protected:
virtualvoidSetUp(){
BaseTest::SetUp();// Sets up the base fixture first.
...additionalset-upwork...
}
virtualvoidTearDown(){
...clean-upworkforFooTest...
BaseTest::TearDown();// Remember to tear down the base fixture
// after cleaning up FooTest!
}
...functionsandvariablesforFooTest...
protected:
voidSetUp()override{
BaseTest::SetUp();// Sets up the base fixture first.
...additionalset-upwork...
}
voidTearDown()override{
...clean-upworkforFooTest...
BaseTest::TearDown();// Remember to tear down the base fixture
## My compiler complains "void value not ignored as it ought to be." What does this mean? ##
## 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.
`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? ##
## My death test hangs (or seg-faults). How do I fix it?
In Google Test, 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.
Please make sure you have read this.
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()`.
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](http://go/gmock)
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.
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
...
...
@@ -441,28 +307,52 @@ In the end, this boils down to good concurrent programming. You have to make
sure that there is no race conditions or dead locks in your program. No silver
bullet - sorry!
## Should I use the constructor/destructor of the test fixture or the set-up/tear-down function? ##
## Should I use the constructor/destructor of the test fixture or SetUp()/TearDown()?
The first thing to remember is that Google Test does not reuse the
same test fixture object across multiple tests. For each `TEST_F`,
Google Test will create a fresh test fixture object, _immediately_
call `SetUp()`, run the test body, call `TearDown()`, and then
_immediately_ delete the test fixture object.
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:
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 moment.
* 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 rare cases:
* 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 assertion macros throw an exception when flag `--gtest_throw_on_failure` is specified. Therefore, you shouldn't use Google Test assertions in a destructor if you plan to run your tests with this flag.
* In a constructor or destructor, you cannot make a virtual function call on this object. (You can call a method declared as virtual, but it will be statically bound.) Therefore, if you need to call a method that will be overridden in a derived class, you have to use `SetUp()/TearDown()`.
## The compiler complains "no matching function to call" when I use ASSERT\_PREDn. How do I fix it? ##
* 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 a `CHECK` macro 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.
* In a constructor or destructor, you cannot make a virtual function call on
this object. (You can call a method declared as virtual, but it will be
statically bound.) Therefore, if you need to call a method that will be
overridden in a derived class, you have to use `SetUp()/TearDown()`.
## 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
(The stuff inside the angled brackets for the `static_cast` operator is the
type of the function pointer for the `int`-version of `IsPositive()`.)
(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
...
...
@@ -522,72 +413,76 @@ following won't compile:
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:
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? ##
## 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++
returnRUN_ALL_TESTS();
returnRUN_ALL_TESTS();
```
they write
```c++
RUN_ALL_TESTS();
RUN_ALL_TESTS();
```
This is wrong and dangerous. A test runner 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
Google Test assertion failure. Very bad.
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.
To help the users avoid this dangerous bug, the implementation of
`RUN_ALL_TESTS()` causes gcc to raise this warning, when the return value is
ignored. If you see this warning, the fix is simple: just make sure its value
is used as the return value of `main()`.
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.
## My compiler complains that a constructor (or destructor) cannot return a value. What's going on? ##
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;
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 in the user's guide explains
it.
switch to `EXPECT_*()` if that works. This
[section](advanced.md#assertion-placement) in the user's guide explains it.
## My set-up function is not called. Why? ##
## My SetUp() function is not called. Why?
C++ is case-sensitive. It should be spelled as `SetUp()`. Did you
spell it as `Setup()`?
C++ is case-sensitive. Did you spell it as `Setup()`?
Similarly, sometimes people spell `SetUpTestCase()` as `SetupTestCase()` and
wonder why it's never called.
## How do I jump to the line of a failure in Emacs directly? ##
## How do I jump to the line of a failure in Emacs directly?
googletest's failure message format is understood by Emacs and many other IDEs,
like acme and XCode. If a googletest message is in a compilation buffer in
Emacs, then it's clickable.
Google Test's failure message format is understood by Emacs and many other
IDEs, like acme and XCode. If a Google Test message is in a compilation buffer
in Emacs, then it's clickable. You can now hit `enter` on a message to jump to
the corresponding source code, or use `C-x `` to jump to the next failure.
## I have several test cases 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 cases 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.
## The Google Test 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 Google Test output is meant to be a concise and human-friendly report. If
your test generates textual output itself, it will mix with the Google Test
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 most log messages go to stderr, we decided to let Google Test output go
to stdout. This way, you can easily separate the two using redirection. For
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:
```
./my_test > googletest_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.
1. Global variables pollute the global namespace.
1. Test fixtures can be reused via subclassing, which cannot be done easily with global variables. This is useful if many test cases have something in common.
## How do I test private class members without writing FRIEND\_TEST()s? ##
You should try to write testable code, which means classes should be easily
tested from their public interface. One way to achieve this is the Pimpl idiom:
you move all private members of a class into a helper class, and make all
members of the helper class public.
You have several other options that don't require using `FRIEND_TEST`:
* Write the tests as members of the fixture class:
```c++
class Foo {
friend class FooTest;
...
};
class FooTest : public ::testing::Test {
protected:
...
void Test1() {...} // This accesses private members of class Foo.
void Test2() {...} // So does this one.
};
TEST_F(FooTest, Test1) {
Test1();
}
TEST_F(FooTest, Test2) {
Test2();
}
```shell
$ ./my_test > gtest_output.txt
```
* In the fixture class, write accessors for the tested class' private members, then use the accessors in your tests:
```c++
class Foo {
friend class FooTest;
...
};
class FooTest : public ::testing::Test {
protected:
...
T1 get_private_member1(Foo* obj) {
return obj->private_member1_;
}
};
TEST_F(FooTest, Test1) {
...
get_private_member1(x)
...
}
```
* If the methods are declared **protected**, you can change their access level in a test-only subclass:
```c++
class YourClass {
...
protected: // protected access for testability.
int DoSomethingReturningInt();
...
};
// in the your_class_test.cc file:
class TestableYourClass : public YourClass {
...
public: using YourClass::DoSomethingReturningInt; // changes access rights
## 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 Foo, but TEST\_F(Foo, Bar) gives me error "no matching function for call to Foo::Foo()". 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:
Google Test 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 `Foo`, then you need to define a default constructor, even if it would be empty.
* If `Foo` 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`.)
* 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? ##
## 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 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.
With the Linux pthread library, there is no turning back once you cross the line
from 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 Google Test require the entire test case, instead of individual tests, to be named FOODeathTest when it uses ASSERT\_DEATH? ##
## Why does googletest require the entire test case, instead of individual tests, to be named *DeathTest when it uses ASSERT_DEATH?
Google Test does not interleave tests from different test cases. That is, it
runs all tests in one test case first, and then runs all tests in the next test
case, and so on. Google Test does this because it needs to set up a test case
before the first test in it is run, and tear it down afterwords. Splitting up
the test case would require multiple set-up and tear-down processes, which is
inefficient and makes the semantics unclean.
googletest does not interleave tests from different test cases. That is, it runs
all tests in one test case first, and then runs all tests in the next test case,
and so on. googletest does this because it needs to set up a test case before
the first test in it is run, and tear it down afterwords. 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:
...
...
@@ -897,7 +646,7 @@ interleave tests from different test cases, 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 case FOODeathTest when it contains both death tests and non-death tests. What do I do? ##
## But I don't like calling my entire test case \*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 case into
`FooTest` and `FooDeathTest`, where the names make it clear that they are
...
...
@@ -909,119 +658,81 @@ class FooTest : public ::testing::Test { ... };
TEST_F(FooTest,Abc){...}
TEST_F(FooTest,Def){...}
typedef FooTest FooDeathTest;
usingFooDeathTest=FooTest;
TEST_F(FooDeathTest,Uvw){...EXPECT_DEATH(...)...}
TEST_F(FooDeathTest,Xyz){...ASSERT_DEATH(...)...}
```
## The compiler complains about "no match for 'operator<<'" when I use an assertion. What gives? ##
## 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.
needs to be defined in the *same* name space. See go/totw/49 for details.
## How do I suppress the memory leak messages on Windows? ##
## How do I suppress the memory leak messages on Windows?
Since the statically initialized Google Test 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
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.
## I am building my project with Google Test in Visual Studio and all I'm getting is a bunch of linker errors (or warnings). Help! ##
You may get a number of the following linker error or warnings if you
attempt to link your test project with the Google Test library when
your project and the are not built using the same compiler settings.
* LNK2005: symbol already defined in object
* LNK4217: locally defined symbol 'symbol' imported in function 'function'
* LNK4049: locally defined symbol 'symbol' imported
The Google Test project (gtest.vcproj) has the Runtime Library option
set to /MT (use multi-threaded static libraries, /MTd for debug). If
your project uses something else, for example /MD (use multi-threaded
DLLs, /MDd for debug), you need to change the setting in the Google
Test project to match your project's.
To update this setting open the project properties in the Visual
Studio IDE then select the branch Configuration Properties | C/C++ |
Code Generation and change the option "Runtime Library". You may also try
using gtest-md.vcproj instead of gtest.vcproj.
## I put my tests in a library and Google Test doesn't run them. What's happening? ##
Have you read a
[warning](primer.md#important-note-for-visual-c-users) on
the Google Test Primer page?
## I want to use Google Test with Visual Studio but don't know where to start. ##
Many people are in your position and one of them posted his solution to our mailing list.
## I am seeing compile errors mentioning std::type\_traits when I try to use Google Test on Solaris. ##
Google Test uses parts of the standard C++ library that SunStudio does not support.
Our users reported success using alternative implementations. Try running the build after running this command:
Therefore we strongly advise against the practice, and Google Test 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://jamesshore.com/Blog/Dependency-Injection-Demystified.html).
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, 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.
## Google Test defines a macro that clashes with one defined by another library. How do I deal with that? ##
In C++, macros don't obey namespaces. Therefore two libraries that
both define a macro of the same name will clash if you `#include` both
definitions. In case a Google Test macro clashes with another
library, you can force Google Test to rename its macro to avoid the
conflict.
Specifically, if both Google Test and some other code define macro
`FOO`, you can add
```
-DGTEST_DONT_DEFINE_FOO=1
```
to the compiler flags to tell Google Test to change the macro's name
from `FOO` to `GTEST_FOO`. For example, with `-DGTEST_DONT_DEFINE_TEST=1`, you'll need to write
```c++
GTEST_TEST(SomeTest, DoesThis) { ... }
```
instead of
```c++
TEST(SomeTest, DoesThis) { ... }
```
in order to define a test.
Currently, the following `TEST`, `FAIL`, `SUCCEED`, and the basic comparison assertion macros can have . You can see the full list of covered macros [here](../include/gtest/gtest.h). More information can be found in the "Avoiding Macro Name Clashes" section of the README file.
## 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://go/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://go/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.
## Is it OK if I have two separate `TEST(Foo, Bar)` test methods defined in different namespaces? ##
## 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 case must use the same fixture class**. This means that the following is **allowed** because both tests use the same fixture class (`::testing::Test`).
The rule is **all test methods in the same test case must use the same fixture
class.** This means that the following is **allowed** because both tests use the
However, the following code is **not allowed** and will produce a runtime error from Google Test because the test methods are using different test fixture classes with the same test case name.
However, the following code is **not allowed** and will produce a runtime error
from googletest because the test methods are using different test fixture
## How do I build Google Testing Framework with Xcode 4? ##
If you try to build Google Test's Xcode project with Xcode 4.0 or later, you may encounter an error message that looks like
"Missing SDK in target gtest\_framework: /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk". That means that Xcode does not support the SDK the project is targeting. See the Xcode section in the [README](../README.md) file on how to resolve this.
## How do I easily discover the flags needed for GoogleTest? ##
GoogleTest (and GoogleMock) now support discovering all necessary flags using pkg-config.
See the [pkg-config guide](Pkgconfig.md) on how you can easily discover all compiler and
linker flags using pkg-config.
## My question is not covered in your FAQ! ##
If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are
some other resources you can use:
1. read other [wiki pages](../docs),
1. search the mailing list [archive](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/googletestframework),
1. ask it on [googletestframework@googlegroups.com](mailto:googletestframework@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googletestframework) before you can post.).
Please note that creating an issue in the
[issue tracker](https://github.com/google/googletest/issues) is _not_
a good way to get your answer, as it is monitored infrequently by a
very small number of people.
When asking a question, it's helpful to provide as much of the
following information as possible (people cannot help you if there's
not enough information in your question):
* the version (or the commit hash if you check out from Git directly) of Google Test you use (Google Test is under active development, so it's possible that your problem has been solved in a later version),
* your operating system,
* the name and version of your compiler,
* the complete command line flags you give to your compiler,
* the complete compiler error messages (if the question is about compilation),
* the _actual_ code (ideally, a minimal but complete program) that has the problem you encounter.
@@ -197,7 +198,7 @@ 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 [FAQ](faq#Why_does_googletest_support_EXPECT_EQ)
typed while `NULL` is not. See [FAQ](faq.md#why-does-google-test-support-expect_eqnull-ptr-and-assert_eqnull-ptr-but-not-expect_nenull-ptr-and-assert_nenull-ptr)
for more details.
If you're working with floating point numbers, you may want to use the floating
...
...
@@ -322,7 +323,7 @@ To create a fixture:
1. 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
this [FAQ](faq#CtorVsSetUp) entry.
this [FAQ](faq.md#should-i-use-the-constructordestructor-of-the-test-fixture-or-the-set-uptear-down-function) entry.
1. If needed, define subroutines for your tests to share.
When using a fixture, use `TEST_F()` instead of `TEST()` as it allows you to
...
...
@@ -436,6 +437,7 @@ When these tests run, the following happens:
**Availability**: Linux, Windows, Mac.
## Invoking the Tests
`TEST()` and `TEST_F()` implicitly register their tests with googletest. So,
...
...
@@ -544,6 +546,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) {
}
```
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
...
...
@@ -560,6 +563,7 @@ gtest\_main library and you are good to go.
NOTE: `ParseGUnitFlags()` is deprecated in favor of `InitGoogleTest()`.
## Known Limitations
* Google Test is designed to be thread-safe. The implementation is thread-safe
