Renaming doc files to make the file names more palatable and in preparation for…

googlemock/README.md

@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Once you understand the basics, check out the rest of the docs:
 
   * [CheatSheet](../googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md) - all the commonly used stuff
     at a glance.
-  * [CookBook](../googlemock/docs/CookBook.md) - recipes for getting things done,
+  * [CookBook](../googlemock/docs/cook_book.md) - recipes for getting things done,
     including advanced techniques.
 
 If you need help, please check the
@@ -195,8 +195,8 @@ may need to tweak your compiler and/or linker flags.  Please see the
 If you have custom matchers defined using `MatcherInterface` or
 `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`, you'll need to update their definitions to
 use the new matcher API (
-[monomorphic](./docs/CookBook.md#writing-new-monomorphic-matchers),
-[polymorphic](./docs/CookBook.md#writing-new-polymorphic-matchers)).
+[monomorphic](./docs/cook_book.md#writing-new-monomorphic-matchers),
+[polymorphic](./docs/cook_book.md#writing-new-polymorphic-matchers)).
 Matchers defined using `MATCHER()` or `MATCHER_P*()` aren't affected.
 
 Happy testing!

googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md

@@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ You can make a matcher from one or more other matchers:
 | Matcher | Description |
 |:--------|:------------|
 |`MatcherCast<T>(m)`|casts matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`.|
-|`SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)`| [safely casts](CookBook.md#casting-matchers) matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`.|
+|`SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)`| [safely casts](cook_book.md#casting-matchers) matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`.|
 |`Truly(predicate)`|`predicate(argument)` returns something considered by C++ to be true, where `predicate` is a function or functor.|
 
 ## Matchers as Predicates ##
@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ class MockFunction<R(A1, ..., An)> {
   MOCK_METHODn(Call, R(A1, ..., An));
 };
 ```
-See this [recipe](CookBook.md#using-check-points) for one application of it.
+See this [recipe](cook_book.md#using-check-points) for one application of it.
 
 # Flags #
 

googlemock/docs/Documentation.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ the respective git branch/tag).**
 
   * [ForDummies](ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock.
   * [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference.
-  * [CookBook](CookBook.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock.
+  * [CookBook](cook_book.md) -- recipes for doing various tasks using Google Mock.
   * [FrequentlyAskedQuestions](FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md) -- check here before asking a question on the mailing list.
 
 To contribute code to Google Mock, read:

googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md

@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ If you are lucky, the mocks you need to use have already been implemented by som
 Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to follow:
 
   1. Derive a class `MockTurtle` from `Turtle`.
-  1. Take a _virtual_ function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to [mock non-virtual methods using templates](CookBook.md#mocking-nonvirtual-methods), it's much more involved). Count how many arguments it has.
+  1. Take a _virtual_ function of `Turtle` (while it's possible to [mock non-virtual methods using templates](cook_book.md#mocking-nonvirtual-methods), it's much more involved). Count how many arguments it has.
   1. In the `public:` section of the child class, write `MOCK_METHODn();` (or `MOCK_CONST_METHODn();` if you are mocking a `const` method), where `n` is the number of the arguments; if you counted wrong, shame on you, and a compiler error will tell you so.
   1. Now comes the fun part: you take the function signature, cut-and-paste the _function name_ as the _first_ argument to the macro, and leave what's left as the _second_ argument (in case you're curious, this is the _type of the function_).
   1. Repeat until all virtual functions you want to mock are done.
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
 .WillRepeatedly(Return(n++));
 ```
 
-Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](CookBook.md).
+Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will always return 100 as `n++` is only evaluated once. Similarly, `Return(new Foo)` will create a new `Foo` object when the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed, and will return the same pointer every time. If you want the side effect to happen every time, you need to define a custom action, which we'll teach in the [CookBook](cook_book.md).
 
 Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means?
 
@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ By creating an object of type `InSequence`, all expectations in its scope are pu
 
 In this example, we test that `Foo()` calls the three expected functions in the order as written. If a call is made out-of-order, it will be an error.
 
-(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](CookBook.md#expecting-partially-ordered-calls).)
+(What if you care about the relative order of some of the calls, but not all of them? Can you specify an arbitrary partial order? The answer is ... yes! If you are impatient, the details can be found in the [CookBook](cook_book.md#expecting-partially-ordered-calls).)
 
 ## All Expectations Are Sticky (Unless Said Otherwise) ##
 Now let's do a quick quiz to see how well you can use this mock stuff already. How would you test that the turtle is asked to go to the origin _exactly twice_ (you want to ignore any other instructions it receives)?
@@ -444,4 +444,4 @@ In Google Mock, if you are not interested in a method, just don't say anything a
 # What Now? #
 Congratulations! You've learned enough about Google Mock to start using it. Now, you might want to join the [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion group and actually write some tests using Google Mock - it will be fun. Hey, it may even be addictive - you've been warned.
 
-Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](CookBook.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss.
+Then, if you feel like increasing your mock quotient, you should move on to the [CookBook](cook_book.md). You can learn many advanced features of Google Mock there -- and advance your level of enjoyment and testing bliss.

googlemock/docs/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ tried [Google Mock Doctor](#how-am-i-supposed-to-make-sense-of-these-horrible-te
 
 ## When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead.  What's the problem? ##
 
-In order for a method to be mocked, it must be _virtual_, unless you use the [high-perf dependency injection technique](CookBook.md#mocking-nonvirtual-methods).
+In order for a method to be mocked, it must be _virtual_, unless you use the [high-perf dependency injection technique](cook_book.md#mocking-nonvirtual-methods).
 
 ## I wrote some matchers.  After I upgraded to a new version of Google Mock, they no longer compile.  What's going on? ##
 
@@ -196,8 +196,8 @@ class MyGreatMatcher {
 ```
 
 For more information, you can read these
-[two](CookBook.md#writing-new-monomorphic-matchers)
-[recipes](CookBook.md#writing-new-polymorphic-matchers)
+[two](cook_book.md#writing-new-monomorphic-matchers)
+[recipes](cook_book.md#writing-new-polymorphic-matchers)
 from the cookbook.  As always, you
 are welcome to post questions on `googlemock@googlegroups.com` if you
 need any help.
@@ -403,10 +403,10 @@ verbose level.
 If you find yourself needing to perform some action that's not
 supported by Google Mock directly, remember that you can define your own
 actions using
-[MakeAction()](CookBook.md#writing-new-actions-quickly) or
-[MakePolymorphicAction()](CookBook.md#writing-new-polymorphic-actions),
+[MakeAction()](cook_book.md#writing-new-actions-quickly) or
+[MakePolymorphicAction()](cook_book.md#writing-new-polymorphic-actions),
 or you can write a stub function and invoke it using
-[Invoke()](CookBook.md#using-functionsmethodsfunctors-as-actions).
+[Invoke()](cook_book.md#using-functionsmethodsfunctors-as-actions).
 
 ## MOCK\_METHODn()'s second argument looks funny.  Why don't you use the MOCK\_METHODn(Method, return\_type, arg\_1, ..., arg\_n) syntax? ##
 
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ when the mock method is called.  `SetArgPointee()` says what the
 side effect is, but doesn't say what the return value should be.  You
 need `DoAll()` to chain a `SetArgPointee()` with a `Return()`.
 
-See this [recipe](CookBook.md#mocking-side-effects) for more details and an example.
+See this [recipe](cook_book.md#mocking-side-effects) for more details and an example.
 
 
 ## My question is not in your FAQ! ##

googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h

@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ class ActionHelper {
 // MORE INFORMATION:
 //
 // To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'ACTION' on
-// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md
+// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md
 
 // An internal macro needed for implementing ACTION*().
 #define GMOCK_ACTION_ARG_TYPES_AND_NAMES_UNUSED_\

googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-actions.h.pump

@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ $template
 // MORE INFORMATION:
 //
 // To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'ACTION' on
-// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md
+// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md
 
 $range i 0..n
 $range k 0..n-1

googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h

@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@
 //
 // To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'MATCHER'
 // on
-// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md
+// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md
 
 #define MATCHER(name, description)\
   class name##Matcher {\

googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-matchers.h.pump

@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ $$ }} This line fixes auto-indentation of the following code in Emacs.
 //
 // To learn more about using these macros, please search for 'MATCHER'
 // on
-// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md
+// https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md
 
 $range i 0..n
 $for i

googlemock/scripts/fuse_gmock_files.py

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ EXAMPLES
 This tool is experimental.  In particular, it assumes that there is no
 conditional inclusion of Google Mock or Google Test headers.  Please
 report any problems to googlemock@googlegroups.com.  You can read
-https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md for more
+https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md for more
 information.
 """
 

googlemock/src/gmock-spec-builders.cc

@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ void ReportUninterestingCall(CallReaction reaction, const std::string& msg) {
               "an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call.  "
               "See "
               "https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/"
-              "docs/CookBook.md#"
+              "docs/cook_book.md#"
               "knowing-when-to-expect for details.\n",
           stack_frames_to_skip);
       break;

googlemock/test/gmock-spec-builders_test.cc

@@ -2178,7 +2178,7 @@ class GMockVerboseFlagTest : public VerboseFlagPreservingFixture {
         "an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call.  "
         "See "
         "https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/"
-        "CookBook.md#"
+        "cook_book.md#"
         "knowing-when-to-expect for details.";
 
     // A void-returning function.

googlemock/test/gmock_output_test_golden.txt

@@ -75,14 +75,14 @@ GMOCK WARNING:
 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/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.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/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect 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/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.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/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect for details.
 [       OK ] GMockOutputTest.UninterestingCallToVoidFunction
 [ RUN      ] GMockOutputTest.RetiredExpectation
 unknown file: Failure
@@ -266,14 +266,14 @@ Uninteresting mock function call - taking default action specified at:
 FILE:#:
     Function call: Bar2(2, 2)
           Returns: true
-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/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.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/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect 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/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.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/master/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md#knowing-when-to-expect for details.
 [       OK ] GMockOutputTest.UninterestingCallWithDefaultAction
 [ RUN      ] GMockOutputTest.ExplicitActionsRunOutWithDefaultAction
 

googletest/docs/advanced.md

@@ -394,14 +394,14 @@ using ::testing::StartsWith;
     EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
 ```
 
-Read this [recipe](../../googlemock/docs/CookBook.md#using-matchers-in-google-test-assertions) in
+Read this [recipe](../../googlemock/docs/cook_book.md#using-matchers-in-google-test-assertions) in
 the gMock Cookbook for more details.
 
 gMock has a rich set of matchers. You can do many things googletest cannot do
 alone with them. For a list of matchers gMock provides, read
-[this](../../googlemock/docs/CookBook.md#using-matchers). Especially useful among them are
+[this](../../googlemock/docs/cook_book.md#using-matchers). Especially useful among them are
 some [protocol buffer matchers](https://github.com/google/nucleus/blob/master/nucleus/testing/protocol-buffer-matchers.h). It's easy to write
-your [own matchers](../../googlemock/docs/CookBook.md#writing-new-matchers-quickly) too.
+your [own matchers](../../googlemock/docs/cook_book.md#writing-new-matchers-quickly) too.
 
 For example, you can use gMock's
 [EqualsProto](https://github.com/google/nucleus/blob/master/nucleus/testing/protocol-buffer-matchers.h)

googletest/docs/primer.md

@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ you'll get a compiler error. We used to require the arguments to support the
 `<<` is supported, it will be called to print the arguments when the assertion
 fails; otherwise googletest will attempt to print them in the best way it can.
 For more details and how to customize the printing of the arguments, see
-gMock [recipe](../../googlemock/docs/CookBook.md#teaching-google-mock-how-to-print-your-values).).
+gMock [recipe](../../googlemock/docs/cook_book.md#teaching-google-mock-how-to-print-your-values).).
 
 These assertions can work with a user-defined type, but only if you define the
 corresponding comparison operator (e.g. `==`, `<`, etc). Since this is