generic-library/googletest
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Googletest export

Browse Source 
Suggest using generic lambdas for composing macros.

Long chains of macros hurt legibility; generic lambdas are an easy way to abbreviate them, but are not an obvious solution to casual users.

Compare:
EXPECT_THAT(f(), ElementsAre(
    Property(&MyClass::foo, Property(&OtherClass::bar, Contains("x"))),
    Property(&MyClass::foo, Property(&OtherClass::bar, Contains("y"))));
to:
EXPECT_THAT(f(), ElementsAre(HasFooBar("x"), HasFooBar("y")));
PiperOrigin-RevId: 336870137
This commit is contained in:
Abseil Team 2020-10-13 10:14:25 -04:00 committed by Derek Mauro
parent 2cf1f99b97
commit d11c76175f
1 changed files with 16 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

16
googlemock/docs/cook_book.md
View File

@ -859,6 +859,22 @@ using ::testing::Not;
NULL)); NULL));
``` ```
Matchers are function objects, and parametrized matchers can be composed just
like any other function. However because their types can be long and rarely
provide meaningful information, it can be easier to express them with C++14
generic lambdas to avoid specifying types. For example,
```cpp
using ::testing::Contains;
using ::testing::Property;
inline constexpr auto HasFoo = [](const auto& f) {
return Property(&MyClass::foo, Contains(f));
};
...
EXPECT_THAT(x, HasFoo("blah"));
```
### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast} ### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
gMock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler can catch your gMock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler can catch your