Googletest export

Add files for GitHub Pages

PiperOrigin-RevId: 357096486
This commit is contained in:
Abseil Team
2021-02-11 20:50:30 -05:00
committed by Derek Mauro
parent 9e2c7ab0d8
commit 1a5a78b9a9
3 changed files with 14 additions and 11 deletions

View File

@@ -580,8 +580,6 @@ TEST(MyDeathTest, CompoundStatement) {
}
```
gtest-death-test_test.cc contains more examples if you are interested.
## 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
@@ -663,14 +661,15 @@ 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?
## 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. See abseil.io/tips/49 for details.
needs to be defined in the *same* name space. See
[Tip of the Week #49](http://abseil.io/tips/49) for details.
## How do I suppress the memory leak messages on Windows?
@@ -691,10 +690,10 @@ mistake in production. Such cleverness also leads to
advise against the practice, and googletest doesn't provide a way to do it.
In general, the recommended way to cause the code to behave differently under
test is [Dependency Injection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection). You can inject
test is [Dependency Injection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection). You can inject
different functionality from the test and from the production code. Since your
production code doesn't link in the for-test logic at all (the
[`testonly`](https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/common-definitions.html#common.testonly) attribute for BUILD targets helps to ensure
[`testonly`](http://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/common-definitions.html#common.testonly) attribute for BUILD targets helps to ensure
that), there is no danger in accidentally running it.
However, if you *really*, *really*, *really* have no choice, and if you follow