Fix doc links

googlemock/docs/CheatSheet.md

@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ Notes:
 
   * These matchers can also match:
     1. a native array passed by reference (e.g. in `Foo(const int (&a)[5])`), and
-    1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#Multiargument_Matchers.md)).
+    1. an array passed as a pointer and a count (e.g. in `Bar(const T* buffer, int len)` -- see [Multi-argument Matchers](#multiargument-matchers)).
   * The array being matched may be multi-dimensional (i.e. its elements can be arrays).
   * `m` in `Pointwise(m, ...)` should be a matcher for `::testing::tuple<T, U>` where `T` and `U` are the element type of the actual container and the expected container, respectively. For example, to compare two `Foo` containers where `Foo` doesn't support `operator==` but has an `Equals()` method, one might write:
 

googlemock/docs/CookBook.md

@@ -2237,7 +2237,7 @@ Mocking a method that takes and/or returns move-only types presents some
 challenges, but nothing insurmountable. This recipe shows you how you can do it.
 Note that the support for move-only method arguments was only introduced to
 gMock in April 2017; in older code, you may find more complex
-[workarounds](#LegacyMoveOnly) for lack of this feature.
+[workarounds](#legacy-workarounds-for-move-only-types) for lack of this feature.
 
 Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
 snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
@@ -2302,7 +2302,7 @@ action:
 ```
 
 If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
-[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
+[Setting Default Actions](#setting-the-default-actions-for-a-mock-method).
 
 If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
 `Return(ByMove(...))` action:
@@ -2345,7 +2345,7 @@ created and returned. You cannot do this with `Return(ByMove(...))`.
 That covers returning move-only values; but how do we work with methods
 accepting move-only arguments? The answer is that they work normally, although
 some actions will not compile when any of method's arguments are move-only. You
-can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#FunctionsAsActions):
+can always use `Return`, or a [lambda or functor](#using-functionsmethodsfunctors-as-actions):
 
 ```cpp
   using ::testing::Unused;
@@ -2366,7 +2366,7 @@ implemented yet. If this is blocking you, please file a bug.
 A few actions (e.g. `DoAll`) copy their arguments internally, so they can never
 work with non-copyable objects; you'll have to use functors instead.
 
-##### Legacy workarounds for move-only types {#LegacyMoveOnly}
+##### Legacy workarounds for move-only types
 
 Support for move-only function arguments was only introduced to gMock in April
 2017. In older code, you may encounter the following workaround for the lack of
@@ -2821,7 +2821,7 @@ and you should see an `OUTPUT_DIR` directory being created with files
 These three files contain everything you need to use Google Mock (and
 Google Test).  Just copy them to anywhere you want and you are ready
 to write tests and use mocks.  You can use the
-[scrpts/test/Makefile](../scripts/test/Makefile) file as an example on how to compile your tests
+[make/Makefile](../make/Makefile) file as an example on how to compile your tests
 against them.
 
 # Extending Google Mock #
@@ -3655,6 +3655,6 @@ This printer knows how to print built-in C++ types, native arrays, STL
 containers, and any type that supports the `<<` operator.  For other
 types, it prints the raw bytes in the value and hopes that you the
 user can figure it out.
-[Google Test's advanced guide](../../googletest/docs/advanced.md#teaching-google-test-how-to-print-your-values)
+[Google Test's advanced guide](../../googletest/docs/advanced.md#teaching-googletest-how-to-print-your-values)
 explains how to extend the printer to do a better job at
 printing your particular type than to dump the bytes.

googlemock/docs/Documentation.md

@@ -11,5 +11,5 @@ the respective git branch/tag).**
 
 To contribute code to Google Mock, read:
 
-  * [CONTRIBUTING](../CONTRIBUTING.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch.
+  * [CONTRIBUTING](../../CONTRIBUTING.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch.
   * [Pump Manual](../../googletest/docs/PumpManual.md) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files.

googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md

@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ sometimes causes the test program to crash.  You'll still be able to
 notice that the test has failed, but it's not a graceful failure.
 
 A better solution is to use Google Test's
-[event listener API](../../googletest/docs/advanced.md#extending-google-test-by-handling-test-events)
+[event listener API](../../googletest/docs/advanced.md#extending-googletest-by-handling-test-events)
 to report a test failure to your testing framework properly.  You'll need to
 implement the `OnTestPartResult()` method of the event listener interface, but it
 should be straightforward.

googlemock/docs/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 Please send your questions to the
 [googlemock](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) discussion
 group. If you need help with compiler errors, make sure you have
-tried [Google Mock Doctor](#How_am_I_supposed_to_make_sense_of_these_horrible_template_error.md) first.
+tried [Google Mock Doctor](#how-am-i-supposed-to-make-sense-of-these-horrible-template-errors) first.
 
 ## When I call a method on my mock object, the method for the real object is invoked instead.  What's the problem? ##
 
@@ -474,10 +474,10 @@ 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) or
-[MakePolymorphicAction()](CookBook.md#writing_new_polymorphic_actions),
+[MakeAction()](CookBook.md#writing-new-actions-quickly) or
+[MakePolymorphicAction()](CookBook.md#writing-new-polymorphic-actions),
 or you can write a stub function and invoke it using
-[Invoke()](CookBook.md#using-functions_methods_functors).
+[Invoke()](CookBook.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? ##
 
@@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ 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](CookBook.md#mocking-side-effects) for more details and an example.
 
 
 ## My question is not in your FAQ! ##