Mocking free function

Question

I am stuck in a problem and can't seem to find the solution.

I am using VS2005 SP1 for compiling the code.

I have a global function:

A* foo();

I have a mock class

class MockA : public A {
public:
    MOCK_METHOD0 (bar, bool());
    ...
};

In the sources, it is accessed like this: foo()->bar(). I cannot find a way to mock this behavior. And I cannot change the sources, so the solution in google mock cook book is out of question.

Any help or pointers in the right direction will be highly appreciated. :)

Answer 1

No it's not possible, without changing the sources, or bringing your own version of foo() that is linked with the executable code.

---

From GoogleMock's FAQ it says

My code calls a static/global function. Can I mock it?

You can, but you need to make some changes.

In general, if you find yourself needing to mock a static function, it's a sign that your modules are too tightly coupled (and less flexible, less reusable, less testable, etc). You are probably better off defining a small interface and call the function through that interface, which then can be easily mocked. It's a bit of work initially, but usually pays for itself quickly.

This Google Testing Blog post says it excellently. Check it out.

Also from the Cookbook

Mocking Free Functions

It's possible to use Google Mock to mock a free function (i.e. a C-style function or a static method). You just need to rewrite your code to use an interface (abstract class).

Instead of calling a free function (say, OpenFile) directly, introduce an interface for it and have a concrete subclass that calls the free function:

class FileInterface {

 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) = 0;
};

class File : public FileInterface {

 public:
  ...
  virtual bool Open(const char* path, const char* mode) {
    return OpenFile(path, mode);
  }
};

Your code should talk to FileInterface to open a file. Now it's easy to mock out the function.

This may seem much hassle, but in practice you often have multiple related functions that you can put in the same interface, so the per-function syntactic overhead will be much lower.

If you are concerned about the performance overhead incurred by virtual functions, and profiling confirms your concern, you can combine this with the recipe for mocking non-virtual methods.

---

As you mentioned in your comment that you actually provide your own version of foo(), you can easily solve this having a global instance of another mock class:

struct IFoo {
    virtual A* foo() = 0;
    virtual ~IFoo() {}
};

struct FooMock : public IFoo {
     FooMock() {}
     virtual ~FooMock() {}
     MOCK_METHOD0(foo, A*());
};

FooMock fooMock;

// Your foo() implementation
A* foo() {
    return fooMock.foo();
}

TEST(...) {
    EXPECT_CALL(fooMock,foo())
        .Times(1)
        .WillOnceReturn(new MockA());
    // ...
}

Don't forget to clear all call expectations, after each test case run.