script_core 0.0.6 → 0.1.0

data/tests/googletest/googlemock/docs/DesignDoc.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ non-trivial effort to define a custom action in Google Mock.  For
 example, suppose you want to "increment the value pointed to by the
 second argument of the mock function and return it", you could write:
 
-```
+```cpp
 int IncrementArg1(Unused, int* p, Unused) {
   return ++(*p);
 }
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ There are several things unsatisfactory about this approach:
 The latter two problems can be overcome using `MakePolymorphicAction()`,
 but it requires much more boilerplate code:
 
-```
+```cpp
 class IncrementArg1Action {
  public:
   template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ boiler-plate C++ requires.
 ## Solution ##
 
 We propose to introduce a new macro:
-```
+```cpp
 ACTION(name) { statements; }
 ```
 
@@ -58,11 +58,11 @@ Using this in a namespace scope will define an action with the given
 name that executes the statements.  Inside the statements, you can
 refer to the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function as `argK`.
 For example:
-```
+```cpp
 ACTION(IncrementArg1) { return ++(*arg1); }
 ```
 allows you to write
-```
+```cpp
 ... WillOnce(IncrementArg1());
 ```
 
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ your code is still type-safe though: you'll get a compiler error if
 `++(*arg1)` isn't compatible with the mock function's return type.
 
 Another example:
-```
+```cpp
 ACTION(Foo) {
   (*arg2)(5);
   Blah();
@@ -88,18 +88,20 @@ with 5, calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument
 For more convenience and flexibility, you can also use the following
 pre-defined symbols in the body of `ACTION`:
 
-| `argK_type` | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function |
-|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|
-| `args`      | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple                |
-| `args_type` | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple    |
-| `return_type` | The return type of the mock function                         |
+| Argument        | Description                                                  |
+|:----------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|
+| `argK_type`     | The type of the K-th (0-based) argument of the mock function |
+| `args`          | All arguments of the mock function as a tuple                |
+| `args_type`     | The type of all arguments of the mock function as a tuple    |
+| `return_type`   | The return type of the mock function                         |
 | `function_type` | The type of the mock function                                |
 
 For example, when using an `ACTION` as a stub action for mock function:
-```
+```cpp
 int DoSomething(bool flag, int* ptr);
 ```
 we have:
+
 | **Pre-defined Symbol** | **Is Bound To** |
 |:-----------------------|:----------------|
 | `arg0`                 | the value of `flag` |
@@ -115,16 +117,16 @@ we have:
 
 Sometimes you'll want to parameterize the action.   For that we propose
 another macro
-```
+```cpp
 ACTION_P(name, param) { statements; }
 ```
 
 For example,
-```
+```cpp
 ACTION_P(Add, n) { return arg0 + n; }
 ```
 will allow you to write
-```
+```cpp
 // Returns argument #0 + 5.
 ... WillOnce(Add(5));
 ```
@@ -140,7 +142,7 @@ parameter as inferred by the compiler.
 
 We will also provide `ACTION_P2`, `ACTION_P3`, and etc to support
 multi-parameter actions.  For example,
-```
+```cpp
 ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
   double dx = arg0 - x;
   double dy = arg1 - y;
@@ -148,7 +150,7 @@ ACTION_P2(ReturnDistanceTo, x, y) {
 }
 ```
 lets you write
-```
+```cpp
 ... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
 ```
 
@@ -160,7 +162,7 @@ number of parameters is 0.
 ### Overloading Actions ###
 
 You can easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
-```
+```cpp
 ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
 ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
 ```
@@ -173,7 +175,7 @@ parameters.  Instead, we let the compiler infer the types for us.
 
 Sometimes, however, we may want to be more explicit about the types.
 There are several tricks to do that.  For example:
-```
+```cpp
 ACTION(Foo) {
   // Makes sure arg0 can be converted to int.
   int n = arg0;
@@ -196,12 +198,12 @@ Google Test (the name is chosen to match `static_assert` in C++0x).
 If you are writing a function that returns an `ACTION` object, you'll
 need to know its type.  The type depends on the macro used to define
 the action and the parameter types.  The rule is relatively simple:
-| **Given Definition** | **Expression** | **Has Type** |
-|:---------------------|:---------------|:-------------|
-| `ACTION(Foo)`        | `Foo()`        | `FooAction`  |
-| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)` | `Bar(int_value)` | `BarActionP<int>` |
+| **Given Definition**     | **Expression**               | **Has Type**             |
+|:-------------------------|:-----------------------------|:-------------------------|
+| `ACTION(Foo)`            | `Foo()`                      | `FooAction`              |
+| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)`   | `Bar(int_value)`             | `BarActionP<int>`        |
 | `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)` | `Baz(bool_value, int_value)` | `BazActionP2<bool, int>` |
-| ...                  | ...            | ...          |
+| ...                      | ...                          | ...                      |
 
 Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`,
 `ActionP2`, and etc) for actions with different numbers of parameters,
@@ -262,14 +264,14 @@ available, we may want to support using lambdas as actions.
 Once the macros for defining actions are implemented, we plan to do
 the same for matchers:
 
-```
+```cpp
 MATCHER(name) { statements; }
 ```
 
 where you can refer to the value being matched as `arg`.  For example,
 given:
 
-```
+```cpp
 MATCHER(IsPositive) { return arg > 0; }
 ```
 
@@ -277,4 +279,4 @@ you can use `IsPositive()` as a matcher that matches a value iff it is
 greater than 0.
 
 We will also add `MATCHER_P`, `MATCHER_P2`, and etc for parameterized
-matchers.
+matchers.

data/tests/googletest/googlemock/docs/Documentation.md

@@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
-This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **(the SVN trunk version)**
-- **if you use a released version of Google Mock, please read the documentation for that specific version instead.**
+This page lists all documentation markdown files for Google Mock **(the
+current git version)**
+-- **if you use a former version of Google Mock, please read the
+documentation for that specific version instead (e.g. by checking out
+the respective git branch/tag).**
 
   * [ForDummies](ForDummies.md) -- start here if you are new to Google Mock.
   * [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md) -- a quick reference.
@@ -8,5 +11,5 @@ This page lists all documentation wiki pages for Google Mock **(the SVN trunk ve
 
 To contribute code to Google Mock, read:
 
-  * [DevGuide](DevGuide.md) -- read this _before_ writing your first patch.
-  * [Pump Manual](../googletest/docs/PumpManual.md) -- how we generate some of Google Mock's source files.
+  * [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.

data/tests/googletest/googlemock/docs/ForDummies.md

@@ -17,14 +17,14 @@ If all this seems too abstract for you, don't worry - the most important thing t
 Using Google Mock involves three basic steps:
 
   1. Use some simple macros to describe the interface you want to mock, and they will expand to the implementation of your mock class;
-  1. Create some mock objects and specify its expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax;
+  1. Create some mock objects and specify their expectations and behavior using an intuitive syntax;
   1. Exercise code that uses the mock objects. Google Mock will catch any violation of the expectations as soon as it arises.
 
 # Why Google Mock? #
 While mock objects help you remove unnecessary dependencies in tests and make them fast and reliable, using mocks manually in C++ is _hard_:
 
-  * Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distance to avoid it.
-  * The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad hoc restrictions.
+  * Someone has to implement the mocks. The job is usually tedious and error-prone. No wonder people go great distances to avoid it.
+  * The quality of those manually written mocks is a bit, uh, unpredictable. You may see some really polished ones, but you may also see some that were hacked up in a hurry and have all sorts of ad-hoc restrictions.
   * The knowledge you gained from using one mock doesn't transfer to the next.
 
 In contrast, Java and Python programmers have some fine mock frameworks, which automate the creation of mocks. As a result, mocking is a proven effective technique and widely adopted practice in those communities. Having the right tool absolutely makes the difference.
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ Using Google Mock is easy! Inside your C++ source file, just `#include` `"gtest/
 # A Case for Mock Turtles #
 Let's look at an example. Suppose you are developing a graphics program that relies on a LOGO-like API for drawing. How would you test that it does the right thing? Well, you can run it and compare the screen with a golden screen snapshot, but let's admit it: tests like this are expensive to run and fragile (What if you just upgraded to a shiny new graphics card that has better anti-aliasing? Suddenly you have to update all your golden images.). It would be too painful if all your tests are like this. Fortunately, you learned about Dependency Injection and know the right thing to do: instead of having your application talk to the drawing API directly, wrap the API in an interface (say, `Turtle`) and code to that interface:
 
-```
+```cpp
 class Turtle {
   ...
   virtual ~Turtle() {}
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Using the `Turtle` interface as example, here are the simple steps you need to f
 
 After the process, you should have something like:
 
-```
+```cpp
 #include "gmock/gmock.h"  // Brings in Google Mock.
 class MockTurtle : public Turtle {
  public:
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ Once you have a mock class, using it is easy. The typical work flow is:
 
 Here's an example:
 
-```
+```cpp
 #include "path/to/mock-turtle.h"
 #include "gmock/gmock.h"
 #include "gtest/gtest.h"
@@ -170,8 +170,8 @@ Admittedly, this test is contrived and doesn't do much. You can easily achieve t
 
 ## Using Google Mock with Any Testing Framework ##
 If you want to use something other than Google Test (e.g. [CppUnit](http://sourceforge.net/projects/cppunit/) or
-[CxxTest](http://cxxtest.tigris.org/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to:
-```
+[CxxTest](https://cxxtest.com/)) as your testing framework, just change the `main()` function in the previous section to:
+```cpp
 int main(int argc, char** argv) {
   // The following line causes Google Mock to throw an exception on failure,
   // which will be interpreted by your testing framework as a test failure.
@@ -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/AdvancedGuide.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.
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ The key to using a mock object successfully is to set the _right expectations_ o
 ## General Syntax ##
 In Google Mock we use the `EXPECT_CALL()` macro to set an expectation on a mock method. The general syntax is:
 
-```
+```cpp
 EXPECT_CALL(mock_object, method(matchers))
     .Times(cardinality)
     .WillOnce(action)
@@ -216,8 +216,9 @@ The macro can be followed by some optional _clauses_ that provide more informati
 
 This syntax is designed to make an expectation read like English. For example, you can probably guess that
 
-```
-using ::testing::Return;...
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
     .Times(5)
     .WillOnce(Return(100))
@@ -232,14 +233,14 @@ says that the `turtle` object's `GetX()` method will be called five times, it wi
 ## Matchers: What Arguments Do We Expect? ##
 When a mock function takes arguments, we must specify what arguments we are expecting; for example:
 
-```
+```cpp
 // Expects the turtle to move forward by 100 units.
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(100));
 ```
 
 Sometimes you may not want to be too specific (Remember that talk about tests being too rigid? Over specification leads to brittle tests and obscures the intent of tests. Therefore we encourage you to specify only what's necessary - no more, no less.). If you care to check that `Forward()` will be called but aren't interested in its actual argument, write `_` as the argument, which means "anything goes":
 
-```
+```cpp
 using ::testing::_;
 ...
 // Expects the turtle to move forward.
@@ -250,8 +251,9 @@ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_));
 
 A list of built-in matchers can be found in the [CheatSheet](CheatSheet.md). For example, here's the `Ge` (greater than or equal) matcher:
 
-```
-using ::testing::Ge;...
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Ge;
+...
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(Ge(100)));
 ```
 
@@ -279,8 +281,9 @@ First, if the return type of a mock function is a built-in type or a pointer, th
 
 Second, if a mock function doesn't have a default action, or the default action doesn't suit you, you can specify the action to be taken each time the expectation matches using a series of `WillOnce()` clauses followed by an optional `WillRepeatedly()`. For example,
 
-```
-using ::testing::Return;...
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
     .WillOnce(Return(100))
     .WillOnce(Return(200))
@@ -289,8 +292,9 @@ EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
 
 This says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called _exactly three times_ (Google Mock inferred this from how many `WillOnce()` clauses we've written, since we didn't explicitly write `Times()`), and will return 100, 200, and 300 respectively.
 
-```
-using ::testing::Return;...
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
     .WillOnce(Return(100))
     .WillOnce(Return(200))
@@ -305,7 +309,7 @@ What can we do inside `WillOnce()` besides `Return()`? You can return a referenc
 
 **Important note:** The `EXPECT_CALL()` statement evaluates the action clause only once, even though the action may be performed many times. Therefore you must be careful about side effects. The following may not do what you want:
 
-```
+```cpp
 int n = 100;
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetX())
 .Times(4)
@@ -316,8 +320,9 @@ Instead of returning 100, 101, 102, ..., consecutively, this mock function will
 
 Time for another quiz! What do you think the following means?
 
-```
-using ::testing::Return;...
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GetY())
 .Times(4)
 .WillOnce(Return(100));
@@ -330,8 +335,9 @@ So far we've only shown examples where you have a single expectation. More reali
 
 By default, when a mock method is invoked, Google Mock will search the expectations in the **reverse order** they are defined, and stop when an active expectation that matches the arguments is found (you can think of it as "newer rules override older ones."). If the matching expectation cannot take any more calls, you will get an upper-bound-violated failure. Here's an example:
 
-```
-using ::testing::_;...
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(_));  // #1
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, Forward(10))  // #2
     .Times(2);
@@ -346,8 +352,9 @@ By default, an expectation can match a call even though an earlier expectation h
 
 Sometimes, you may want all the expected calls to occur in a strict order. To say this in Google Mock is easy:
 
-```
-using ::testing::InSequence;...
+```cpp
+using ::testing::InSequence;
+...
 TEST(FooTest, DrawsLineSegment) {
   ...
   {
@@ -365,15 +372,16 @@ 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#Expecting_Partially_Ordered_Calls.md).)
+(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).)
 
 ## 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)?
 
 After you've come up with your answer, take a look at ours and compare notes (solve it yourself first - don't cheat!):
 
-```
-using ::testing::_;...
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(_, _))  // #1
     .Times(AnyNumber());
 EXPECT_CALL(turtle, GoTo(0, 0))  // #2
@@ -386,7 +394,7 @@ This example shows that **expectations in Google Mock are "sticky" by default**,
 
 Simple? Let's see if you've really understood it: what does the following code say?
 
-```
+```cpp
 using ::testing::Return;
 ...
 for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
@@ -399,7 +407,7 @@ If you think it says that `turtle.GetX()` will be called `n` times and will retu
 
 One correct way of saying that `turtle.GetX()` will return 10, 20, 30, ..., is to explicitly say that the expectations are _not_ sticky. In other words, they should _retire_ as soon as they are saturated:
 
-```
+```cpp
 using ::testing::Return;
 ...
 for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
@@ -411,7 +419,7 @@ for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
 
 And, there's a better way to do it: in this case, we expect the calls to occur in a specific order, and we line up the actions to match the order. Since the order is important here, we should make it explicit using a sequence:
 
-```
+```cpp
 using ::testing::InSequence;
 using ::testing::Return;
 ...

data/tests/googletest/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? ##
 
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ later.  Fortunately, it's usually not hard to migrate an existing
 matcher to the new API.  Here's what you need to do:
 
 If you wrote your matcher like this:
-```
+```cpp
 // Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
 // Google Mock.
 using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
 ```
 
 you'll need to change it to:
-```
+```cpp
 // New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
 using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
 using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ argument of type `MatchResultListener*`.)
 
 If you were also using `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to improve the matcher
 message:
-```
+```cpp
 // Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the lastest
 // Google Mock.
 using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
 you should move the logic of `ExplainMatchResultTo()` into
 `MatchAndExplain()`, using the `MatchResultListener` argument where
 the `::std::ostream` was used:
-```
+```cpp
 // New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
 using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
 using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ class MyWonderfulMatcher : public MatcherInterface<MyType> {
 ```
 
 If your matcher is defined using `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`:
-```
+```cpp
 // Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
 // Google Mock.
 using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ class MyGreatMatcher {
 you should rename the `Matches()` method to `MatchAndExplain()` and
 add a `MatchResultListener*` argument (the same as what you need to do
 for matchers defined by implementing `MatcherInterface`):
-```
+```cpp
 // New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
 using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
 using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ class MyGreatMatcher {
 
 If your polymorphic matcher uses `ExplainMatchResultTo()` for better
 failure messages:
-```
+```cpp
 // Old matcher definition that doesn't work with the latest
 // Google Mock.
 using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ void ExplainMatchResultTo(const MyGreatMatcher& matcher,
 
 you'll need to move the logic inside `ExplainMatchResultTo()` to
 `MatchAndExplain()`:
-```
+```cpp
 // New matcher definition that works with the latest Google Mock.
 using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
 using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ You cannot mock a variadic function (i.e. a function taking ellipsis
 The problem is that in general, there is _no way_ for a mock object to
 know how many arguments are passed to the variadic method, and what
 the arguments' types are.  Only the _author of the base class_ knows
-the protocol, and we cannot look into his head.
+the protocol, and we cannot look into their head.
 
 Therefore, to mock such a function, the _user_ must teach the mock
 object how to figure out the number of arguments and their types.  One
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ C++ as much as possible.
 ## MSVC gives me warning C4301 or C4373 when I define a mock method with a const parameter.  Why? ##
 
 If you compile this using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 SP1:
-```
+```cpp
 class Foo {
   ...
   virtual void Bar(const int i) = 0;
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ warning C4373: 'MockFoo::Bar': virtual function overrides 'Foo::Bar', previous v
 In C++, if you _declare_ a function with a `const` parameter, the
 `const` modifier is _ignored_.  Therefore, the `Foo` base class above
 is equivalent to:
-```
+```cpp
 class Foo {
   ...
   virtual void Bar(int i) = 0;  // int or const int?  Makes no difference.
@@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ Note that we are talking about the _top-level_ `const` modifier here.
 If the function parameter is passed by pointer or reference, declaring
 the _pointee_ or _referee_ as `const` is still meaningful.  For
 example, the following two declarations are _not_ equivalent:
-```
+```cpp
 void Bar(int* p);        // Neither p nor *p is const.
 void Bar(const int* p);  // p is not const, but *p is.
 ```
@@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ you'll gain insights on why the expectations you set are not met.
 
 ## How can I assert that a function is NEVER called? ##
 
-```
+```cpp
 EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
     .Times(0);
 ```
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ Whenever you derive from a base class, make sure its destructor is
 virtual.  Otherwise Bad Things will happen.  Consider the following
 code:
 
-```
+```cpp
 class Base {
  public:
   // Not virtual, but should be.
@@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ will be happy.
 
 When people complain about this, often they are referring to code like:
 
-```
+```cpp
 // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
 // 2 the second time.  However, I have to write the expectations in the
 // reverse order.  This sucks big time!!!
@@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ harder to do so.
 There are two better ways to write the test spec.  You could either
 put the expectations in sequence:
 
-```
+```cpp
 // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
 // 2 the second time.  Using a sequence, we can write the expectations
 // in their natural order.
@@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ put the expectations in sequence:
 
 or you can put the sequence of actions in the same expectation:
 
-```
+```cpp
 // foo.Bar() should be called twice, return 1 the first time, and return
 // 2 the second time.
 EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar())
@@ -450,14 +450,14 @@ may creep in unnoticed.
 
 If, however, you are sure that the calls are OK, you can write
 
-```
+```cpp
 EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
     .WillRepeatedly(...);
 ```
 
 instead of
 
-```
+```cpp
 ON_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
     .WillByDefault(...);
 ```
@@ -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? ##
 
@@ -488,12 +488,12 @@ extent, Google Mock's syntax was chosen for several practical advantages it
 has.
 
 Try to mock a function that takes a map as an argument:
-```
+```cpp
 virtual int GetSize(const map<int, std::string>& m);
 ```
 
 Using the proposed syntax, it would be:
-```
+```cpp
 MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int, const map<int, std::string>& m);
 ```
 
@@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ around this you can use `typedef` to give the map type a name, but
 that gets in the way of your work.  Google Mock's syntax avoids this
 problem as the function's argument types are protected inside a pair
 of parentheses:
-```
+```cpp
 // This compiles fine.
 MOCK_METHOD1(GetSize, int(const map<int, std::string>& m));
 ```
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ 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](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html)
+[post](https://testing.googleblog.com/2008/06/defeat-static-cling.html)
 says it excellently.  Check it out.
 
 ## My mock object needs to do complex stuff.  It's a lot of pain to specify the actions.  Google Mock sucks! ##
@@ -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! ##
@@ -607,7 +607,6 @@ See this [recipe](CookBook.md#mocking_side_effects) for more details and an exam
 If you cannot find the answer to your question in this FAQ, there are
 some other resources you can use:
 
-  1. read other [documentation](Documentation.md),
   1. search the mailing list [archive](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock/topics),
   1. ask it on [googlemock@googlegroups.com](mailto:googlemock@googlegroups.com) and someone will answer it (to prevent spam, we require you to join the [discussion group](http://groups.google.com/group/googlemock) before you can post.).