rn-leveldb 3.11.0

package/cpp/leveldb/third_party/googletest/googlemock/docs/cook_book.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4270 @@
+# gMock Cookbook
+
+<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0012 DO NOT DELETE -->
+
+You can find recipes for using gMock here. If you haven't yet, please read
+[this](for_dummies.md) first to make sure you understand the basics.
+
+**Note:** gMock lives in the `testing` name space. For readability, it is
+recommended to write `using ::testing::Foo;` once in your file before using the
+name `Foo` defined by gMock. We omit such `using` statements in this section for
+brevity, but you should do it in your own code.
+
+## Creating Mock Classes
+
+Mock classes are defined as normal classes, using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro to
+generate mocked methods. The macro gets 3 or 4 parameters:
+
+```cpp
+class MyMock {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args...));
+  MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args...), (Specs...));
+};
+```
+
+The first 3 parameters are simply the method declaration, split into 3 parts.
+The 4th parameter accepts a closed list of qualifiers, which affect the
+generated method:
+
+*   **`const`** - Makes the mocked method a `const` method. Required if
+    overriding a `const` method.
+*   **`override`** - Marks the method with `override`. Recommended if overriding
+    a `virtual` method.
+*   **`noexcept`** - Marks the method with `noexcept`. Required if overriding a
+    `noexcept` method.
+*   **`Calltype(...)`** - Sets the call type for the method (e.g. to
+    `STDMETHODCALLTYPE`), useful in Windows.
+
+### Dealing with unprotected commas
+
+Unprotected commas, i.e. commas which are not surrounded by parentheses, prevent
+`MOCK_METHOD` from parsing its arguments correctly:
+
+```cpp {.bad}
+class MockFoo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(std::pair<bool, int>, GetPair, ());  // Won't compile!
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (std::map<int, double>, bool));  // Won't compile!
+};
+```
+
+Solution 1 - wrap with parentheses:
+
+```cpp {.good}
+class MockFoo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD((std::pair<bool, int>), GetPair, ());
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, ((std::map<int, double>), bool));
+};
+```
+
+Note that wrapping a return or argument type with parentheses is, in general,
+invalid C++. `MOCK_METHOD` removes the parentheses.
+
+Solution 2 - define an alias:
+
+```cpp {.good}
+class MockFoo {
+ public:
+  using BoolAndInt = std::pair<bool, int>;
+  MOCK_METHOD(BoolAndInt, GetPair, ());
+  using MapIntDouble = std::map<int, double>;
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, CheckMap, (MapIntDouble, bool));
+};
+```
+
+### Mocking Private or Protected Methods
+
+You must always put a mock method definition (`MOCK_METHOD`) in a `public:`
+section of the mock class, regardless of the method being mocked being `public`,
+`protected`, or `private` in the base class. This allows `ON_CALL` and
+`EXPECT_CALL` to reference the mock function from outside of the mock class.
+(Yes, C++ allows a subclass to change the access level of a virtual function in
+the base class.) Example:
+
+```cpp
+class Foo {
+ public:
+  ...
+  virtual bool Transform(Gadget* g) = 0;
+
+ protected:
+  virtual void Resume();
+
+ private:
+  virtual int GetTimeOut();
+};
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  ...
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Transform, (Gadget* g), (override));
+
+  // The following must be in the public section, even though the
+  // methods are protected or private in the base class.
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Resume, (), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetTimeOut, (), (override));
+};
+```
+
+### Mocking Overloaded Methods
+
+You can mock overloaded functions as usual. No special attention is required:
+
+```cpp
+class Foo {
+  ...
+
+  // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from Foo.
+  virtual ~Foo();
+
+  // Overloaded on the types and/or numbers of arguments.
+  virtual int Add(Element x);
+  virtual int Add(int times, Element x);
+
+  // Overloaded on the const-ness of this object.
+  virtual Bar& GetBar();
+  virtual const Bar& GetBar() const;
+};
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+  ...
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (int times, Element x), (override));
+
+  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
+};
+```
+
+**Note:** if you don't mock all versions of the overloaded method, the compiler
+will give you a warning about some methods in the base class being hidden. To
+fix that, use `using` to bring them in scope:
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+  ...
+  using Foo::Add;
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, Add, (Element x), (override));
+  // We don't want to mock int Add(int times, Element x);
+  ...
+};
+```
+
+### Mocking Class Templates
+
+You can mock class templates just like any class.
+
+```cpp
+template <typename Elem>
+class StackInterface {
+  ...
+  // Must be virtual as we'll inherit from StackInterface.
+  virtual ~StackInterface();
+
+  virtual int GetSize() const = 0;
+  virtual void Push(const Elem& x) = 0;
+};
+
+template <typename Elem>
+class MockStack : public StackInterface<Elem> {
+  ...
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetSize, (), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Push, (const Elem& x), (override));
+};
+```
+
+### Mocking Non-virtual Methods {#MockingNonVirtualMethods}
+
+gMock can mock non-virtual functions to be used in Hi-perf dependency
+injection.<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0017 DO NOT DELETE -->
+
+In this case, instead of sharing a common base class with the real class, your
+mock class will be *unrelated* to the real class, but contain methods with the
+same signatures. The syntax for mocking non-virtual methods is the *same* as
+mocking virtual methods (just don't add `override`):
+
+```cpp
+// A simple packet stream class.  None of its members is virtual.
+class ConcretePacketStream {
+ public:
+  void AppendPacket(Packet* new_packet);
+  const Packet* GetPacket(size_t packet_number) const;
+  size_t NumberOfPackets() const;
+  ...
+};
+
+// A mock packet stream class.  It inherits from no other, but defines
+// GetPacket() and NumberOfPackets().
+class MockPacketStream {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(const Packet*, GetPacket, (size_t packet_number), (const));
+  MOCK_METHOD(size_t, NumberOfPackets, (), (const));
+  ...
+};
+```
+
+Note that the mock class doesn't define `AppendPacket()`, unlike the real class.
+That's fine as long as the test doesn't need to call it.
+
+Next, you need a way to say that you want to use `ConcretePacketStream` in
+production code, and use `MockPacketStream` in tests. Since the functions are
+not virtual and the two classes are unrelated, you must specify your choice at
+*compile time* (as opposed to run time).
+
+One way to do it is to templatize your code that needs to use a packet stream.
+More specifically, you will give your code a template type argument for the type
+of the packet stream. In production, you will instantiate your template with
+`ConcretePacketStream` as the type argument. In tests, you will instantiate the
+same template with `MockPacketStream`. For example, you may write:
+
+```cpp
+template <class PacketStream>
+void CreateConnection(PacketStream* stream) { ... }
+
+template <class PacketStream>
+class PacketReader {
+ public:
+  void ReadPackets(PacketStream* stream, size_t packet_num);
+};
+```
+
+Then you can use `CreateConnection<ConcretePacketStream>()` and
+`PacketReader<ConcretePacketStream>` in production code, and use
+`CreateConnection<MockPacketStream>()` and `PacketReader<MockPacketStream>` in
+tests.
+
+```cpp
+  MockPacketStream mock_stream;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_stream, ...)...;
+  .. set more expectations on mock_stream ...
+  PacketReader<MockPacketStream> reader(&mock_stream);
+  ... exercise reader ...
+```
+
+### Mocking Free Functions
+
+It's possible to use gMock 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:
+
+```cpp
+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 like a lot of 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](#MockingNonVirtualMethods).
+
+### Old-Style `MOCK_METHODn` Macros
+
+Before the generic `MOCK_METHOD` macro was introduced, mocks where created using
+a family of macros collectively called `MOCK_METHODn`. These macros are still
+supported, though migration to the new `MOCK_METHOD` is recommended.
+
+The macros in the `MOCK_METHODn` family differ from `MOCK_METHOD`:
+
+*   The general structure is `MOCK_METHODn(MethodName, ReturnType(Args))`,
+    instead of `MOCK_METHOD(ReturnType, MethodName, (Args))`.
+*   The number `n` must equal the number of arguments.
+*   When mocking a const method, one must use `MOCK_CONST_METHODn`.
+*   When mocking a class template, the macro name must be suffixed with `_T`.
+*   In order to specify the call type, the macro name must be suffixed with
+    `_WITH_CALLTYPE`, and the call type is the first macro argument.
+
+Old macros and their new equivalents:
+
+<a name="table99"></a>
+<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1">
+<tr> <th colspan=2> Simple </th></tr>
+<tr> <td> Old </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr>
+<tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))` </td> </tr>
+
+<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old </td> <td>
+`MOCK_CONST_METHOD1(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td>
+`MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))` </td> </tr>
+
+<tr> <th colspan=2> Method in a Class Template </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old </td>
+<td> `MOCK_METHOD1_T(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td>
+`MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int))` </td> </tr>
+
+<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method in a Class Template </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old
+</td> <td> `MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T(Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New
+</td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const))` </td> </tr>
+
+<tr> <th colspan=2> Method with Call Type </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old </td> <td>
+`MOCK_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr>
+<td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int),
+(Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))` </td> </tr>
+
+<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method with Call Type </th></tr> <tr> <td> Old</td>
+<td> `MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo, bool(int))` </td>
+</tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int), (const,
+Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))` </td> </tr>
+
+<tr> <th colspan=2> Method with Call Type in a Class Template </th></tr> <tr>
+<td> Old </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE, Foo,
+bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo, (int),
+(Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))` </td> </tr>
+
+<tr> <th colspan=2> Const Method with Call Type in a Class Template </th></tr>
+<tr> <td> Old </td> <td> `MOCK_CONST_METHOD1_T_WITH_CALLTYPE(STDMETHODCALLTYPE,
+Foo, bool(int))` </td> </tr> <tr> <td> New </td> <td> `MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo,
+(int), (const, Calltype(STDMETHODCALLTYPE)))` </td> </tr>
+
+</table>
+
+### The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy {#NiceStrictNaggy}
+
+If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, we say that it's an
+"uninteresting call", and the default action (which can be specified using
+`ON_CALL()`) of the method will be taken. Currently, an uninteresting call will
+also by default cause gMock to print a warning. (In the future, we might remove
+this warning by default.)
+
+However, sometimes you may want to ignore these uninteresting calls, and
+sometimes you may want to treat them as errors. gMock lets you make the decision
+on a per-mock-object basis.
+
+Suppose your test uses a mock class `MockFoo`:
+
+```cpp
+TEST(...) {
+  MockFoo mock_foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
+  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
+}
+```
+
+If a method of `mock_foo` other than `DoThis()` is called, you will get a
+warning. However, if you rewrite your test to use `NiceMock<MockFoo>` instead,
+you can suppress the warning:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::NiceMock;
+
+TEST(...) {
+  NiceMock<MockFoo> mock_foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
+  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
+}
+```
+
+`NiceMock<MockFoo>` is a subclass of `MockFoo`, so it can be used wherever
+`MockFoo` is accepted.
+
+It also works if `MockFoo`'s constructor takes some arguments, as
+`NiceMock<MockFoo>` "inherits" `MockFoo`'s constructors:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::NiceMock;
+
+TEST(...) {
+  NiceMock<MockFoo> mock_foo(5, "hi");  // Calls MockFoo(5, "hi").
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
+  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
+}
+```
+
+The usage of `StrictMock` is similar, except that it makes all uninteresting
+calls failures:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::StrictMock;
+
+TEST(...) {
+  StrictMock<MockFoo> mock_foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, DoThis());
+  ... code that uses mock_foo ...
+
+  // The test will fail if a method of mock_foo other than DoThis()
+  // is called.
+}
+```
+
+NOTE: `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` only affects *uninteresting* calls (calls of
+*methods* with no expectations); they do not affect *unexpected* calls (calls of
+methods with expectations, but they don't match). See
+[Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls](#uninteresting-vs-unexpected).
+
+There are some caveats though (I dislike them just as much as the next guy, but
+sadly they are side effects of C++'s limitations):
+
+1.  `NiceMock<MockFoo>` and `StrictMock<MockFoo>` only work for mock methods
+    defined using the `MOCK_METHOD` macro **directly** in the `MockFoo` class.
+    If a mock method is defined in a **base class** of `MockFoo`, the "nice" or
+    "strict" modifier may not affect it, depending on the compiler. In
+    particular, nesting `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` (e.g.
+    `NiceMock<StrictMock<MockFoo> >`) is **not** supported.
+2.  `NiceMock<MockFoo>` and `StrictMock<MockFoo>` may not work correctly if the
+    destructor of `MockFoo` is not virtual. We would like to fix this, but it
+    requires cleaning up existing tests. http://b/28934720 tracks the issue.
+3.  During the constructor or destructor of `MockFoo`, the mock object is *not*
+    nice or strict. This may cause surprises if the constructor or destructor
+    calls a mock method on `this` object. (This behavior, however, is consistent
+    with C++'s general rule: if a constructor or destructor calls a virtual
+    method of `this` object, that method is treated as non-virtual. In other
+    words, to the base class's constructor or destructor, `this` object behaves
+    like an instance of the base class, not the derived class. This rule is
+    required for safety. Otherwise a base constructor may use members of a
+    derived class before they are initialized, or a base destructor may use
+    members of a derived class after they have been destroyed.)
+
+Finally, you should be **very cautious** about when to use naggy or strict
+mocks, as they tend to make tests more brittle and harder to maintain. When you
+refactor your code without changing its externally visible behavior, ideally you
+shouldn't need to update any tests. If your code interacts with a naggy mock,
+however, you may start to get spammed with warnings as the result of your
+change. Worse, if your code interacts with a strict mock, your tests may start
+to fail and you'll be forced to fix them. Our general recommendation is to use
+nice mocks (not yet the default) most of the time, use naggy mocks (the current
+default) when developing or debugging tests, and use strict mocks only as the
+last resort.
+
+### Simplifying the Interface without Breaking Existing Code {#SimplerInterfaces}
+
+Sometimes a method has a long list of arguments that is mostly uninteresting.
+For example:
+
+```cpp
+class LogSink {
+ public:
+  ...
+  virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename,
+                    const char* base_filename, int line,
+                    const struct tm* tm_time,
+                    const char* message, size_t message_len) = 0;
+};
+```
+
+This method's argument list is lengthy and hard to work with (the `message`
+argument is not even 0-terminated). If we mock it as is, using the mock will be
+awkward. If, however, we try to simplify this interface, we'll need to fix all
+clients depending on it, which is often infeasible.
+
+The trick is to redispatch the method in the mock class:
+
+```cpp
+class ScopedMockLog : public LogSink {
+ public:
+  ...
+  virtual void send(LogSeverity severity, const char* full_filename,
+                    const char* base_filename, int line, const tm* tm_time,
+                    const char* message, size_t message_len) {
+    // We are only interested in the log severity, full file name, and
+    // log message.
+    Log(severity, full_filename, std::string(message, message_len));
+  }
+
+  // Implements the mock method:
+  //
+  //   void Log(LogSeverity severity,
+  //            const string& file_path,
+  //            const string& message);
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Log,
+              (LogSeverity severity, const string& file_path,
+               const string& message));
+};
+```
+
+By defining a new mock method with a trimmed argument list, we make the mock
+class more user-friendly.
+
+This technique may also be applied to make overloaded methods more amenable to
+mocking. For example, when overloads have been used to implement default
+arguments:
+
+```cpp
+class MockTurtleFactory : public TurtleFactory {
+ public:
+  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight) override { ... }
+  Turtle* MakeTurtle(int length, int weight, int speed) override { ... }
+
+  // the above methods delegate to this one:
+  MOCK_METHOD(Turtle*, DoMakeTurtle, ());
+};
+```
+
+This allows tests that don't care which overload was invoked to avoid specifying
+argument matchers:
+
+```cpp
+ON_CALL(factory, DoMakeTurtle)
+    .WillByDefault(MakeMockTurtle());
+```
+
+### Alternative to Mocking Concrete Classes
+
+Often you may find yourself using classes that don't implement interfaces. In
+order to test your code that uses such a class (let's call it `Concrete`), you
+may be tempted to make the methods of `Concrete` virtual and then mock it.
+
+Try not to do that.
+
+Making a non-virtual function virtual is a big decision. It creates an extension
+point where subclasses can tweak your class' behavior. This weakens your control
+on the class because now it's harder to maintain the class invariants. You
+should make a function virtual only when there is a valid reason for a subclass
+to override it.
+
+Mocking concrete classes directly is problematic as it creates a tight coupling
+between the class and the tests - any small change in the class may invalidate
+your tests and make test maintenance a pain.
+
+To avoid such problems, many programmers have been practicing "coding to
+interfaces": instead of talking to the `Concrete` class, your code would define
+an interface and talk to it. Then you implement that interface as an adaptor on
+top of `Concrete`. In tests, you can easily mock that interface to observe how
+your code is doing.
+
+This technique incurs some overhead:
+
+*   You pay the cost of virtual function calls (usually not a problem).
+*   There is more abstraction for the programmers to learn.
+
+However, it can also bring significant benefits in addition to better
+testability:
+
+*   `Concrete`'s API may not fit your problem domain very well, as you may not
+    be the only client it tries to serve. By designing your own interface, you
+    have a chance to tailor it to your need - you may add higher-level
+    functionalities, rename stuff, etc instead of just trimming the class. This
+    allows you to write your code (user of the interface) in a more natural way,
+    which means it will be more readable, more maintainable, and you'll be more
+    productive.
+*   If `Concrete`'s implementation ever has to change, you don't have to rewrite
+    everywhere it is used. Instead, you can absorb the change in your
+    implementation of the interface, and your other code and tests will be
+    insulated from this change.
+
+Some people worry that if everyone is practicing this technique, they will end
+up writing lots of redundant code. This concern is totally understandable.
+However, there are two reasons why it may not be the case:
+
+*   Different projects may need to use `Concrete` in different ways, so the best
+    interfaces for them will be different. Therefore, each of them will have its
+    own domain-specific interface on top of `Concrete`, and they will not be the
+    same code.
+*   If enough projects want to use the same interface, they can always share it,
+    just like they have been sharing `Concrete`. You can check in the interface
+    and the adaptor somewhere near `Concrete` (perhaps in a `contrib`
+    sub-directory) and let many projects use it.
+
+You need to weigh the pros and cons carefully for your particular problem, but
+I'd like to assure you that the Java community has been practicing this for a
+long time and it's a proven effective technique applicable in a wide variety of
+situations. :-)
+
+### Delegating Calls to a Fake {#DelegatingToFake}
+
+Some times you have a non-trivial fake implementation of an interface. For
+example:
+
+```cpp
+class Foo {
+ public:
+  virtual ~Foo() {}
+  virtual char DoThis(int n) = 0;
+  virtual void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) = 0;
+};
+
+class FakeFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  char DoThis(int n) override {
+    return (n > 0) ? '+' :
+           (n < 0) ? '-' : '0';
+  }
+
+  void DoThat(const char* s, int* p) override {
+    *p = strlen(s);
+  }
+};
+```
+
+Now you want to mock this interface such that you can set expectations on it.
+However, you also want to use `FakeFoo` for the default behavior, as duplicating
+it in the mock object is, well, a lot of work.
+
+When you define the mock class using gMock, you can have it delegate its default
+action to a fake class you already have, using this pattern:
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  // Normal mock method definitions using gMock.
+  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, (const char* s, int* p), (override));
+
+  // Delegates the default actions of the methods to a FakeFoo object.
+  // This must be called *before* the custom ON_CALL() statements.
+  void DelegateToFake() {
+    ON_CALL(*this, DoThis).WillByDefault([this](int n) {
+      return fake_.DoThis(n);
+    });
+    ON_CALL(*this, DoThat).WillByDefault([this](const char* s, int* p) {
+      fake_.DoThat(s, p);
+    });
+  }
+
+ private:
+  FakeFoo fake_;  // Keeps an instance of the fake in the mock.
+};
+```
+
+With that, you can use `MockFoo` in your tests as usual. Just remember that if
+you don't explicitly set an action in an `ON_CALL()` or `EXPECT_CALL()`, the
+fake will be called upon to do it.:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+
+TEST(AbcTest, Xyz) {
+  MockFoo foo;
+
+  foo.DelegateToFake();  // Enables the fake for delegation.
+
+  // Put your ON_CALL(foo, ...)s here, if any.
+
+  // No action specified, meaning to use the default action.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5));
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, _));
+
+  int n = 0;
+  EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(5));  // FakeFoo::DoThis() is invoked.
+  foo.DoThat("Hi", &n);  // FakeFoo::DoThat() is invoked.
+  EXPECT_EQ(2, n);
+}
+```
+
+**Some tips:**
+
+*   If you want, you can still override the default action by providing your own
+    `ON_CALL()` or using `.WillOnce()` / `.WillRepeatedly()` in `EXPECT_CALL()`.
+*   In `DelegateToFake()`, you only need to delegate the methods whose fake
+    implementation you intend to use.
+
+*   The general technique discussed here works for overloaded methods, but
+    you'll need to tell the compiler which version you mean. To disambiguate a
+    mock function (the one you specify inside the parentheses of `ON_CALL()`),
+    use [this technique](#SelectOverload); to disambiguate a fake function (the
+    one you place inside `Invoke()`), use a `static_cast` to specify the
+    function's type. For instance, if class `Foo` has methods `char DoThis(int
+    n)` and `bool DoThis(double x) const`, and you want to invoke the latter,
+    you need to write `Invoke(&fake_, static_cast<bool (FakeFoo::*)(double)
+    const>(&FakeFoo::DoThis))` instead of `Invoke(&fake_, &FakeFoo::DoThis)`
+    (The strange-looking thing inside the angled brackets of `static_cast` is
+    the type of a function pointer to the second `DoThis()` method.).
+
+*   Having to mix a mock and a fake is often a sign of something gone wrong.
+    Perhaps you haven't got used to the interaction-based way of testing yet. Or
+    perhaps your interface is taking on too many roles and should be split up.
+    Therefore, **don't abuse this**. We would only recommend to do it as an
+    intermediate step when you are refactoring your code.
+
+Regarding the tip on mixing a mock and a fake, here's an example on why it may
+be a bad sign: Suppose you have a class `System` for low-level system
+operations. In particular, it does file and I/O operations. And suppose you want
+to test how your code uses `System` to do I/O, and you just want the file
+operations to work normally. If you mock out the entire `System` class, you'll
+have to provide a fake implementation for the file operation part, which
+suggests that `System` is taking on too many roles.
+
+Instead, you can define a `FileOps` interface and an `IOOps` interface and split
+`System`'s functionalities into the two. Then you can mock `IOOps` without
+mocking `FileOps`.
+
+### Delegating Calls to a Real Object
+
+When using testing doubles (mocks, fakes, stubs, and etc), sometimes their
+behaviors will differ from those of the real objects. This difference could be
+either intentional (as in simulating an error such that you can test the error
+handling code) or unintentional. If your mocks have different behaviors than the
+real objects by mistake, you could end up with code that passes the tests but
+fails in production.
+
+You can use the *delegating-to-real* technique to ensure that your mock has the
+same behavior as the real object while retaining the ability to validate calls.
+This technique is very similar to the [delegating-to-fake](#DelegatingToFake)
+technique, the difference being that we use a real object instead of a fake.
+Here's an example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AtLeast;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MockFoo() {
+    // By default, all calls are delegated to the real object.
+    ON_CALL(*this, DoThis).WillByDefault([this](int n) {
+      return real_.DoThis(n);
+    });
+    ON_CALL(*this, DoThat).WillByDefault([this](const char* s, int* p) {
+      real_.DoThat(s, p);
+    });
+    ...
+  }
+  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, ...);
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThat, ...);
+  ...
+ private:
+  Foo real_;
+};
+
+...
+  MockFoo mock;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThis())
+      .Times(3);
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, DoThat("Hi"))
+      .Times(AtLeast(1));
+  ... use mock in test ...
+```
+
+With this, gMock will verify that your code made the right calls (with the right
+arguments, in the right order, called the right number of times, etc), and a
+real object will answer the calls (so the behavior will be the same as in
+production). This gives you the best of both worlds.
+
+### Delegating Calls to a Parent Class
+
+Ideally, you should code to interfaces, whose methods are all pure virtual. In
+reality, sometimes you do need to mock a virtual method that is not pure (i.e,
+it already has an implementation). For example:
+
+```cpp
+class Foo {
+ public:
+  virtual ~Foo();
+
+  virtual void Pure(int n) = 0;
+  virtual int Concrete(const char* str) { ... }
+};
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  // Mocking a pure method.
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
+  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
+};
+```
+
+Sometimes you may want to call `Foo::Concrete()` instead of
+`MockFoo::Concrete()`. Perhaps you want to do it as part of a stub action, or
+perhaps your test doesn't need to mock `Concrete()` at all (but it would be
+oh-so painful to have to define a new mock class whenever you don't need to mock
+one of its methods).
+
+The trick is to leave a back door in your mock class for accessing the real
+methods in the base class:
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  // Mocking a pure method.
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Pure, (int n), (override));
+  // Mocking a concrete method.  Foo::Concrete() is shadowed.
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, Concrete, (const char* str), (override));
+
+  // Use this to call Concrete() defined in Foo.
+  int FooConcrete(const char* str) { return Foo::Concrete(str); }
+};
+```
+
+Now, you can call `Foo::Concrete()` inside an action by:
+
+```cpp
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillOnce([&foo](const char* str) {
+    return foo.FooConcrete(str);
+  });
+```
+
+or tell the mock object that you don't want to mock `Concrete()`:
+
+```cpp
+...
+  ON_CALL(foo, Concrete).WillByDefault([&foo](const char* str) {
+    return foo.FooConcrete(str);
+  });
+```
+
+(Why don't we just write `{ return foo.Concrete(str); }`? If you do that,
+`MockFoo::Concrete()` will be called (and cause an infinite recursion) since
+`Foo::Concrete()` is virtual. That's just how C++ works.)
+
+## Using Matchers
+
+### Matching Argument Values Exactly
+
+You can specify exactly which arguments a mock method is expecting:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5))
+      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", bar));
+```
+
+### Using Simple Matchers
+
+You can use matchers to match arguments that have a certain property:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::NotNull;
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Ge(5)))  // The argument must be >= 5.
+      .WillOnce(Return('a'));
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat("Hello", NotNull()));
+      // The second argument must not be NULL.
+```
+
+A frequently used matcher is `_`, which matches anything:
+
+```cpp
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_, NotNull()));
+```
+<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0022 DO NOT DELETE -->
+
+### Combining Matchers {#CombiningMatchers}
+
+You can build complex matchers from existing ones using `AllOf()`,
+`AllOfArray()`, `AnyOf()`, `AnyOfArray()` and `Not()`:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+using ::testing::HasSubstr;
+using ::testing::Ne;
+using ::testing::Not;
+...
+  // The argument must be > 5 and != 10.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(AllOf(Gt(5),
+                                Ne(10))));
+
+  // The first argument must not contain sub-string "blah".
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(Not(HasSubstr("blah")),
+                          NULL));
+```
+
+### Casting Matchers {#SafeMatcherCast}
+
+gMock matchers are statically typed, meaning that the compiler can catch your
+mistake if you use a matcher of the wrong type (for example, if you use `Eq(5)`
+to match a `string` argument). Good for you!
+
+Sometimes, however, you know what you're doing and want the compiler to give you
+some slack. One example is that you have a matcher for `long` and the argument
+you want to match is `int`. While the two types aren't exactly the same, there
+is nothing really wrong with using a `Matcher<long>` to match an `int` - after
+all, we can first convert the `int` argument to a `long` losslessly before
+giving it to the matcher.
+
+To support this need, gMock gives you the `SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)` function. It
+casts a matcher `m` to type `Matcher<T>`. To ensure safety, gMock checks that
+(let `U` be the type `m` accepts :
+
+1.  Type `T` can be *implicitly* cast to type `U`;
+2.  When both `T` and `U` are built-in arithmetic types (`bool`, integers, and
+    floating-point numbers), the conversion from `T` to `U` is not lossy (in
+    other words, any value representable by `T` can also be represented by `U`);
+    and
+3.  When `U` is a reference, `T` must also be a reference (as the underlying
+    matcher may be interested in the address of the `U` value).
+
+The code won't compile if any of these conditions isn't met.
+
+Here's one example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;
+
+// A base class and a child class.
+class Base { ... };
+class Derived : public Base { ... };
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, DoThis, (Derived* derived), (override));
+};
+
+...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  // m is a Matcher<Base*> we got from somewhere.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(SafeMatcherCast<Derived*>(m)));
+```
+
+If you find `SafeMatcherCast<T>(m)` too limiting, you can use a similar function
+`MatcherCast<T>(m)`. The difference is that `MatcherCast` works as long as you
+can `static_cast` type `T` to type `U`.
+
+`MatcherCast` essentially lets you bypass C++'s type system (`static_cast` isn't
+always safe as it could throw away information, for example), so be careful not
+to misuse/abuse it.
+
+### Selecting Between Overloaded Functions {#SelectOverload}
+
+If you expect an overloaded function to be called, the compiler may need some
+help on which overloaded version it is.
+
+To disambiguate functions overloaded on the const-ness of this object, use the
+`Const()` argument wrapper.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ReturnRef;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+  ...
+  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(const Bar&, GetBar, (), (const, override));
+};
+
+...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  Bar bar1, bar2;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())         // The non-const GetBar().
+      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar1));
+  EXPECT_CALL(Const(foo), GetBar())  // The const GetBar().
+      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar2));
+```
+
+(`Const()` is defined by gMock and returns a `const` reference to its argument.)
+
+To disambiguate overloaded functions with the same number of arguments but
+different argument types, you may need to specify the exact type of a matcher,
+either by wrapping your matcher in `Matcher<type>()`, or using a matcher whose
+type is fixed (`TypedEq<type>`, `An<type>()`, etc):
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::An;
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+using ::testing::TypedEq;
+
+class MockPrinter : public Printer {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (int n), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Print, (char c), (override));
+};
+
+TEST(PrinterTest, Print) {
+  MockPrinter printer;
+
+  EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(An<int>()));            // void Print(int);
+  EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(Matcher<int>(Lt(5))));  // void Print(int);
+  EXPECT_CALL(printer, Print(TypedEq<char>('a')));   // void Print(char);
+
+  printer.Print(3);
+  printer.Print(6);
+  printer.Print('a');
+}
+```
+
+### Performing Different Actions Based on the Arguments
+
+When a mock method is called, the *last* matching expectation that's still
+active will be selected (think "newer overrides older"). So, you can make a
+method do different things depending on its argument values like this:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Lt;
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+  // The default case.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_))
+      .WillRepeatedly(Return('b'));
+  // The more specific case.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(Lt(5)))
+      .WillRepeatedly(Return('a'));
+```
+
+Now, if `foo.DoThis()` is called with a value less than 5, `'a'` will be
+returned; otherwise `'b'` will be returned.
+
+### Matching Multiple Arguments as a Whole
+
+Sometimes it's not enough to match the arguments individually. For example, we
+may want to say that the first argument must be less than the second argument.
+The `With()` clause allows us to match all arguments of a mock function as a
+whole. For example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Ne;
+using ::testing::Lt;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, InRange(Ne(0), _))
+      .With(Lt());
+```
+
+says that the first argument of `InRange()` must not be 0, and must be less than
+the second argument.
+
+The expression inside `With()` must be a matcher of type
+`Matcher< ::std::tuple<A1, ..., An> >`, where `A1`, ..., `An` are the types of
+the function arguments.
+
+You can also write `AllArgs(m)` instead of `m` inside `.With()`. The two forms
+are equivalent, but `.With(AllArgs(Lt()))` is more readable than `.With(Lt())`.
+
+You can use `Args<k1, ..., kn>(m)` to match the `n` selected arguments (as a
+tuple) against `m`. For example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::Args;
+using ::testing::Lt;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Blah)
+      .With(AllOf(Args<0, 1>(Lt()), Args<1, 2>(Lt())));
+```
+
+says that `Blah` will be called with arguments `x`, `y`, and `z` where `x < y <
+z`. Note that in this example, it wasn't necessary specify the positional
+matchers.
+
+As a convenience and example, gMock provides some matchers for 2-tuples,
+including the `Lt()` matcher above. See [here](#MultiArgMatchers) for the
+complete list.
+
+Note that if you want to pass the arguments to a predicate of your own (e.g.
+`.With(Args<0, 1>(Truly(&MyPredicate)))`), that predicate MUST be written to
+take a `::std::tuple` as its argument; gMock will pass the `n` selected
+arguments as *one* single tuple to the predicate.
+
+### Using Matchers as Predicates
+
+Have you noticed that a matcher is just a fancy predicate that also knows how to
+describe itself? Many existing algorithms take predicates as arguments (e.g.
+those defined in STL's `<algorithm>` header), and it would be a shame if gMock
+matchers were not allowed to participate.
+
+Luckily, you can use a matcher where a unary predicate functor is expected by
+wrapping it inside the `Matches()` function. For example,
+
+```cpp
+#include <algorithm>
+#include <vector>
+
+using ::testing::Matches;
+using ::testing::Ge;
+
+vector<int> v;
+...
+// How many elements in v are >= 10?
+const int count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), Matches(Ge(10)));
+```
+
+Since you can build complex matchers from simpler ones easily using gMock, this
+gives you a way to conveniently construct composite predicates (doing the same
+using STL's `<functional>` header is just painful). For example, here's a
+predicate that's satisfied by any number that is >= 0, <= 100, and != 50:
+
+```cpp
+using testing::AllOf;
+using testing::Ge;
+using testing::Le;
+using testing::Matches;
+using testing::Ne;
+...
+Matches(AllOf(Ge(0), Le(100), Ne(50)))
+```
+
+### Using Matchers in googletest Assertions
+
+Since matchers are basically predicates that also know how to describe
+themselves, there is a way to take advantage of them in googletest assertions.
+It's called `ASSERT_THAT` and `EXPECT_THAT`:
+
+```cpp
+  ASSERT_THAT(value, matcher);  // Asserts that value matches matcher.
+  EXPECT_THAT(value, matcher);  // The non-fatal version.
+```
+
+For example, in a googletest test you can write:
+
+```cpp
+#include "gmock/gmock.h"
+
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::Ge;
+using ::testing::Le;
+using ::testing::MatchesRegex;
+using ::testing::StartsWith;
+
+...
+  EXPECT_THAT(Foo(), StartsWith("Hello"));
+  EXPECT_THAT(Bar(), MatchesRegex("Line \\d+"));
+  ASSERT_THAT(Baz(), AllOf(Ge(5), Le(10)));
+```
+
+which (as you can probably guess) executes `Foo()`, `Bar()`, and `Baz()`, and
+verifies that:
+
+*   `Foo()` returns a string that starts with `"Hello"`.
+*   `Bar()` returns a string that matches regular expression `"Line \\d+"`.
+*   `Baz()` returns a number in the range [5, 10].
+
+The nice thing about these macros is that *they read like English*. They
+generate informative messages too. For example, if the first `EXPECT_THAT()`
+above fails, the message will be something like:
+
+```cpp
+Value of: Foo()
+  Actual: "Hi, world!"
+Expected: starts with "Hello"
+```
+
+**Credit:** The idea of `(ASSERT|EXPECT)_THAT` was borrowed from Joe Walnes'
+Hamcrest project, which adds `assertThat()` to JUnit.
+
+### Using Predicates as Matchers
+
+gMock provides a [built-in set](#MatcherList) of matchers. In case you find them
+lacking, you can use an arbitrary unary predicate function or functor as a
+matcher - as long as the predicate accepts a value of the type you want. You do
+this by wrapping the predicate inside the `Truly()` function, for example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Truly;
+
+int IsEven(int n) { return (n % 2) == 0 ? 1 : 0; }
+...
+  // Bar() must be called with an even number.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Truly(IsEven)));
+```
+
+Note that the predicate function / functor doesn't have to return `bool`. It
+works as long as the return value can be used as the condition in in statement
+`if (condition) ...`.
+
+<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0023 DO NOT DELETE -->
+
+### Matching Arguments that Are Not Copyable
+
+When you do an `EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(bar))`, gMock saves away a copy of
+`bar`. When `Foo()` is called later, gMock compares the argument to `Foo()` with
+the saved copy of `bar`. This way, you don't need to worry about `bar` being
+modified or destroyed after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is executed. The same is true
+when you use matchers like `Eq(bar)`, `Le(bar)`, and so on.
+
+But what if `bar` cannot be copied (i.e. has no copy constructor)? You could
+define your own matcher function or callback and use it with `Truly()`, as the
+previous couple of recipes have shown. Or, you may be able to get away from it
+if you can guarantee that `bar` won't be changed after the `EXPECT_CALL()` is
+executed. Just tell gMock that it should save a reference to `bar`, instead of a
+copy of it. Here's how:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ByRef;
+using ::testing::Eq;
+using ::testing::Lt;
+...
+  // Expects that Foo()'s argument == bar.
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Eq(ByRef(bar))));
+
+  // Expects that Foo()'s argument < bar.
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_obj, Foo(Lt(ByRef(bar))));
+```
+
+Remember: if you do this, don't change `bar` after the `EXPECT_CALL()`, or the
+result is undefined.
+
+### Validating a Member of an Object
+
+Often a mock function takes a reference to object as an argument. When matching
+the argument, you may not want to compare the entire object against a fixed
+object, as that may be over-specification. Instead, you may need to validate a
+certain member variable or the result of a certain getter method of the object.
+You can do this with `Field()` and `Property()`. More specifically,
+
+```cpp
+Field(&Foo::bar, m)
+```
+
+is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `bar` member variable satisfies
+matcher `m`.
+
+```cpp
+Property(&Foo::baz, m)
+```
+
+is a matcher that matches a `Foo` object whose `baz()` method returns a value
+that satisfies matcher `m`.
+
+For example:
+
+<!-- mdformat off(github rendering does not support multiline tables) -->
+| Expression                   | Description                              |
+| :--------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- |
+| `Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))` | Matches `x` where `x.number >= 3`.       |
+| `Property(&Foo::name,  StartsWith("John "))` | Matches `x` where `x.name()` starts with  `"John "`. |
+<!-- mdformat on -->
+
+Note that in `Property(&Foo::baz, ...)`, method `baz()` must take no argument
+and be declared as `const`.
+
+BTW, `Field()` and `Property()` can also match plain pointers to objects. For
+instance,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Field;
+using ::testing::Ge;
+...
+Field(&Foo::number, Ge(3))
+```
+
+matches a plain pointer `p` where `p->number >= 3`. If `p` is `NULL`, the match
+will always fail regardless of the inner matcher.
+
+What if you want to validate more than one members at the same time? Remember
+that there are [`AllOf()` and `AllOfArray()`](#CombiningMatchers).
+
+Finally `Field()` and `Property()` provide overloads that take the field or
+property names as the first argument to include it in the error message. This
+can be useful when creating combined matchers.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::Field;
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+using ::testing::SafeMatcherCast;
+
+Matcher<Foo> IsFoo(const Foo& foo) {
+  return AllOf(Field("some_field", &Foo::some_field, foo.some_field),
+               Field("other_field", &Foo::other_field, foo.other_field),
+               Field("last_field", &Foo::last_field, foo.last_field));
+}
+```
+
+### Validating the Value Pointed to by a Pointer Argument
+
+C++ functions often take pointers as arguments. You can use matchers like
+`IsNull()`, `NotNull()`, and other comparison matchers to match a pointer, but
+what if you want to make sure the value *pointed to* by the pointer, instead of
+the pointer itself, has a certain property? Well, you can use the `Pointee(m)`
+matcher.
+
+`Pointee(m)` matches a pointer if and only if `m` matches the value the pointer
+points to. For example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Ge;
+using ::testing::Pointee;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Pointee(Ge(3))));
+```
+
+expects `foo.Bar()` to be called with a pointer that points to a value greater
+than or equal to 3.
+
+One nice thing about `Pointee()` is that it treats a `NULL` pointer as a match
+failure, so you can write `Pointee(m)` instead of
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::NotNull;
+using ::testing::Pointee;
+...
+  AllOf(NotNull(), Pointee(m))
+```
+
+without worrying that a `NULL` pointer will crash your test.
+
+Also, did we tell you that `Pointee()` works with both raw pointers **and**
+smart pointers (`std::unique_ptr`, `std::shared_ptr`, etc)?
+
+What if you have a pointer to pointer? You guessed it - you can use nested
+`Pointee()` to probe deeper inside the value. For example,
+`Pointee(Pointee(Lt(3)))` matches a pointer that points to a pointer that points
+to a number less than 3 (what a mouthful...).
+
+### Testing a Certain Property of an Object
+
+Sometimes you want to specify that an object argument has a certain property,
+but there is no existing matcher that does this. If you want good error
+messages, you should [define a matcher](#NewMatchers). If you want to do it
+quick and dirty, you could get away with writing an ordinary function.
+
+Let's say you have a mock function that takes an object of type `Foo`, which has
+an `int bar()` method and an `int baz()` method, and you want to constrain that
+the argument's `bar()` value plus its `baz()` value is a given number. Here's
+how you can define a matcher to do it:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
+using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
+
+class BarPlusBazEqMatcher : public MatcherInterface<const Foo&> {
+ public:
+  explicit BarPlusBazEqMatcher(int expected_sum)
+      : expected_sum_(expected_sum) {}
+
+  bool MatchAndExplain(const Foo& foo,
+                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
+    return (foo.bar() + foo.baz()) == expected_sum_;
+  }
+
+  void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const override {
+    *os << "bar() + baz() equals " << expected_sum_;
+  }
+
+  void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const override {
+    *os << "bar() + baz() does not equal " << expected_sum_;
+  }
+ private:
+  const int expected_sum_;
+};
+
+Matcher<const Foo&> BarPlusBazEq(int expected_sum) {
+  return MakeMatcher(new BarPlusBazEqMatcher(expected_sum));
+}
+
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(..., DoThis(BarPlusBazEq(5)))...;
+```
+
+### Matching Containers
+
+Sometimes an STL container (e.g. list, vector, map, ...) is passed to a mock
+function and you may want to validate it. Since most STL containers support the
+`==` operator, you can write `Eq(expected_container)` or simply
+`expected_container` to match a container exactly.
+
+Sometimes, though, you may want to be more flexible (for example, the first
+element must be an exact match, but the second element can be any positive
+number, and so on). Also, containers used in tests often have a small number of
+elements, and having to define the expected container out-of-line is a bit of a
+hassle.
+
+You can use the `ElementsAre()` or `UnorderedElementsAre()` matcher in such
+cases:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::ElementsAre;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+...
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
+```
+
+The above matcher says that the container must have 4 elements, which must be 1,
+greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
+
+If you instead write:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+using ::testing::UnorderedElementsAre;
+...
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Foo, (const vector<int>& numbers), (override));
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(UnorderedElementsAre(1, Gt(0), _, 5)));
+```
+
+It means that the container must have 4 elements, which (under some permutation)
+must be 1, greater than 0, anything, and 5 respectively.
+
+As an alternative you can place the arguments in a C-style array and use
+`ElementsAreArray()` or `UnorderedElementsAreArray()` instead:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
+...
+  // ElementsAreArray accepts an array of element values.
+  const int expected_vector1[] = {1, 5, 2, 4, ...};
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector1)));
+
+  // Or, an array of element matchers.
+  Matcher<int> expected_vector2[] = {1, Gt(2), _, 3, ...};
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector2)));
+```
+
+In case the array needs to be dynamically created (and therefore the array size
+cannot be inferred by the compiler), you can give `ElementsAreArray()` an
+additional argument to specify the array size:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ElementsAreArray;
+...
+  int* const expected_vector3 = new int[count];
+  ... fill expected_vector3 with values ...
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(ElementsAreArray(expected_vector3, count)));
+```
+
+Use `Pair` when comparing maps or other associative containers.
+
+```cpp
+using testing::ElementsAre;
+using testing::Pair;
+...
+  std::map<string, int> m = {{"a", 1}, {"b", 2}, {"c", 3}};
+  EXPECT_THAT(m, ElementsAre(Pair("a", 1), Pair("b", 2), Pair("c", 3)));
+```
+
+**Tips:**
+
+*   `ElementsAre*()` can be used to match *any* container that implements the
+    STL iterator pattern (i.e. it has a `const_iterator` type and supports
+    `begin()/end()`), not just the ones defined in STL. It will even work with
+    container types yet to be written - as long as they follows the above
+    pattern.
+*   You can use nested `ElementsAre*()` to match nested (multi-dimensional)
+    containers.
+*   If the container is passed by pointer instead of by reference, just write
+    `Pointee(ElementsAre*(...))`.
+*   The order of elements *matters* for `ElementsAre*()`. If you are using it
+    with containers whose element order are undefined (e.g. `hash_map`) you
+    should use `WhenSorted` around `ElementsAre`.
+
+### Sharing Matchers
+
+Under the hood, a gMock matcher object consists of a pointer to a ref-counted
+implementation object. Copying matchers is allowed and very efficient, as only
+the pointer is copied. When the last matcher that references the implementation
+object dies, the implementation object will be deleted.
+
+Therefore, if you have some complex matcher that you want to use again and
+again, there is no need to build it everytime. Just assign it to a matcher
+variable and use that variable repeatedly! For example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AllOf;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+using ::testing::Le;
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+...
+  Matcher<int> in_range = AllOf(Gt(5), Le(10));
+  ... use in_range as a matcher in multiple EXPECT_CALLs ...
+```
+
+### Matchers must have no side-effects {#PureMatchers}
+
+WARNING: gMock does not guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be
+invoked. Therefore, all matchers must be *purely functional*: they cannot have
+any side effects, and the match result must not depend on anything other than
+the matcher's parameters and the value being matched.
+
+This requirement must be satisfied no matter how a matcher is defined (e.g., if
+it is one of the standard matchers, or a custom matcher). In particular, a
+matcher can never call a mock function, as that will affect the state of the
+mock object and gMock.
+
+## Setting Expectations
+
+### Knowing When to Expect {#UseOnCall}
+
+<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0018 DO NOT DELETE -->
+
+**`ON_CALL`** is likely the *single most under-utilized construct* in gMock.
+
+There are basically two constructs for defining the behavior of a mock object:
+`ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL`. The difference? `ON_CALL` defines what happens when
+a mock method is called, but <em>doesn't imply any expectation on the method
+being called</em>. `EXPECT_CALL` not only defines the behavior, but also sets an
+expectation that <em>the method will be called with the given arguments, for the
+given number of times</em> (and *in the given order* when you specify the order
+too).
+
+Since `EXPECT_CALL` does more, isn't it better than `ON_CALL`? Not really. Every
+`EXPECT_CALL` adds a constraint on the behavior of the code under test. Having
+more constraints than necessary is *baaad* - even worse than not having enough
+constraints.
+
+This may be counter-intuitive. How could tests that verify more be worse than
+tests that verify less? Isn't verification the whole point of tests?
+
+The answer lies in *what* a test should verify. **A good test verifies the
+contract of the code.** If a test over-specifies, it doesn't leave enough
+freedom to the implementation. As a result, changing the implementation without
+breaking the contract (e.g. refactoring and optimization), which should be
+perfectly fine to do, can break such tests. Then you have to spend time fixing
+them, only to see them broken again the next time the implementation is changed.
+
+Keep in mind that one doesn't have to verify more than one property in one test.
+In fact, **it's a good style to verify only one thing in one test.** If you do
+that, a bug will likely break only one or two tests instead of dozens (which
+case would you rather debug?). If you are also in the habit of giving tests
+descriptive names that tell what they verify, you can often easily guess what's
+wrong just from the test log itself.
+
+So use `ON_CALL` by default, and only use `EXPECT_CALL` when you actually intend
+to verify that the call is made. For example, you may have a bunch of `ON_CALL`s
+in your test fixture to set the common mock behavior shared by all tests in the
+same group, and write (scarcely) different `EXPECT_CALL`s in different `TEST_F`s
+to verify different aspects of the code's behavior. Compared with the style
+where each `TEST` has many `EXPECT_CALL`s, this leads to tests that are more
+resilient to implementational changes (and thus less likely to require
+maintenance) and makes the intent of the tests more obvious (so they are easier
+to maintain when you do need to maintain them).
+
+If you are bothered by the "Uninteresting mock function call" message printed
+when a mock method without an `EXPECT_CALL` is called, you may use a `NiceMock`
+instead to suppress all such messages for the mock object, or suppress the
+message for specific methods by adding `EXPECT_CALL(...).Times(AnyNumber())`. DO
+NOT suppress it by blindly adding an `EXPECT_CALL(...)`, or you'll have a test
+that's a pain to maintain.
+
+### Ignoring Uninteresting Calls
+
+If you are not interested in how a mock method is called, just don't say
+anything about it. In this case, if the method is ever called, gMock will
+perform its default action to allow the test program to continue. If you are not
+happy with the default action taken by gMock, you can override it using
+`DefaultValue<T>::Set()` (described [here](#DefaultValue)) or `ON_CALL()`.
+
+Please note that once you expressed interest in a particular mock method (via
+`EXPECT_CALL()`), all invocations to it must match some expectation. If this
+function is called but the arguments don't match any `EXPECT_CALL()` statement,
+it will be an error.
+
+### Disallowing Unexpected Calls
+
+If a mock method shouldn't be called at all, explicitly say so:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
+      .Times(0);
+```
+
+If some calls to the method are allowed, but the rest are not, just list all the
+expected calls:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::AnyNumber;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(5));
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(Gt(10)))
+      .Times(AnyNumber());
+```
+
+A call to `foo.Bar()` that doesn't match any of the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements
+will be an error.
+
+### Understanding Uninteresting vs Unexpected Calls {#uninteresting-vs-unexpected}
+
+*Uninteresting* calls and *unexpected* calls are different concepts in gMock.
+*Very* different.
+
+A call `x.Y(...)` is **uninteresting** if there's *not even a single*
+`EXPECT_CALL(x, Y(...))` set. In other words, the test isn't interested in the
+`x.Y()` method at all, as evident in that the test doesn't care to say anything
+about it.
+
+A call `x.Y(...)` is **unexpected** if there are *some* `EXPECT_CALL(x,
+Y(...))`s set, but none of them matches the call. Put another way, the test is
+interested in the `x.Y()` method (therefore it explicitly sets some
+`EXPECT_CALL` to verify how it's called); however, the verification fails as the
+test doesn't expect this particular call to happen.
+
+**An unexpected call is always an error,** as the code under test doesn't behave
+the way the test expects it to behave.
+
+**By default, an uninteresting call is not an error,** as it violates no
+constraint specified by the test. (gMock's philosophy is that saying nothing
+means there is no constraint.) However, it leads to a warning, as it *might*
+indicate a problem (e.g. the test author might have forgotten to specify a
+constraint).
+
+In gMock, `NiceMock` and `StrictMock` can be used to make a mock class "nice" or
+"strict". How does this affect uninteresting calls and unexpected calls?
+
+A **nice mock** suppresses uninteresting call *warnings*. It is less chatty than
+the default mock, but otherwise is the same. If a test fails with a default
+mock, it will also fail using a nice mock instead. And vice versa. Don't expect
+making a mock nice to change the test's result.
+
+A **strict mock** turns uninteresting call warnings into errors. So making a
+mock strict may change the test's result.
+
+Let's look at an example:
+
+```cpp
+TEST(...) {
+  NiceMock<MockDomainRegistry> mock_registry;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com"))
+          .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page"));
+
+  // Use mock_registry in code under test.
+  ... &mock_registry ...
+}
+```
+
+The sole `EXPECT_CALL` here says that all calls to `GetDomainOwner()` must have
+`"google.com"` as the argument. If `GetDomainOwner("yahoo.com")` is called, it
+will be an unexpected call, and thus an error. *Having a nice mock doesn't
+change the severity of an unexpected call.*
+
+So how do we tell gMock that `GetDomainOwner()` can be called with some other
+arguments as well? The standard technique is to add a "catch all" `EXPECT_CALL`:
+
+```cpp
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner(_))
+        .Times(AnyNumber());  // catches all other calls to this method.
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_registry, GetDomainOwner("google.com"))
+        .WillRepeatedly(Return("Larry Page"));
+```
+
+Remember that `_` is the wildcard matcher that matches anything. With this, if
+`GetDomainOwner("google.com")` is called, it will do what the second
+`EXPECT_CALL` says; if it is called with a different argument, it will do what
+the first `EXPECT_CALL` says.
+
+Note that the order of the two `EXPECT_CALL`s is important, as a newer
+`EXPECT_CALL` takes precedence over an older one.
+
+For more on uninteresting calls, nice mocks, and strict mocks, read
+["The Nice, the Strict, and the Naggy"](#NiceStrictNaggy).
+
+### Ignoring Uninteresting Arguments {#ParameterlessExpectations}
+
+If your test doesn't care about the parameters (it only cares about the number
+or order of calls), you can often simply omit the parameter list:
+
+```cpp
+  // Expect foo.Bar( ... ) twice with any arguments.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar).Times(2);
+
+  // Delegate to the given method whenever the factory is invoked.
+  ON_CALL(foo_factory, MakeFoo)
+      .WillByDefault(&BuildFooForTest);
+```
+
+This functionality is only available when a method is not overloaded; to prevent
+unexpected behavior it is a compilation error to try to set an expectation on a
+method where the specific overload is ambiguous. You can work around this by
+supplying a [simpler mock interface](#SimplerInterfaces) than the mocked class
+provides.
+
+This pattern is also useful when the arguments are interesting, but match logic
+is substantially complex. You can leave the argument list unspecified and use
+SaveArg actions to [save the values for later verification](#SaveArgVerify). If
+you do that, you can easily differentiate calling the method the wrong number of
+times from calling it with the wrong arguments.
+
+### Expecting Ordered Calls {#OrderedCalls}
+
+Although an `EXPECT_CALL()` statement defined earlier takes precedence when
+gMock tries to match a function call with an expectation, by default calls don't
+have to happen in the order `EXPECT_CALL()` statements are written. For example,
+if the arguments match the matchers in the third `EXPECT_CALL()`, but not those
+in the first two, then the third expectation will be used.
+
+If you would rather have all calls occur in the order of the expectations, put
+the `EXPECT_CALL()` statements in a block where you define a variable of type
+`InSequence`:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::InSequence;
+
+  {
+    InSequence s;
+
+    EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(5));
+    EXPECT_CALL(bar, DoThat(_))
+        .Times(2);
+    EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(6));
+  }
+```
+
+In this example, we expect a call to `foo.DoThis(5)`, followed by two calls to
+`bar.DoThat()` where the argument can be anything, which are in turn followed by
+a call to `foo.DoThis(6)`. If a call occurred out-of-order, gMock will report an
+error.
+
+### Expecting Partially Ordered Calls {#PartialOrder}
+
+Sometimes requiring everything to occur in a predetermined order can lead to
+brittle tests. For example, we may care about `A` occurring before both `B` and
+`C`, but aren't interested in the relative order of `B` and `C`. In this case,
+the test should reflect our real intent, instead of being overly constraining.
+
+gMock allows you to impose an arbitrary DAG (directed acyclic graph) on the
+calls. One way to express the DAG is to use the [After](#AfterClause) clause of
+`EXPECT_CALL`.
+
+Another way is via the `InSequence()` clause (not the same as the `InSequence`
+class), which we borrowed from jMock 2. It's less flexible than `After()`, but
+more convenient when you have long chains of sequential calls, as it doesn't
+require you to come up with different names for the expectations in the chains.
+Here's how it works:
+
+If we view `EXPECT_CALL()` statements as nodes in a graph, and add an edge from
+node A to node B wherever A must occur before B, we can get a DAG. We use the
+term "sequence" to mean a directed path in this DAG. Now, if we decompose the
+DAG into sequences, we just need to know which sequences each `EXPECT_CALL()`
+belongs to in order to be able to reconstruct the original DAG.
+
+So, to specify the partial order on the expectations we need to do two things:
+first to define some `Sequence` objects, and then for each `EXPECT_CALL()` say
+which `Sequence` objects it is part of.
+
+Expectations in the same sequence must occur in the order they are written. For
+example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Sequence;
+...
+  Sequence s1, s2;
+
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, A())
+      .InSequence(s1, s2);
+  EXPECT_CALL(bar, B())
+      .InSequence(s1);
+  EXPECT_CALL(bar, C())
+      .InSequence(s2);
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, D())
+      .InSequence(s2);
+```
+
+specifies the following DAG (where `s1` is `A -> B`, and `s2` is `A -> C -> D`):
+
+```text
+       +---> B
+       |
+  A ---|
+       |
+        +---> C ---> D
+```
+
+This means that A must occur before B and C, and C must occur before D. There's
+no restriction about the order other than these.
+
+### Controlling When an Expectation Retires
+
+When a mock method is called, gMock only considers expectations that are still
+active. An expectation is active when created, and becomes inactive (aka
+*retires*) when a call that has to occur later has occurred. For example, in
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Sequence;
+...
+  Sequence s1, s2;
+
+  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #1
+      .Times(AnyNumber())
+      .InSequence(s1, s2);
+  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "Data set is empty."))   // #2
+      .InSequence(s1);
+  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "User not found."))      // #3
+      .InSequence(s2);
+```
+
+as soon as either #2 or #3 is matched, #1 will retire. If a warning `"File too
+large."` is logged after this, it will be an error.
+
+Note that an expectation doesn't retire automatically when it's saturated. For
+example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
+  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."));     // #2
+```
+
+says that there will be exactly one warning with the message `"File too
+large."`. If the second warning contains this message too, #2 will match again
+and result in an upper-bound-violated error.
+
+If this is not what you want, you can ask an expectation to retire as soon as it
+becomes saturated:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, _));                     // #1
+  EXPECT_CALL(log, Log(WARNING, _, "File too large."))      // #2
+      .RetiresOnSaturation();
+```
+
+Here #2 can be used only once, so if you have two warnings with the message
+`"File too large."`, the first will match #2 and the second will match #1 -
+there will be no error.
+
+## Using Actions
+
+### Returning References from Mock Methods
+
+If a mock function's return type is a reference, you need to use `ReturnRef()`
+instead of `Return()` to return a result:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::ReturnRef;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(Bar&, GetBar, (), (override));
+};
+...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  Bar bar;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetBar())
+      .WillOnce(ReturnRef(bar));
+...
+```
+
+### Returning Live Values from Mock Methods
+
+The `Return(x)` action saves a copy of `x` when the action is created, and
+always returns the same value whenever it's executed. Sometimes you may want to
+instead return the *live* value of `x` (i.e. its value at the time when the
+action is *executed*.). Use either `ReturnRef()` or `ReturnPointee()` for this
+purpose.
+
+If the mock function's return type is a reference, you can do it using
+`ReturnRef(x)`, as shown in the previous recipe ("Returning References from Mock
+Methods"). However, gMock doesn't let you use `ReturnRef()` in a mock function
+whose return type is not a reference, as doing that usually indicates a user
+error. So, what shall you do?
+
+Though you may be tempted, DO NOT use `ByRef()`:
+
+```cpp
+using testing::ByRef;
+using testing::Return;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, GetValue, (), (override));
+};
+...
+  int x = 0;
+  MockFoo foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
+      .WillRepeatedly(Return(ByRef(x)));  // Wrong!
+  x = 42;
+  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());
+```
+
+Unfortunately, it doesn't work here. The above code will fail with error:
+
+```text
+Value of: foo.GetValue()
+  Actual: 0
+Expected: 42
+```
+
+The reason is that `Return(*value*)` converts `value` to the actual return type
+of the mock function at the time when the action is *created*, not when it is
+*executed*. (This behavior was chosen for the action to be safe when `value` is
+a proxy object that references some temporary objects.) As a result, `ByRef(x)`
+is converted to an `int` value (instead of a `const int&`) when the expectation
+is set, and `Return(ByRef(x))` will always return 0.
+
+`ReturnPointee(pointer)` was provided to solve this problem specifically. It
+returns the value pointed to by `pointer` at the time the action is *executed*:
+
+```cpp
+using testing::ReturnPointee;
+...
+  int x = 0;
+  MockFoo foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, GetValue())
+      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&x));  // Note the & here.
+  x = 42;
+  EXPECT_EQ(42, foo.GetValue());  // This will succeed now.
+```
+
+### Combining Actions
+
+Want to do more than one thing when a function is called? That's fine. `DoAll()`
+allow you to do sequence of actions every time. Only the return value of the
+last action in the sequence will be used.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::DoAll;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar, (int n), (override));
+};
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
+      .WillOnce(DoAll(action_1,
+                      action_2,
+                      ...
+                      action_n));
+```
+
+### Verifying Complex Arguments {#SaveArgVerify}
+
+If you want to verify that a method is called with a particular argument but the
+match criteria is complex, it can be difficult to distinguish between
+cardinality failures (calling the method the wrong number of times) and argument
+match failures. Similarly, if you are matching multiple parameters, it may not
+be easy to distinguishing which argument failed to match. For example:
+
+```cpp
+  // Not ideal: this could fail because of a problem with arg1 or arg2, or maybe
+  // just the method wasn't called.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, SendValues(_, ElementsAre(1, 4, 4, 7), EqualsProto( ... )));
+```
+
+You can instead save the arguments and test them individually:
+
+```cpp
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, SendValues)
+      .WillOnce(DoAll(SaveArg<1>(&actual_array), SaveArg<2>(&actual_proto)));
+  ... run the test
+  EXPECT_THAT(actual_array, ElementsAre(1, 4, 4, 7));
+  EXPECT_THAT(actual_proto, EqualsProto( ... ));
+```
+
+### Mocking Side Effects {#MockingSideEffects}
+
+Sometimes a method exhibits its effect not via returning a value but via side
+effects. For example, it may change some global state or modify an output
+argument. To mock side effects, in general you can define your own action by
+implementing `::testing::ActionInterface`.
+
+If all you need to do is to change an output argument, the built-in
+`SetArgPointee()` action is convenient:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
+
+class MockMutator : public Mutator {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (bool mutate, int* value), (override));
+  ...
+}
+...
+  MockMutator mutator;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(true, _))
+      .WillOnce(SetArgPointee<1>(5));
+```
+
+In this example, when `mutator.Mutate()` is called, we will assign 5 to the
+`int` variable pointed to by argument #1 (0-based).
+
+`SetArgPointee()` conveniently makes an internal copy of the value you pass to
+it, removing the need to keep the value in scope and alive. The implication
+however is that the value must have a copy constructor and assignment operator.
+
+If the mock method also needs to return a value as well, you can chain
+`SetArgPointee()` with `Return()` using `DoAll()`, remembering to put the
+`Return()` statement last:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Return;
+using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
+
+class MockMutator : public Mutator {
+ public:
+  ...
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, MutateInt, (int* value), (override));
+}
+...
+  MockMutator mutator;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, MutateInt(_))
+      .WillOnce(DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
+                      Return(true)));
+```
+
+Note, however, that if you use the `ReturnOKWith()` method, it will override the
+values provided by `SetArgPointee()` in the response parameters of your function
+call.
+
+If the output argument is an array, use the `SetArrayArgument<N>(first, last)`
+action instead. It copies the elements in source range `[first, last)` to the
+array pointed to by the `N`-th (0-based) argument:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::NotNull;
+using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
+
+class MockArrayMutator : public ArrayMutator {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Mutate, (int* values, int num_values), (override));
+  ...
+}
+...
+  MockArrayMutator mutator;
+  int values[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
+  EXPECT_CALL(mutator, Mutate(NotNull(), 5))
+      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(values, values + 5));
+```
+
+This also works when the argument is an output iterator:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::SetArrayArgument;
+
+class MockRolodex : public Rolodex {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, GetNames, (std::back_insert_iterator<vector<string>>),
+              (override));
+  ...
+}
+...
+  MockRolodex rolodex;
+  vector<string> names;
+  names.push_back("George");
+  names.push_back("John");
+  names.push_back("Thomas");
+  EXPECT_CALL(rolodex, GetNames(_))
+      .WillOnce(SetArrayArgument<0>(names.begin(), names.end()));
+```
+
+### Changing a Mock Object's Behavior Based on the State
+
+If you expect a call to change the behavior of a mock object, you can use
+`::testing::InSequence` to specify different behaviors before and after the
+call:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::InSequence;
+using ::testing::Return;
+
+...
+  {
+     InSequence seq;
+     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
+         .WillRepeatedly(Return(true));
+     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, Flush());
+     EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, IsDirty())
+         .WillRepeatedly(Return(false));
+  }
+  my_mock.FlushIfDirty();
+```
+
+This makes `my_mock.IsDirty()` return `true` before `my_mock.Flush()` is called
+and return `false` afterwards.
+
+If the behavior change is more complex, you can store the effects in a variable
+and make a mock method get its return value from that variable:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::SaveArg;
+using ::testing::Return;
+
+ACTION_P(ReturnPointee, p) { return *p; }
+...
+  int previous_value = 0;
+  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, GetPrevValue)
+      .WillRepeatedly(ReturnPointee(&previous_value));
+  EXPECT_CALL(my_mock, UpdateValue)
+      .WillRepeatedly(SaveArg<0>(&previous_value));
+  my_mock.DoSomethingToUpdateValue();
+```
+
+Here `my_mock.GetPrevValue()` will always return the argument of the last
+`UpdateValue()` call.
+
+### Setting the Default Value for a Return Type {#DefaultValue}
+
+If a mock method's return type is a built-in C++ type or pointer, by default it
+will return 0 when invoked. Also, in C++ 11 and above, a mock method whose
+return type has a default constructor will return a default-constructed value by
+default. You only need to specify an action if this default value doesn't work
+for you.
+
+Sometimes, you may want to change this default value, or you may want to specify
+a default value for types gMock doesn't know about. You can do this using the
+`::testing::DefaultValue` class template:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::DefaultValue;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(Bar, CalculateBar, (), (override));
+};
+
+
+...
+  Bar default_bar;
+  // Sets the default return value for type Bar.
+  DefaultValue<Bar>::Set(default_bar);
+
+  MockFoo foo;
+
+  // We don't need to specify an action here, as the default
+  // return value works for us.
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, CalculateBar());
+
+  foo.CalculateBar();  // This should return default_bar.
+
+  // Unsets the default return value.
+  DefaultValue<Bar>::Clear();
+```
+
+Please note that changing the default value for a type can make you tests hard
+to understand. We recommend you to use this feature judiciously. For example,
+you may want to make sure the `Set()` and `Clear()` calls are right next to the
+code that uses your mock.
+
+### Setting the Default Actions for a Mock Method
+
+You've learned how to change the default value of a given type. However, this
+may be too coarse for your purpose: perhaps you have two mock methods with the
+same return type and you want them to have different behaviors. The `ON_CALL()`
+macro allows you to customize your mock's behavior at the method level:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::AnyNumber;
+using ::testing::Gt;
+using ::testing::Return;
+...
+  ON_CALL(foo, Sign(_))
+      .WillByDefault(Return(-1));
+  ON_CALL(foo, Sign(0))
+      .WillByDefault(Return(0));
+  ON_CALL(foo, Sign(Gt(0)))
+      .WillByDefault(Return(1));
+
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sign(_))
+      .Times(AnyNumber());
+
+  foo.Sign(5);   // This should return 1.
+  foo.Sign(-9);  // This should return -1.
+  foo.Sign(0);   // This should return 0.
+```
+
+As you may have guessed, when there are more than one `ON_CALL()` statements,
+the newer ones in the order take precedence over the older ones. In other words,
+the **last** one that matches the function arguments will be used. This matching
+order allows you to set up the common behavior in a mock object's constructor or
+the test fixture's set-up phase and specialize the mock's behavior later.
+
+Note that both `ON_CALL` and `EXPECT_CALL` have the same "later statements take
+precedence" rule, but they don't interact. That is, `EXPECT_CALL`s have their
+own precedence order distinct from the `ON_CALL` precedence order.
+
+### Using Functions/Methods/Functors/Lambdas as Actions {#FunctionsAsActions}
+
+If the built-in actions don't suit you, you can use an existing callable
+(function, `std::function`, method, functor, lambda as an action.
+
+<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0024 DO NOT DELETE -->
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_; using ::testing::Invoke;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, Sum, (int x, int y), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int x), (override));
+};
+
+int CalculateSum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
+int Sum3(int x, int y, int z) { return x + y + z; }
+
+class Helper {
+ public:
+  bool ComplexJob(int x);
+};
+
+...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  Helper helper;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Sum(_, _))
+      .WillOnce(&CalculateSum)
+      .WillRepeatedly(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(Sum3, 1)));
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
+      .WillOnce(Invoke(&helper, &Helper::ComplexJob));
+      .WillRepeatedly([](int x) { return x > 0; });
+
+  foo.Sum(5, 6);         // Invokes CalculateSum(5, 6).
+  foo.Sum(2, 3);         // Invokes Sum3(1, 2, 3).
+  foo.ComplexJob(10);    // Invokes helper.ComplexJob(10).
+  foo.ComplexJob(-1);    // Invokes the inline lambda.
+```
+
+The only requirement is that the type of the function, etc must be *compatible*
+with the signature of the mock function, meaning that the latter's arguments can
+be implicitly converted to the corresponding arguments of the former, and the
+former's return type can be implicitly converted to that of the latter. So, you
+can invoke something whose type is *not* exactly the same as the mock function,
+as long as it's safe to do so - nice, huh?
+
+**`Note:`{.escaped}**
+
+*   The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the
+    action itself is destructed.
+*   If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need
+    to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g.
+
+    ```cpp
+    using ::testing::Invoke;
+    ...
+      ResultCallback<bool>* is_ok = ...;
+      ... Invoke(is_ok) ...;  // This works.
+
+      BlockingClosure* done = new BlockingClosure;
+      ... Invoke(implicit_cast<Closure*>(done)) ...;  // The cast is necessary.
+    ```
+
+### Using Functions with Extra Info as Actions
+
+The function or functor you call using `Invoke()` must have the same number of
+arguments as the mock function you use it for. Sometimes you may have a function
+that takes more arguments, and you are willing to pass in the extra arguments
+yourself to fill the gap. You can do this in gMock using callbacks with
+pre-bound arguments. Here's an example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(char, DoThis, (int n), (override));
+};
+
+char SignOfSum(int x, int y) {
+  const int sum = x + y;
+  return (sum > 0) ? '+' : (sum < 0) ? '-' : '0';
+}
+
+TEST_F(FooTest, Test) {
+  MockFoo foo;
+
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(2))
+      .WillOnce(Invoke(NewPermanentCallback(SignOfSum, 5)));
+  EXPECT_EQ('+', foo.DoThis(2));  // Invokes SignOfSum(5, 2).
+}
+```
+
+### Invoking a Function/Method/Functor/Lambda/Callback Without Arguments
+
+`Invoke()` is very useful for doing actions that are more complex. It passes the
+mock function's arguments to the function, etc being invoked such that the
+callee has the full context of the call to work with. If the invoked function is
+not interested in some or all of the arguments, it can simply ignore them.
+
+Yet, a common pattern is that a test author wants to invoke a function without
+the arguments of the mock function. `Invoke()` allows her to do that using a
+wrapper function that throws away the arguments before invoking an underlining
+nullary function. Needless to say, this can be tedious and obscures the intent
+of the test.
+
+`InvokeWithoutArgs()` solves this problem. It's like `Invoke()` except that it
+doesn't pass the mock function's arguments to the callee. Here's an example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ComplexJob, (int n), (override));
+};
+
+bool Job1() { ... }
+bool Job2(int n, char c) { ... }
+
+...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, ComplexJob(_))
+      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(Job1))
+      .WillOnce(InvokeWithoutArgs(NewPermanentCallback(Job2, 5, 'a')));
+
+  foo.ComplexJob(10);  // Invokes Job1().
+  foo.ComplexJob(20);  // Invokes Job2(5, 'a').
+```
+
+**`Note:`{.escaped}**
+
+*   The action takes ownership of the callback and will delete it when the
+    action itself is destructed.
+*   If the type of a callback is derived from a base callback type `C`, you need
+    to implicitly cast it to `C` to resolve the overloading, e.g.
+
+    ```cpp
+    using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;
+    ...
+      ResultCallback<bool>* is_ok = ...;
+      ... InvokeWithoutArgs(is_ok) ...;  // This works.
+
+      BlockingClosure* done = ...;
+      ... InvokeWithoutArgs(implicit_cast<Closure*>(done)) ...;
+      // The cast is necessary.
+    ```
+
+### Invoking an Argument of the Mock Function
+
+Sometimes a mock function will receive a function pointer, a functor (in other
+words, a "callable") as an argument, e.g.
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThis, (int n, (ResultCallback1<bool, int>* callback)),
+              (override));
+};
+```
+
+and you may want to invoke this callable argument:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
+      .WillOnce(...);
+      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
+      // second argument DoThis() receives.
+```
+
+NOTE: The section below is legacy documentation from before C++ had lambdas:
+
+Arghh, you need to refer to a mock function argument but C++ has no lambda
+(yet), so you have to define your own action. :-( Or do you really?
+
+Well, gMock has an action to solve *exactly* this problem:
+
+```cpp
+InvokeArgument<N>(arg_1, arg_2, ..., arg_m)
+```
+
+will invoke the `N`-th (0-based) argument the mock function receives, with
+`arg_1`, `arg_2`, ..., and `arg_m`. No matter if the argument is a function
+pointer, a functor, or a callback. gMock handles them all.
+
+With that, you could write:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis(_, _))
+      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<1>(5));
+      // Will execute callback->Run(5), where callback is the
+      // second argument DoThis() receives.
+```
+
+What if the callable takes an argument by reference? No problem - just wrap it
+inside `ByRef()`:
+
+```cpp
+  ...
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Bar,
+              ((ResultCallback2<bool, int, const Helper&>* callback)),
+              (override));
+  ...
+  using ::testing::_;
+  using ::testing::ByRef;
+  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
+  ...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  Helper helper;
+  ...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(_))
+      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5, ByRef(helper)));
+      // ByRef(helper) guarantees that a reference to helper, not a copy of it,
+      // will be passed to the callback.
+```
+
+What if the callable takes an argument by reference and we do **not** wrap the
+argument in `ByRef()`? Then `InvokeArgument()` will *make a copy* of the
+argument, and pass a *reference to the copy*, instead of a reference to the
+original value, to the callable. This is especially handy when the argument is a
+temporary value:
+
+```cpp
+  ...
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (bool (*f)(const double& x, const string& s)),
+              (override));
+  ...
+  using ::testing::_;
+  using ::testing::InvokeArgument;
+  ...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  ...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat(_))
+      .WillOnce(InvokeArgument<0>(5.0, string("Hi")));
+      // Will execute (*f)(5.0, string("Hi")), where f is the function pointer
+      // DoThat() receives.  Note that the values 5.0 and string("Hi") are
+      // temporary and dead once the EXPECT_CALL() statement finishes.  Yet
+      // it's fine to perform this action later, since a copy of the values
+      // are kept inside the InvokeArgument action.
+```
+
+### Ignoring an Action's Result
+
+Sometimes you have an action that returns *something*, but you need an action
+that returns `void` (perhaps you want to use it in a mock function that returns
+`void`, or perhaps it needs to be used in `DoAll()` and it's not the last in the
+list). `IgnoreResult()` lets you do that. For example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::DoAll;
+using ::testing::IgnoreResult;
+using ::testing::Return;
+
+int Process(const MyData& data);
+string DoSomething();
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Abc, (const MyData& data), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Xyz, (), (override));
+};
+
+  ...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Abc(_))
+      // .WillOnce(Invoke(Process));
+      // The above line won't compile as Process() returns int but Abc() needs
+      // to return void.
+      .WillOnce(IgnoreResult(Process));
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Xyz())
+      .WillOnce(DoAll(IgnoreResult(DoSomething),
+                      // Ignores the string DoSomething() returns.
+                      Return(true)));
+```
+
+Note that you **cannot** use `IgnoreResult()` on an action that already returns
+`void`. Doing so will lead to ugly compiler errors.
+
+### Selecting an Action's Arguments {#SelectingArgs}
+
+Say you have a mock function `Foo()` that takes seven arguments, and you have a
+custom action that you want to invoke when `Foo()` is called. Trouble is, the
+custom action only wants three arguments:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+...
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, Foo,
+              (bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y,
+               (const map<pair<int, int>>), double& weight, double min_weight,
+               double max_wight));
+...
+bool IsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, int x, int y) {
+  return visible && x >= 0 && y >= 0;
+}
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
+      .WillOnce(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Uh, won't compile. :-(
+```
+
+To please the compiler God, you need to define an "adaptor" that has the same
+signature as `Foo()` and calls the custom action with the right arguments:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+...
+bool MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1(bool visible, const string& name, int x, int y,
+                            const map<pair<int, int>, double>& weight,
+                            double min_weight, double max_wight) {
+  return IsVisibleInQuadrant1(visible, x, y);
+}
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
+      .WillOnce(Invoke(MyIsVisibleInQuadrant1));  // Now it works.
+```
+
+But isn't this awkward?
+
+gMock provides a generic *action adaptor*, so you can spend your time minding
+more important business than writing your own adaptors. Here's the syntax:
+
+```cpp
+WithArgs<N1, N2, ..., Nk>(action)
+```
+
+creates an action that passes the arguments of the mock function at the given
+indices (0-based) to the inner `action` and performs it. Using `WithArgs`, our
+original example can be written as:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+using ::testing::WithArgs;
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo)
+      .WillOnce(WithArgs<0, 2, 3>(Invoke(IsVisibleInQuadrant1)));  // No need to define your own adaptor.
+```
+
+For better readability, gMock also gives you:
+
+*   `WithoutArgs(action)` when the inner `action` takes *no* argument, and
+*   `WithArg<N>(action)` (no `s` after `Arg`) when the inner `action` takes
+    *one* argument.
+
+As you may have realized, `InvokeWithoutArgs(...)` is just syntactic sugar for
+`WithoutArgs(Invoke(...))`.
+
+Here are more tips:
+
+*   The inner action used in `WithArgs` and friends does not have to be
+    `Invoke()` -- it can be anything.
+*   You can repeat an argument in the argument list if necessary, e.g.
+    `WithArgs<2, 3, 3, 5>(...)`.
+*   You can change the order of the arguments, e.g. `WithArgs<3, 2, 1>(...)`.
+*   The types of the selected arguments do *not* have to match the signature of
+    the inner action exactly. It works as long as they can be implicitly
+    converted to the corresponding arguments of the inner action. For example,
+    if the 4-th argument of the mock function is an `int` and `my_action` takes
+    a `double`, `WithArg<4>(my_action)` will work.
+
+### Ignoring Arguments in Action Functions
+
+The [selecting-an-action's-arguments](#SelectingArgs) recipe showed us one way
+to make a mock function and an action with incompatible argument lists fit
+together. The downside is that wrapping the action in `WithArgs<...>()` can get
+tedious for people writing the tests.
+
+If you are defining a function (or method, functor, lambda, callback) to be used
+with `Invoke*()`, and you are not interested in some of its arguments, an
+alternative to `WithArgs` is to declare the uninteresting arguments as `Unused`.
+This makes the definition less cluttered and less fragile in case the types of
+the uninteresting arguments change. It could also increase the chance the action
+function can be reused. For example, given
+
+```cpp
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(double, Foo, double(const string& label, double x, double y),
+              (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(double, Bar, (int index, double x, double y), (override));
+```
+
+instead of
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+
+double DistanceToOriginWithLabel(const string& label, double x, double y) {
+  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
+}
+double DistanceToOriginWithIndex(int index, double x, double y) {
+  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
+}
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
+      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithLabel));
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
+      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOriginWithIndex));
+```
+
+you could write
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Invoke;
+using ::testing::Unused;
+
+double DistanceToOrigin(Unused, double x, double y) {
+  return sqrt(x*x + y*y);
+}
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo("abc", _, _))
+      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar(5, _, _))
+      .WillOnce(Invoke(DistanceToOrigin));
+```
+
+### Sharing Actions
+
+Just like matchers, a gMock action object consists of a pointer to a ref-counted
+implementation object. Therefore copying actions is also allowed and very
+efficient. When the last action that references the implementation object dies,
+the implementation object will be deleted.
+
+If you have some complex action that you want to use again and again, you may
+not have to build it from scratch everytime. If the action doesn't have an
+internal state (i.e. if it always does the same thing no matter how many times
+it has been called), you can assign it to an action variable and use that
+variable repeatedly. For example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Action;
+using ::testing::DoAll;
+using ::testing::Return;
+using ::testing::SetArgPointee;
+...
+  Action<bool(int*)> set_flag = DoAll(SetArgPointee<0>(5),
+                                      Return(true));
+  ... use set_flag in .WillOnce() and .WillRepeatedly() ...
+```
+
+However, if the action has its own state, you may be surprised if you share the
+action object. Suppose you have an action factory `IncrementCounter(init)` which
+creates an action that increments and returns a counter whose initial value is
+`init`, using two actions created from the same expression and using a shared
+action will exhibit different behaviors. Example:
+
+```cpp
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis())
+      .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0));
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat())
+      .WillRepeatedly(IncrementCounter(0));
+  foo.DoThis();  // Returns 1.
+  foo.DoThis();  // Returns 2.
+  foo.DoThat();  // Returns 1 - Blah() uses a different
+                 // counter than Bar()'s.
+```
+
+versus
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Action;
+...
+  Action<int()> increment = IncrementCounter(0);
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis())
+      .WillRepeatedly(increment);
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat())
+      .WillRepeatedly(increment);
+  foo.DoThis();  // Returns 1.
+  foo.DoThis();  // Returns 2.
+  foo.DoThat();  // Returns 3 - the counter is shared.
+```
+
+### Testing Asynchronous Behavior
+
+One oft-encountered problem with gMock is that it can be hard to test
+asynchronous behavior. Suppose you had a `EventQueue` class that you wanted to
+test, and you created a separate `EventDispatcher` interface so that you could
+easily mock it out. However, the implementation of the class fired all the
+events on a background thread, which made test timings difficult. You could just
+insert `sleep()` statements and hope for the best, but that makes your test
+behavior nondeterministic. A better way is to use gMock actions and
+`Notification` objects to force your asynchronous test to behave synchronously.
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::DoAll;
+using ::testing::InvokeWithoutArgs;
+using ::testing::Return;
+
+class MockEventDispatcher : public EventDispatcher {
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DispatchEvent, (int32), (override));
+};
+
+ACTION_P(Notify, notification) {
+  notification->Notify();
+}
+
+TEST(EventQueueTest, EnqueueEventTest) {
+  MockEventDispatcher mock_event_dispatcher;
+  EventQueue event_queue(&mock_event_dispatcher);
+
+  const int32 kEventId = 321;
+  Notification done;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_event_dispatcher, DispatchEvent(kEventId))
+      .WillOnce(Notify(&done));
+
+  event_queue.EnqueueEvent(kEventId);
+  done.WaitForNotification();
+}
+```
+
+In the example above, we set our normal gMock expectations, but then add an
+additional action to notify the `Notification` object. Now we can just call
+`Notification::WaitForNotification()` in the main thread to wait for the
+asynchronous call to finish. After that, our test suite is complete and we can
+safely exit.
+
+Note: this example has a downside: namely, if the expectation is not satisfied,
+our test will run forever. It will eventually time-out and fail, but it will
+take longer and be slightly harder to debug. To alleviate this problem, you can
+use `WaitForNotificationWithTimeout(ms)` instead of `WaitForNotification()`.
+
+## Misc Recipes on Using gMock
+
+### Mocking Methods That Use Move-Only Types
+
+C++11 introduced *move-only types*. A move-only-typed value can be moved from
+one object to another, but cannot be copied. `std::unique_ptr<T>` is probably
+the most commonly used move-only type.
+
+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.
+
+Let’s say we are working on a fictional project that lets one post and share
+snippets called “buzzes”. Your code uses these types:
+
+```cpp
+enum class AccessLevel { kInternal, kPublic };
+
+class Buzz {
+ public:
+  explicit Buzz(AccessLevel access) { ... }
+  ...
+};
+
+class Buzzer {
+ public:
+  virtual ~Buzzer() {}
+  virtual std::unique_ptr<Buzz> MakeBuzz(StringPiece text) = 0;
+  virtual bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp) = 0;
+  ...
+};
+```
+
+A `Buzz` object represents a snippet being posted. A class that implements the
+`Buzzer` interface is capable of creating and sharing `Buzz`es. Methods in
+`Buzzer` may return a `unique_ptr<Buzz>` or take a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`. Now we
+need to mock `Buzzer` in our tests.
+
+To mock a method that accepts or returns move-only types, you just use the
+familiar `MOCK_METHOD` syntax as usual:
+
+```cpp
+class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(std::unique_ptr<Buzz>, MakeBuzz, (StringPiece text), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, ShareBuzz, (std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, int64_t timestamp),
+              (override));
+};
+```
+
+Now that we have the mock class defined, we can use it in tests. In the
+following code examples, we assume that we have defined a `MockBuzzer` object
+named `mock_buzzer_`:
+
+```cpp
+  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
+```
+
+First let’s see how we can set expectations on the `MakeBuzz()` method, which
+returns a `unique_ptr<Buzz>`.
+
+As usual, if you set an expectation without an action (i.e. the `.WillOnce()` or
+`.WillRepeatedly()` clause), when that expectation fires, the default action for
+that method will be taken. Since `unique_ptr<>` has a default constructor that
+returns a null `unique_ptr`, that’s what you’ll get if you don’t specify an
+action:
+
+```cpp
+  // Use the default action.
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("hello"));
+
+  // Triggers the previous EXPECT_CALL.
+  EXPECT_EQ(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("hello"));
+```
+
+If you are not happy with the default action, you can tweak it as usual; see
+[Setting Default Actions](#OnCall).
+
+If you just need to return a pre-defined move-only value, you can use the
+`Return(ByMove(...))` action:
+
+```cpp
+  // When this fires, the unique_ptr<> specified by ByMove(...) will
+  // be returned.
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("world"))
+      .WillOnce(Return(ByMove(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal))));
+
+  EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("world"));
+```
+
+Note that `ByMove()` is essential here - if you drop it, the code won’t compile.
+
+Quiz time! What do you think will happen if a `Return(ByMove(...))` action is
+performed more than once (e.g. you write `...
+.WillRepeatedly(Return(ByMove(...)));`)? Come think of it, after the first time
+the action runs, the source value will be consumed (since it’s a move-only
+value), so the next time around, there’s no value to move from -- you’ll get a
+run-time error that `Return(ByMove(...))` can only be run once.
+
+If you need your mock method to do more than just moving a pre-defined value,
+remember that you can always use a lambda or a callable object, which can do
+pretty much anything you want:
+
+```cpp
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, MakeBuzz("x"))
+      .WillRepeatedly([](StringPiece text) {
+        return MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal);
+      });
+
+  EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x"));
+  EXPECT_NE(nullptr, mock_buzzer_.MakeBuzz("x"));
+```
+
+Every time this `EXPECT_CALL` fires, a new `unique_ptr<Buzz>` will be 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):
+
+```cpp
+  using ::testing::Unused;
+
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(NotNull(), _)).WillOnce(Return(true));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal)),
+              0);
+
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, ShareBuzz(_, _)).WillOnce(
+      [](std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Unused) { return buzz != nullptr; });
+  EXPECT_FALSE(mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(nullptr, 0));
+```
+
+Many built-in actions (`WithArgs`, `WithoutArgs`,`DeleteArg`, `SaveArg`, ...)
+could in principle support move-only arguments, but the support for this is not
+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}
+
+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
+this feature (it is no longer necessary - we're including it just for
+reference):
+
+```cpp
+class MockBuzzer : public Buzzer {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoShareBuzz, (Buzz* buzz, Time timestamp));
+  bool ShareBuzz(std::unique_ptr<Buzz> buzz, Time timestamp) override {
+    return DoShareBuzz(buzz.get(), timestamp);
+  }
+};
+```
+
+The trick is to delegate the `ShareBuzz()` method to a mock method (let’s call
+it `DoShareBuzz()`) that does not take move-only parameters. Then, instead of
+setting expectations on `ShareBuzz()`, you set them on the `DoShareBuzz()` mock
+method:
+
+```cpp
+  MockBuzzer mock_buzzer_;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_buzzer_, DoShareBuzz(NotNull(), _));
+
+  // When one calls ShareBuzz() on the MockBuzzer like this, the call is
+  // forwarded to DoShareBuzz(), which is mocked.  Therefore this statement
+  // will trigger the above EXPECT_CALL.
+  mock_buzzer_.ShareBuzz(MakeUnique<Buzz>(AccessLevel::kInternal), 0);
+```
+
+### Making the Compilation Faster
+
+Believe it or not, the *vast majority* of the time spent on compiling a mock
+class is in generating its constructor and destructor, as they perform
+non-trivial tasks (e.g. verification of the expectations). What's more, mock
+methods with different signatures have different types and thus their
+constructors/destructors need to be generated by the compiler separately. As a
+result, if you mock many different types of methods, compiling your mock class
+can get really slow.
+
+If you are experiencing slow compilation, you can move the definition of your
+mock class' constructor and destructor out of the class body and into a `.cc`
+file. This way, even if you `#include` your mock class in N files, the compiler
+only needs to generate its constructor and destructor once, resulting in a much
+faster compilation.
+
+Let's illustrate the idea using an example. Here's the definition of a mock
+class before applying this recipe:
+
+```cpp
+// File mock_foo.h.
+...
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  // Since we don't declare the constructor or the destructor,
+  // the compiler will generate them in every translation unit
+  // where this mock class is used.
+
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
+  ... more mock methods ...
+};
+```
+
+After the change, it would look like:
+
+```cpp
+// File mock_foo.h.
+...
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  // The constructor and destructor are declared, but not defined, here.
+  MockFoo();
+  virtual ~MockFoo();
+
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(bool, DoThat, (const char* str), (override));
+  ... more mock methods ...
+};
+```
+
+and
+
+```cpp
+// File mock_foo.cc.
+#include "path/to/mock_foo.h"
+
+// The definitions may appear trivial, but the functions actually do a
+// lot of things through the constructors/destructors of the member
+// variables used to implement the mock methods.
+MockFoo::MockFoo() {}
+MockFoo::~MockFoo() {}
+```
+
+### Forcing a Verification
+
+When it's being destroyed, your friendly mock object will automatically verify
+that all expectations on it have been satisfied, and will generate googletest
+failures if not. This is convenient as it leaves you with one less thing to
+worry about. That is, unless you are not sure if your mock object will be
+destroyed.
+
+How could it be that your mock object won't eventually be destroyed? Well, it
+might be created on the heap and owned by the code you are testing. Suppose
+there's a bug in that code and it doesn't delete the mock object properly - you
+could end up with a passing test when there's actually a bug.
+
+Using a heap checker is a good idea and can alleviate the concern, but its
+implementation is not 100% reliable. So, sometimes you do want to *force* gMock
+to verify a mock object before it is (hopefully) destructed. You can do this
+with `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)`:
+
+```cpp
+TEST(MyServerTest, ProcessesRequest) {
+  using ::testing::Mock;
+
+  MockFoo* const foo = new MockFoo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(*foo, ...)...;
+  // ... other expectations ...
+
+  // server now owns foo.
+  MyServer server(foo);
+  server.ProcessRequest(...);
+
+  // In case that server's destructor will forget to delete foo,
+  // this will verify the expectations anyway.
+  Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(foo);
+}  // server is destroyed when it goes out of scope here.
+```
+
+**Tip:** The `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function returns a `bool` to
+indicate whether the verification was successful (`true` for yes), so you can
+wrap that function call inside a `ASSERT_TRUE()` if there is no point going
+further when the verification has failed.
+
+### Using Check Points {#UsingCheckPoints}
+
+Sometimes you may want to "reset" a mock object at various check points in your
+test: at each check point, you verify that all existing expectations on the mock
+object have been satisfied, and then you set some new expectations on it as if
+it's newly created. This allows you to work with a mock object in "phases" whose
+sizes are each manageable.
+
+One such scenario is that in your test's `SetUp()` function, you may want to put
+the object you are testing into a certain state, with the help from a mock
+object. Once in the desired state, you want to clear all expectations on the
+mock, such that in the `TEST_F` body you can set fresh expectations on it.
+
+As you may have figured out, the `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations()` function
+we saw in the previous recipe can help you here. Or, if you are using
+`ON_CALL()` to set default actions on the mock object and want to clear the
+default actions as well, use `Mock::VerifyAndClear(&mock_object)` instead. This
+function does what `Mock::VerifyAndClearExpectations(&mock_object)` does and
+returns the same `bool`, **plus** it clears the `ON_CALL()` statements on
+`mock_object` too.
+
+Another trick you can use to achieve the same effect is to put the expectations
+in sequences and insert calls to a dummy "check-point" function at specific
+places. Then you can verify that the mock function calls do happen at the right
+time. For example, if you are exercising code:
+
+```cpp
+  Foo(1);
+  Foo(2);
+  Foo(3);
+```
+
+and want to verify that `Foo(1)` and `Foo(3)` both invoke `mock.Bar("a")`, but
+`Foo(2)` doesn't invoke anything. You can write:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::MockFunction;
+
+TEST(FooTest, InvokesBarCorrectly) {
+  MyMock mock;
+  // Class MockFunction<F> has exactly one mock method.  It is named
+  // Call() and has type F.
+  MockFunction<void(string check_point_name)> check;
+  {
+    InSequence s;
+
+    EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a"));
+    EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("1"));
+    EXPECT_CALL(check, Call("2"));
+    EXPECT_CALL(mock, Bar("a"));
+  }
+  Foo(1);
+  check.Call("1");
+  Foo(2);
+  check.Call("2");
+  Foo(3);
+}
+```
+
+The expectation spec says that the first `Bar("a")` must happen before check
+point "1", the second `Bar("a")` must happen after check point "2", and nothing
+should happen between the two check points. The explicit check points make it
+easy to tell which `Bar("a")` is called by which call to `Foo()`.
+
+### Mocking Destructors
+
+Sometimes you want to make sure a mock object is destructed at the right time,
+e.g. after `bar->A()` is called but before `bar->B()` is called. We already know
+that you can specify constraints on the [order](#OrderedCalls) of mock function
+calls, so all we need to do is to mock the destructor of the mock function.
+
+This sounds simple, except for one problem: a destructor is a special function
+with special syntax and special semantics, and the `MOCK_METHOD` macro doesn't
+work for it:
+
+```cpp
+MOCK_METHOD(void, ~MockFoo, ());  // Won't compile!
+```
+
+The good news is that you can use a simple pattern to achieve the same effect.
+First, add a mock function `Die()` to your mock class and call it in the
+destructor, like this:
+
+```cpp
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+  ...
+  // Add the following two lines to the mock class.
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, Die, ());
+  virtual ~MockFoo() { Die(); }
+};
+```
+
+(If the name `Die()` clashes with an existing symbol, choose another name.) Now,
+we have translated the problem of testing when a `MockFoo` object dies to
+testing when its `Die()` method is called:
+
+```cpp
+  MockFoo* foo = new MockFoo;
+  MockBar* bar = new MockBar;
+  ...
+  {
+    InSequence s;
+
+    // Expects *foo to die after bar->A() and before bar->B().
+    EXPECT_CALL(*bar, A());
+    EXPECT_CALL(*foo, Die());
+    EXPECT_CALL(*bar, B());
+  }
+```
+
+And that's that.
+
+### Using gMock and Threads {#UsingThreads}
+
+In a **unit** test, it's best if you could isolate and test a piece of code in a
+single-threaded context. That avoids race conditions and dead locks, and makes
+debugging your test much easier.
+
+Yet most programs are multi-threaded, and sometimes to test something we need to
+pound on it from more than one thread. gMock works for this purpose too.
+
+Remember the steps for using a mock:
+
+1.  Create a mock object `foo`.
+2.  Set its default actions and expectations using `ON_CALL()` and
+    `EXPECT_CALL()`.
+3.  The code under test calls methods of `foo`.
+4.  Optionally, verify and reset the mock.
+5.  Destroy the mock yourself, or let the code under test destroy it. The
+    destructor will automatically verify it.
+
+If you follow the following simple rules, your mocks and threads can live
+happily together:
+
+*   Execute your *test code* (as opposed to the code being tested) in *one*
+    thread. This makes your test easy to follow.
+*   Obviously, you can do step #1 without locking.
+*   When doing step #2 and #5, make sure no other thread is accessing `foo`.
+    Obvious too, huh?
+*   #3 and #4 can be done either in one thread or in multiple threads - anyway
+    you want. gMock takes care of the locking, so you don't have to do any -
+    unless required by your test logic.
+
+If you violate the rules (for example, if you set expectations on a mock while
+another thread is calling its methods), you get undefined behavior. That's not
+fun, so don't do it.
+
+gMock guarantees that the action for a mock function is done in the same thread
+that called the mock function. For example, in
+
+```cpp
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(1))
+      .WillOnce(action1);
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo(2))
+      .WillOnce(action2);
+```
+
+if `Foo(1)` is called in thread 1 and `Foo(2)` is called in thread 2, gMock will
+execute `action1` in thread 1 and `action2` in thread 2.
+
+gMock does *not* impose a sequence on actions performed in different threads
+(doing so may create deadlocks as the actions may need to cooperate). This means
+that the execution of `action1` and `action2` in the above example *may*
+interleave. If this is a problem, you should add proper synchronization logic to
+`action1` and `action2` to make the test thread-safe.
+
+Also, remember that `DefaultValue<T>` is a global resource that potentially
+affects *all* living mock objects in your program. Naturally, you won't want to
+mess with it from multiple threads or when there still are mocks in action.
+
+### Controlling How Much Information gMock Prints
+
+When gMock sees something that has the potential of being an error (e.g. a mock
+function with no expectation is called, a.k.a. an uninteresting call, which is
+allowed but perhaps you forgot to explicitly ban the call), it prints some
+warning messages, including the arguments of the function, the return value, and
+the stack trace. Hopefully this will remind you to take a look and see if there
+is indeed a problem.
+
+Sometimes you are confident that your tests are correct and may not appreciate
+such friendly messages. Some other times, you are debugging your tests or
+learning about the behavior of the code you are testing, and wish you could
+observe every mock call that happens (including argument values, the return
+value, and the stack trace). Clearly, one size doesn't fit all.
+
+You can control how much gMock tells you using the `--gmock_verbose=LEVEL`
+command-line flag, where `LEVEL` is a string with three possible values:
+
+*   `info`: gMock will print all informational messages, warnings, and errors
+    (most verbose). At this setting, gMock will also log any calls to the
+    `ON_CALL/EXPECT_CALL` macros. It will include a stack trace in
+    "uninteresting call" warnings.
+*   `warning`: gMock will print both warnings and errors (less verbose); it will
+    omit the stack traces in "uninteresting call" warnings. This is the default.
+*   `error`: gMock will print errors only (least verbose).
+
+Alternatively, you can adjust the value of that flag from within your tests like
+so:
+
+```cpp
+  ::testing::FLAGS_gmock_verbose = "error";
+```
+
+If you find gMock printing too many stack frames with its informational or
+warning messages, remember that you can control their amount with the
+`--gtest_stack_trace_depth=max_depth` flag.
+
+Now, judiciously use the right flag to enable gMock serve you better!
+
+### Gaining Super Vision into Mock Calls
+
+You have a test using gMock. It fails: gMock tells you some expectations aren't
+satisfied. However, you aren't sure why: Is there a typo somewhere in the
+matchers? Did you mess up the order of the `EXPECT_CALL`s? Or is the code under
+test doing something wrong? How can you find out the cause?
+
+Won't it be nice if you have X-ray vision and can actually see the trace of all
+`EXPECT_CALL`s and mock method calls as they are made? For each call, would you
+like to see its actual argument values and which `EXPECT_CALL` gMock thinks it
+matches? If you still need some help to figure out who made these calls, how
+about being able to see the complete stack trace at each mock call?
+
+You can unlock this power by running your test with the `--gmock_verbose=info`
+flag. For example, given the test program:
+
+```cpp
+#include "gmock/gmock.h"
+
+using testing::_;
+using testing::HasSubstr;
+using testing::Return;
+
+class MockFoo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(void, F, (const string& x, const string& y));
+};
+
+TEST(Foo, Bar) {
+  MockFoo mock;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)).WillRepeatedly(Return());
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"));
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d")));
+
+  mock.F("a", "good");
+  mock.F("a", "b");
+}
+```
+
+if you run it with `--gmock_verbose=info`, you will see this output:
+
+```shell
+[ RUN       ] Foo.Bar
+
+foo_test.cc:14: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _)) invoked
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:15: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b")) invoked
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:16: EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d"))) invoked
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:14: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F(_, _))...
+    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dad40"a",@0x7fff7c8dad10"good")
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:15: Mock function call matches EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("a", "b"))...
+    Function call: F(@0x7fff7c8dada0"a",@0x7fff7c8dad70"b")
+Stack trace: ...
+
+foo_test.cc:16: Failure
+Actual function call count doesn't match EXPECT_CALL(mock, F("c", HasSubstr("d")))...
+         Expected: to be called once
+           Actual: never called - unsatisfied and active
+[  FAILED  ] Foo.Bar
+```
+
+Suppose the bug is that the `"c"` in the third `EXPECT_CALL` is a typo and
+should actually be `"a"`. With the above message, you should see that the actual
+`F("a", "good")` call is matched by the first `EXPECT_CALL`, not the third as
+you thought. From that it should be obvious that the third `EXPECT_CALL` is
+written wrong. Case solved.
+
+If you are interested in the mock call trace but not the stack traces, you can
+combine `--gmock_verbose=info` with `--gtest_stack_trace_depth=0` on the test
+command line.
+
+<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0025 DO NOT DELETE -->
+
+### Running Tests in Emacs
+
+If you build and run your tests in Emacs using the `M-x google-compile` command
+(as many googletest users do), the source file locations of gMock and googletest
+errors will be highlighted. Just press `<Enter>` on one of them and you'll be
+taken to the offending line. Or, you can just type `C-x`` to jump to the next
+error.
+
+To make it even easier, you can add the following lines to your `~/.emacs` file:
+
+```text
+(global-set-key "\M-m"  'google-compile)  ; m is for make
+(global-set-key [M-down] 'next-error)
+(global-set-key [M-up]  '(lambda () (interactive) (next-error -1)))
+```
+
+Then you can type `M-m` to start a build (if you want to run the test as well,
+just make sure `foo_test.run` or `runtests` is in the build command you supply
+after typing `M-m`), or `M-up`/`M-down` to move back and forth between errors.
+
+## Extending gMock
+
+### Writing New Matchers Quickly {#NewMatchers}
+
+WARNING: gMock does not guarantee when or how many times a matcher will be
+invoked. Therefore, all matchers must be functionally pure. See
+[this section](#PureMatchers) for more details.
+
+The `MATCHER*` family of macros can be used to define custom matchers easily.
+The syntax:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER(name, description_string_expression) { statements; }
+```
+
+will define a matcher with the given name that executes the statements, which
+must return a `bool` to indicate if the match succeeds. Inside the statements,
+you can refer to the value being matched by `arg`, and refer to its type by
+`arg_type`.
+
+The *description string* is a `string`-typed expression that documents what the
+matcher does, and is used to generate the failure message when the match fails.
+It can (and should) reference the special `bool` variable `negation`, and should
+evaluate to the description of the matcher when `negation` is `false`, or that
+of the matcher's negation when `negation` is `true`.
+
+For convenience, we allow the description string to be empty (`""`), in which
+case gMock will use the sequence of words in the matcher name as the
+description.
+
+For example:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") { return (arg % 7) == 0; }
+```
+
+allows you to write
+
+```cpp
+  // Expects mock_foo.Bar(n) to be called where n is divisible by 7.
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_foo, Bar(IsDivisibleBy7()));
+```
+
+or,
+
+```cpp
+  using ::testing::Not;
+  ...
+  // Verifies that two values are divisible by 7.
+  EXPECT_THAT(some_expression, IsDivisibleBy7());
+  EXPECT_THAT(some_other_expression, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
+```
+
+If the above assertions fail, they will print something like:
+
+```shell
+  Value of: some_expression
+  Expected: is divisible by 7
+    Actual: 27
+  ...
+  Value of: some_other_expression
+  Expected: not (is divisible by 7)
+    Actual: 21
+```
+
+where the descriptions `"is divisible by 7"` and `"not (is divisible by 7)"` are
+automatically calculated from the matcher name `IsDivisibleBy7`.
+
+As you may have noticed, the auto-generated descriptions (especially those for
+the negation) may not be so great. You can always override them with a `string`
+expression of your own:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7,
+        absl::StrCat(negation ? "isn't" : "is", " divisible by 7")) {
+  return (arg % 7) == 0;
+}
+```
+
+Optionally, you can stream additional information to a hidden argument named
+`result_listener` to explain the match result. For example, a better definition
+of `IsDivisibleBy7` is:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") {
+  if ((arg % 7) == 0)
+    return true;
+
+  *result_listener << "the remainder is " << (arg % 7);
+  return false;
+}
+```
+
+With this definition, the above assertion will give a better message:
+
+```shell
+  Value of: some_expression
+  Expected: is divisible by 7
+    Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
+```
+
+You should let `MatchAndExplain()` print *any additional information* that can
+help a user understand the match result. Note that it should explain why the
+match succeeds in case of a success (unless it's obvious) - this is useful when
+the matcher is used inside `Not()`. There is no need to print the argument value
+itself, as gMock already prints it for you.
+
+NOTE: The type of the value being matched (`arg_type`) is determined by the
+context in which you use the matcher and is supplied to you by the compiler, so
+you don't need to worry about declaring it (nor can you). This allows the
+matcher to be polymorphic. For example, `IsDivisibleBy7()` can be used to match
+any type where the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a
+`bool`. In the `Bar(IsDivisibleBy7())` example above, if method `Bar()` takes an
+`int`, `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will
+be `unsigned long`; and so on.
+
+### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
+
+Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can
+use the macro:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER_P(name, param_name, description_string) { statements; }
+```
+
+where the description string can be either `""` or a `string` expression that
+references `negation` and `param_name`.
+
+For example:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value, "") { return abs(arg) == value; }
+```
+
+will allow you to write:
+
+```cpp
+  EXPECT_THAT(Blah("a"), HasAbsoluteValue(n));
+```
+
+which may lead to this message (assuming `n` is 10):
+
+```shell
+  Value of: Blah("a")
+  Expected: has absolute value 10
+    Actual: -9
+```
+
+Note that both the matcher description and its parameter are printed, making the
+message human-friendly.
+
+In the matcher definition body, you can write `foo_type` to reference the type
+of a parameter named `foo`. For example, in the body of
+`MATCHER_P(HasAbsoluteValue, value)` above, you can write `value_type` to refer
+to the type of `value`.
+
+gMock also provides `MATCHER_P2`, `MATCHER_P3`, ..., up to `MATCHER_P10` to
+support multi-parameter matchers:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER_Pk(name, param_1, ..., param_k, description_string) { statements; }
+```
+
+Please note that the custom description string is for a particular *instance* of
+the matcher, where the parameters have been bound to actual values. Therefore
+usually you'll want the parameter values to be part of the description. gMock
+lets you do that by referencing the matcher parameters in the description string
+expression.
+
+For example,
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::PrintToString;
+MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi,
+           absl::StrFormat("%s in range [%s, %s]", negation ? "isn't" : "is",
+                           PrintToString(low), PrintToString(hi))) {
+  return low <= arg && arg <= hi;
+}
+...
+EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
+```
+
+would generate a failure that contains the message:
+
+```shell
+  Expected: is in range [4, 6]
+```
+
+If you specify `""` as the description, the failure message will contain the
+sequence of words in the matcher name followed by the parameter values printed
+as a tuple. For example,
+
+```cpp
+  MATCHER_P2(InClosedRange, low, hi, "") { ... }
+  ...
+  EXPECT_THAT(3, InClosedRange(4, 6));
+```
+
+would generate a failure that contains the text:
+
+```shell
+  Expected: in closed range (4, 6)
+```
+
+For the purpose of typing, you can view
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER_Pk(Foo, p1, ..., pk, description_string) { ... }
+```
+
+as shorthand for
+
+```cpp
+template <typename p1_type, ..., typename pk_type>
+FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>
+Foo(p1_type p1, ..., pk_type pk) { ... }
+```
+
+When you write `Foo(v1, ..., vk)`, the compiler infers the types of the
+parameters `v1`, ..., and `vk` for you. If you are not happy with the result of
+the type inference, you can specify the types by explicitly instantiating the
+template, as in `Foo<long, bool>(5, false)`. As said earlier, you don't get to
+(or need to) specify `arg_type` as that's determined by the context in which the
+matcher is used.
+
+You can assign the result of expression `Foo(p1, ..., pk)` to a variable of type
+`FooMatcherPk<p1_type, ..., pk_type>`. This can be useful when composing
+matchers. Matchers that don't have a parameter or have only one parameter have
+special types: you can assign `Foo()` to a `FooMatcher`-typed variable, and
+assign `Foo(p)` to a `FooMatcherP<p_type>`-typed variable.
+
+While you can instantiate a matcher template with reference types, passing the
+parameters by pointer usually makes your code more readable. If, however, you
+still want to pass a parameter by reference, be aware that in the failure
+message generated by the matcher you will see the value of the referenced object
+but not its address.
+
+You can overload matchers with different numbers of parameters:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER_P(Blah, a, description_string_1) { ... }
+MATCHER_P2(Blah, a, b, description_string_2) { ... }
+```
+
+While it's tempting to always use the `MATCHER*` macros when defining a new
+matcher, you should also consider implementing `MatcherInterface` or using
+`MakePolymorphicMatcher()` instead (see the recipes that follow), especially if
+you need to use the matcher a lot. While these approaches require more work,
+they give you more control on the types of the value being matched and the
+matcher parameters, which in general leads to better compiler error messages
+that pay off in the long run. They also allow overloading matchers based on
+parameter types (as opposed to just based on the number of parameters).
+
+### Writing New Monomorphic Matchers
+
+A matcher of argument type `T` implements `::testing::MatcherInterface<T>` and
+does two things: it tests whether a value of type `T` matches the matcher, and
+can describe what kind of values it matches. The latter ability is used for
+generating readable error messages when expectations are violated.
+
+The interface looks like this:
+
+```cpp
+class MatchResultListener {
+ public:
+  ...
+  // Streams x to the underlying ostream; does nothing if the ostream
+  // is NULL.
+  template <typename T>
+  MatchResultListener& operator<<(const T& x);
+
+  // Returns the underlying ostream.
+  ::std::ostream* stream();
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+class MatcherInterface {
+ public:
+  virtual ~MatcherInterface();
+
+  // Returns true if and only if the matcher matches x; also explains the match
+  // result to 'listener'.
+  virtual bool MatchAndExplain(T x, MatchResultListener* listener) const = 0;
+
+  // Describes this matcher to an ostream.
+  virtual void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const = 0;
+
+  // Describes the negation of this matcher to an ostream.
+  virtual void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const;
+};
+```
+
+If you need a custom matcher but `Truly()` is not a good option (for example,
+you may not be happy with the way `Truly(predicate)` describes itself, or you
+may want your matcher to be polymorphic as `Eq(value)` is), you can define a
+matcher to do whatever you want in two steps: first implement the matcher
+interface, and then define a factory function to create a matcher instance. The
+second step is not strictly needed but it makes the syntax of using the matcher
+nicer.
+
+For example, you can define a matcher to test whether an `int` is divisible by 7
+and then use it like this:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::MakeMatcher;
+using ::testing::Matcher;
+using ::testing::MatcherInterface;
+using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
+
+class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
+ public:
+  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
+                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const override {
+    return (n % 7) == 0;
+  }
+
+  void DescribeTo(::std::ostream* os) const override {
+    *os << "is divisible by 7";
+  }
+
+  void DescribeNegationTo(::std::ostream* os) const override {
+    *os << "is not divisible by 7";
+  }
+};
+
+Matcher<int> DivisibleBy7() {
+  return MakeMatcher(new DivisibleBy7Matcher);
+}
+
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(DivisibleBy7()));
+```
+
+You may improve the matcher message by streaming additional information to the
+`listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`:
+
+```cpp
+class DivisibleBy7Matcher : public MatcherInterface<int> {
+ public:
+  bool MatchAndExplain(int n,
+                       MatchResultListener* listener) const override {
+    const int remainder = n % 7;
+    if (remainder != 0) {
+      *listener << "the remainder is " << remainder;
+    }
+    return remainder == 0;
+  }
+  ...
+};
+```
+
+Then, `EXPECT_THAT(x, DivisibleBy7());` may generate a message like this:
+
+```shell
+Value of: x
+Expected: is divisible by 7
+  Actual: 23 (the remainder is 2)
+```
+
+### Writing New Polymorphic Matchers
+
+You've learned how to write your own matchers in the previous recipe. Just one
+problem: a matcher created using `MakeMatcher()` only works for one particular
+type of arguments. If you want a *polymorphic* matcher that works with arguments
+of several types (for instance, `Eq(x)` can be used to match a *`value`* as long
+as `value == x` compiles -- *`value`* and `x` don't have to share the same
+type), you can learn the trick from `testing/base/public/gmock-matchers.h` but
+it's a bit involved.
+
+Fortunately, most of the time you can define a polymorphic matcher easily with
+the help of `MakePolymorphicMatcher()`. Here's how you can define `NotNull()` as
+an example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::MakePolymorphicMatcher;
+using ::testing::MatchResultListener;
+using ::testing::PolymorphicMatcher;
+
+class NotNullMatcher {
+ public:
+  // To implement a polymorphic matcher, first define a COPYABLE class
+  // that has three members MatchAndExplain(), DescribeTo(), and
+  // DescribeNegationTo(), like the following.
+
+  // In this example, we want to use NotNull() with any pointer, so
+  // MatchAndExplain() accepts a pointer of any type as its first argument.
+  // In general, you can define MatchAndExplain() as an ordinary method or
+  // a method template, or even overload it.
+  template <typename T>
+  bool MatchAndExplain(T* p,
+                       MatchResultListener* /* listener */) const {
+    return p != NULL;
+  }
+
+  // Describes the property of a value matching this matcher.
+  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is not NULL"; }
+
+  // Describes the property of a value NOT matching this matcher.
+  void DescribeNegationTo(std::ostream* os) const { *os << "is NULL"; }
+};
+
+// To construct a polymorphic matcher, pass an instance of the class
+// to MakePolymorphicMatcher().  Note the return type.
+PolymorphicMatcher<NotNullMatcher> NotNull() {
+  return MakePolymorphicMatcher(NotNullMatcher());
+}
+
+...
+
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(NotNull()));  // The argument must be a non-NULL pointer.
+```
+
+**Note:** Your polymorphic matcher class does **not** need to inherit from
+`MatcherInterface` or any other class, and its methods do **not** need to be
+virtual.
+
+Like in a monomorphic matcher, you may explain the match result by streaming
+additional information to the `listener` argument in `MatchAndExplain()`.
+
+### Writing New Cardinalities
+
+A cardinality is used in `Times()` to tell gMock how many times you expect a
+call to occur. It doesn't have to be exact. For example, you can say
+`AtLeast(5)` or `Between(2, 4)`.
+
+If the [built-in set](cheat_sheet.md#CardinalityList) of cardinalities doesn't
+suit you, you are free to define your own by implementing the following
+interface (in namespace `testing`):
+
+```cpp
+class CardinalityInterface {
+ public:
+  virtual ~CardinalityInterface();
+
+  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will satisfy this cardinality.
+  virtual bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;
+
+  // Returns true if and only if call_count calls will saturate this
+  // cardinality.
+  virtual bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const = 0;
+
+  // Describes self to an ostream.
+  virtual void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const = 0;
+};
+```
+
+For example, to specify that a call must occur even number of times, you can
+write
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::Cardinality;
+using ::testing::CardinalityInterface;
+using ::testing::MakeCardinality;
+
+class EvenNumberCardinality : public CardinalityInterface {
+ public:
+  bool IsSatisfiedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
+    return (call_count % 2) == 0;
+  }
+
+  bool IsSaturatedByCallCount(int call_count) const override {
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  void DescribeTo(std::ostream* os) const {
+    *os << "called even number of times";
+  }
+};
+
+Cardinality EvenNumber() {
+  return MakeCardinality(new EvenNumberCardinality);
+}
+
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Bar(3))
+      .Times(EvenNumber());
+```
+
+### Writing New Actions Quickly {#QuickNewActions}
+
+If the built-in actions don't work for you, you can easily define your own one.
+Just define a functor class with a (possibly templated) call operator, matching
+the signature of your action.
+
+```cpp
+struct Increment {
+  template <typename T>
+  T operator()(T* arg) {
+    return ++(*arg);
+  }
+}
+```
+
+The same approach works with stateful functors (or any callable, really):
+
+```
+struct MultiplyBy {
+  template <typename T>
+  T operator()(T arg) { return arg * multiplier; }
+
+  int multiplier;
+}
+
+// Then use:
+// EXPECT_CALL(...).WillOnce(MultiplyBy{7});
+```
+
+#### Legacy macro-based Actions
+
+Before C++11, the functor-based actions were not supported; the old way of
+writing actions was through a set of `ACTION*` macros. We suggest to avoid them
+in new code; they hide a lot of logic behind the macro, potentially leading to
+harder-to-understand compiler errors. Nevertheless, we cover them here for
+completeness.
+
+By writing
+
+```cpp
+ACTION(name) { statements; }
+```
+
+in a namespace scope (i.e. not inside a class or function), you will define an
+action with the given name that executes the statements. The value returned by
+`statements` will be used as the return value of the action. 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());
+```
+
+Note that you don't need to specify the types of the mock function arguments.
+Rest assured that your code is type-safe though: you'll get a compiler error if
+`*arg1` doesn't support the `++` operator, or if the type of `++(*arg1)` isn't
+compatible with the mock function's return type.
+
+Another example:
+
+```cpp
+ACTION(Foo) {
+  (*arg2)(5);
+  Blah();
+  *arg1 = 0;
+  return arg0;
+}
+```
+
+defines an action `Foo()` that invokes argument #2 (a function pointer) with 5,
+calls function `Blah()`, sets the value pointed to by argument #1 to 0, and
+returns argument #0.
+
+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
+`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`
+`arg0_type`        | the type `bool`
+`arg1`             | the value of `ptr`
+`arg1_type`        | the type `int*`
+`args`             | the tuple `(flag, ptr)`
+`args_type`        | the type `std::tuple<bool, int*>`
+`return_type`      | the type `int`
+`function_type`    | the type `int(bool, int*)`
+
+#### Legacy macro-based parameterized Actions
+
+Sometimes you'll want to parameterize an action you define. For that we have
+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));
+```
+
+For convenience, we use the term *arguments* for the values used to invoke the
+mock function, and the term *parameters* for the values used to instantiate an
+action.
+
+Note that you don't need to provide the type of the parameter either. Suppose
+the parameter is named `param`, you can also use the gMock-defined symbol
+`param_type` to refer to the type of the parameter as inferred by the compiler.
+For example, in the body of `ACTION_P(Add, n)` above, you can write `n_type` for
+the type of `n`.
+
+gMock also provides `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;
+  return sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
+}
+```
+
+lets you write
+
+```cpp
+... WillOnce(ReturnDistanceTo(5.0, 26.5));
+```
+
+You can view `ACTION` as a degenerated parameterized action where the number of
+parameters is 0.
+
+You can also easily define actions overloaded on the number of parameters:
+
+```cpp
+ACTION_P(Plus, a) { ... }
+ACTION_P2(Plus, a, b) { ... }
+```
+
+### Restricting the Type of an Argument or Parameter in an ACTION
+
+For maximum brevity and reusability, the `ACTION*` macros don't ask you to
+provide the types of the mock function arguments and the action 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;
+  ... use n instead of arg0 here ...
+}
+
+ACTION_P(Bar, param) {
+  // Makes sure the type of arg1 is const char*.
+  ::testing::StaticAssertTypeEq<const char*, arg1_type>();
+
+  // Makes sure param can be converted to bool.
+  bool flag = param;
+}
+```
+
+where `StaticAssertTypeEq` is a compile-time assertion in googletest that
+verifies two types are the same.
+
+### Writing New Action Templates Quickly
+
+Sometimes you want to give an action explicit template parameters that cannot be
+inferred from its value parameters. `ACTION_TEMPLATE()` supports that and can be
+viewed as an extension to `ACTION()` and `ACTION_P*()`.
+
+The syntax:
+
+```cpp
+ACTION_TEMPLATE(ActionName,
+                HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(kind1, name1, ..., kind_m, name_m),
+                AND_n_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, ..., p_n)) { statements; }
+```
+
+defines an action template that takes *m* explicit template parameters and *n*
+value parameters, where *m* is in [1, 10] and *n* is in [0, 10]. `name_i` is the
+name of the *i*-th template parameter, and `kind_i` specifies whether it's a
+`typename`, an integral constant, or a template. `p_i` is the name of the *i*-th
+value parameter.
+
+Example:
+
+```cpp
+// DuplicateArg<k, T>(output) converts the k-th argument of the mock
+// function to type T and copies it to *output.
+ACTION_TEMPLATE(DuplicateArg,
+                // Note the comma between int and k:
+                HAS_2_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(int, k, typename, T),
+                AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(output)) {
+  *output = T(::std::get<k>(args));
+}
+```
+
+To create an instance of an action template, write:
+
+```cpp
+ActionName<t1, ..., t_m>(v1, ..., v_n)
+```
+
+where the `t`s are the template arguments and the `v`s are the value arguments.
+The value argument types are inferred by the compiler. For example:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+...
+  int n;
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, Foo).WillOnce(DuplicateArg<1, unsigned char>(&n));
+```
+
+If you want to explicitly specify the value argument types, you can provide
+additional template arguments:
+
+```cpp
+ActionName<t1, ..., t_m, u1, ..., u_k>(v1, ..., v_n)
+```
+
+where `u_i` is the desired type of `v_i`.
+
+`ACTION_TEMPLATE` and `ACTION`/`ACTION_P*` can be overloaded on the number of
+value parameters, but not on the number of template parameters. Without the
+restriction, the meaning of the following is unclear:
+
+```cpp
+  OverloadedAction<int, bool>(x);
+```
+
+Are we using a single-template-parameter action where `bool` refers to the type
+of `x`, or a two-template-parameter action where the compiler is asked to infer
+the type of `x`?
+
+### Using the ACTION Object's Type
+
+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_TEMPLATE(Foo,`        | `Foo<t1, ...,       | `FooAction<t1, ...,   |
+: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : t_m>()`             : t_m>`                 :
+: `AND_0_VALUE_PARAMS())`       :                     :                       :
+| `ACTION_P(Bar, param)`        | `Bar(int_value)`    | `BarActionP<int>`     |
+| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Bar,`        | `Bar<t1, ..., t_m>` | `FooActionP<t1, ...,  |
+: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : `(int_value)`       : t_m, int>`            :
+: `AND_1_VALUE_PARAMS(p1))`     :                     :                       :
+| `ACTION_P2(Baz, p1, p2)`      | `Baz(bool_value,`   | `BazActionP2<bool,    |
+:                               : `int_value)`        : int>`                 :
+| `ACTION_TEMPLATE(Baz,`        | `Baz<t1, ..., t_m>` | `FooActionP2<t1, ..., |
+: `HAS_m_TEMPLATE_PARAMS(...),` : `(bool_value,`      : t_m,` `bool, int>`    :
+: `AND_2_VALUE_PARAMS(p1, p2))` : `int_value)`        :                       :
+| ...                           | ...                 | ...                   |
+
+Note that we have to pick different suffixes (`Action`, `ActionP`, `ActionP2`,
+and etc) for actions with different numbers of value parameters, or the action
+definitions cannot be overloaded on the number of them.
+
+### Writing New Monomorphic Actions {#NewMonoActions}
+
+While the `ACTION*` macros are very convenient, sometimes they are
+inappropriate. For example, despite the tricks shown in the previous recipes,
+they don't let you directly specify the types of the mock function arguments and
+the action parameters, which in general leads to unoptimized compiler error
+messages that can baffle unfamiliar users. They also don't allow overloading
+actions based on parameter types without jumping through some hoops.
+
+An alternative to the `ACTION*` macros is to implement
+`::testing::ActionInterface<F>`, where `F` is the type of the mock function in
+which the action will be used. For example:
+
+```cpp
+template <typename F>
+class ActionInterface {
+ public:
+  virtual ~ActionInterface();
+
+  // Performs the action.  Result is the return type of function type
+  // F, and ArgumentTuple is the tuple of arguments of F.
+  //
+
+  // For example, if F is int(bool, const string&), then Result would
+  // be int, and ArgumentTuple would be ::std::tuple<bool, const string&>.
+  virtual Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) = 0;
+};
+```
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+using ::testing::Action;
+using ::testing::ActionInterface;
+using ::testing::MakeAction;
+
+typedef int IncrementMethod(int*);
+
+class IncrementArgumentAction : public ActionInterface<IncrementMethod> {
+ public:
+  int Perform(const ::std::tuple<int*>& args) override {
+    int* p = ::std::get<0>(args);  // Grabs the first argument.
+    return *p++;
+  }
+};
+
+Action<IncrementMethod> IncrementArgument() {
+  return MakeAction(new IncrementArgumentAction);
+}
+
+...
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, Baz(_))
+      .WillOnce(IncrementArgument());
+
+  int n = 5;
+  foo.Baz(&n);  // Should return 5 and change n to 6.
+```
+
+### Writing New Polymorphic Actions {#NewPolyActions}
+
+The previous recipe showed you how to define your own action. This is all good,
+except that you need to know the type of the function in which the action will
+be used. Sometimes that can be a problem. For example, if you want to use the
+action in functions with *different* types (e.g. like `Return()` and
+`SetArgPointee()`).
+
+If an action can be used in several types of mock functions, we say it's
+*polymorphic*. The `MakePolymorphicAction()` function template makes it easy to
+define such an action:
+
+```cpp
+namespace testing {
+template <typename Impl>
+PolymorphicAction<Impl> MakePolymorphicAction(const Impl& impl);
+}  // namespace testing
+```
+
+As an example, let's define an action that returns the second argument in the
+mock function's argument list. The first step is to define an implementation
+class:
+
+```cpp
+class ReturnSecondArgumentAction {
+ public:
+  template <typename Result, typename ArgumentTuple>
+  Result Perform(const ArgumentTuple& args) const {
+    // To get the i-th (0-based) argument, use ::std::get(args).
+    return ::std::get<1>(args);
+  }
+};
+```
+
+This implementation class does *not* need to inherit from any particular class.
+What matters is that it must have a `Perform()` method template. This method
+template takes the mock function's arguments as a tuple in a **single**
+argument, and returns the result of the action. It can be either `const` or not,
+but must be invokable with exactly one template argument, which is the result
+type. In other words, you must be able to call `Perform<R>(args)` where `R` is
+the mock function's return type and `args` is its arguments in a tuple.
+
+Next, we use `MakePolymorphicAction()` to turn an instance of the implementation
+class into the polymorphic action we need. It will be convenient to have a
+wrapper for this:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::MakePolymorphicAction;
+using ::testing::PolymorphicAction;
+
+PolymorphicAction<ReturnSecondArgumentAction> ReturnSecondArgument() {
+  return MakePolymorphicAction(ReturnSecondArgumentAction());
+}
+```
+
+Now, you can use this polymorphic action the same way you use the built-in ones:
+
+```cpp
+using ::testing::_;
+
+class MockFoo : public Foo {
+ public:
+  MOCK_METHOD(int, DoThis, (bool flag, int n), (override));
+  MOCK_METHOD(string, DoThat, (int x, const char* str1, const char* str2),
+              (override));
+};
+
+  ...
+  MockFoo foo;
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThis).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
+  EXPECT_CALL(foo, DoThat).WillOnce(ReturnSecondArgument());
+  ...
+  foo.DoThis(true, 5);  // Will return 5.
+  foo.DoThat(1, "Hi", "Bye");  // Will return "Hi".
+```
+
+### Teaching gMock How to Print Your Values
+
+When an uninteresting or unexpected call occurs, gMock prints the argument
+values and the stack trace to help you debug. Assertion macros like
+`EXPECT_THAT` and `EXPECT_EQ` also print the values in question when the
+assertion fails. gMock and googletest do this using googletest's user-extensible
+value printer.
+
+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.
+[googletest'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.
+
+## Useful Mocks Created Using gMock
+
+<!--#include file="includes/g3_testing_LOGs.md"-->
+<!--#include file="includes/g3_mock_callbacks.md"-->
+
+### Mock std::function {#MockFunction}
+
+`std::function` is a general function type introduced in C++11. It is a
+preferred way of passing callbacks to new interfaces. Functions are copiable,
+and are not usually passed around by pointer, which makes them tricky to mock.
+But fear not - `MockFunction` can help you with that.
+
+`MockFunction<R(T1, ..., Tn)>` has a mock method `Call()` with the signature:
+
+```cpp
+  R Call(T1, ..., Tn);
+```
+
+It also has a `AsStdFunction()` method, which creates a `std::function` proxy
+forwarding to Call:
+
+```cpp
+  std::function<R(T1, ..., Tn)> AsStdFunction();
+```
+
+To use `MockFunction`, first create `MockFunction` object and set up
+expectations on its `Call` method. Then pass proxy obtained from
+`AsStdFunction()` to the code you are testing. For example:
+
+```cpp
+TEST(FooTest, RunsCallbackWithBarArgument) {
+  // 1. Create a mock object.
+  MockFunction<int(string)> mock_function;
+
+  // 2. Set expectations on Call() method.
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock_function, Call("bar")).WillOnce(Return(1));
+
+  // 3. Exercise code that uses std::function.
+  Foo(mock_function.AsStdFunction());
+  // Foo's signature can be either of:
+  // void Foo(const std::function<int(string)>& fun);
+  // void Foo(std::function<int(string)> fun);
+
+  // 4. All expectations will be verified when mock_function
+  //     goes out of scope and is destroyed.
+}
+```
+
+Remember that function objects created with `AsStdFunction()` are just
+forwarders. If you create multiple of them, they will share the same set of
+expectations.
+
+Although `std::function` supports unlimited number of arguments, `MockFunction`
+implementation is limited to ten. If you ever hit that limit... well, your
+callback has bigger problems than being mockable. :-)
+
+<!-- GOOGLETEST_CM0034 DO NOT DELETE -->