Merge 6489e631ea9c26345f7fdc84ea2289271d83f795 into 7140cd416cecd7462a8aae488024abeee55598e4

PiperOrigin-RevId: 925686474
Change-Id: I7b5d7e82dc8618d6914844446fa260468b947ece

docs/gmock_cook_book.md

@@ -3386,30 +3386,6 @@ With this definition, the above assertion will give a better message:
     Actual: 27 (the remainder is 6)
 ```
 
-#### Using EXPECT_ Statements in Matchers
-
-You can also use `EXPECT_...` statements inside custom matcher definitions. In
-many cases, this allows you to write your matcher more concisely while still
-providing an informative error message. For example:
-
-```cpp
-MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") {
-  const auto remainder = arg % 7;
-  EXPECT_EQ(remainder, 0);
-  return true;
-}
-```
-
-If you write a test that includes the line `EXPECT_THAT(27, IsDivisibleBy7());`,
-you will get an error something like the following:
-
-```shell
-Expected equality of these values:
-  remainder
-    Which is: 6
-  0
-```
-
 #### `MatchAndExplain`
 
 You should let `MatchAndExplain()` print *any additional information* that can
@@ -3429,6 +3405,66 @@ the value of `(arg % 7) == 0` can be implicitly converted to a `bool`. In the
 `arg_type` will be `int`; if it takes an `unsigned long`, `arg_type` will be
 `unsigned long`; and so on.
 
+#### Anti-pattern: Using EXPECT_ Statements in Matchers
+
+Using `EXPECT_...` statements inside custom matcher definitions is an
+**anti-pattern** and should be avoided.
+
+While it might appear to write matchers more concisely and generate informative
+messages, this pattern has critical issues:
+
+1.  **Negation Breakage (`Not`):** If wrapped in `Not(IsDivisibleBy7())`,
+    evaluating it still triggers the internal `EXPECT_EQ`, registering a test
+    failure on the runner even when the overall assertion is expected to
+    succeed.
+2.  **Composition / Container Breakage (`AnyOf`, `AllOf`, `Contains`):** When
+    composed or used inside container matchers, elements that are expected
+    mismatches will trigger the internal `EXPECT_` and register spurious
+    failures.
+3.  **ASSERT_* compilation errors:** `ASSERT_*` macros use `return;` to abort
+    from a void function. Since matchers return `bool`, using `ASSERT_` inside
+    them triggers a compilation error.
+4.  **Purity Violations:** Matchers must be functionally pure (side-effect
+    free), whereas registering global failures is a major side effect.
+5.  **Line Number Confusion:** Failure reports point to the matcher's definition
+    line rather than the calling `EXPECT_THAT`
+    line.
+
+##### The Anti-Pattern
+
+```cpp
+// Anti-pattern: Do not do this!
+MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") {
+  const auto remainder = arg % 7;
+  EXPECT_EQ(remainder, 0);  // Spurious failures if negated/composed!
+  return true;
+}
+```
+
+##### The Correct Solution
+
+To write concise matchers that delegate to other matchers and safely propagate
+the mismatch explanation, use **`::testing::ExplainMatchResult`** instead,
+passing it the sub-matcher, the value to check, and the `result_listener`:
+
+```cpp
+MATCHER(IsDivisibleBy7, "") {
+  const auto remainder = arg % 7;
+  return ::testing::ExplainMatchResult(::testing::Eq(0), remainder,
+                                       result_listener);
+}
+```
+
+If you write a test that includes the line:
+
+```cpp
+EXPECT_THAT(28, Not(IsDivisibleBy7()));
+```
+
+it will correctly report the mismatch, properly point to the `EXPECT_THAT` line
+number, and support negation (`Not`) and composition (`AllOf`, `AnyOf`, etc.)
+without registering spurious failures.
+
 ### Writing New Parameterized Matchers Quickly
 
 Sometimes you'll want to define a matcher that has parameters. For that you can

googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h

@@ -276,6 +276,13 @@ class UntypedOnCallSpecBase {
   Clause last_clause_;
 };  // class UntypedOnCallSpecBase
 
+// Possible reactions on uninteresting calls.
+enum CallReaction {
+  kAllow,
+  kWarn,
+  kFail,
+};
+
 // This template class implements an ON_CALL spec.
 template <typename F>
 class OnCallSpec : public UntypedOnCallSpecBase {
@@ -332,6 +339,16 @@ class OnCallSpec : public UntypedOnCallSpecBase {
     return action_;
   }
 
+  OnCallSpec& Uninteresting() {
+    AssertSpecProperty(not call_reaction_,
+                       "Uninteresting() may only be called "
+                       "once in an ON_CALL().");
+    call_reaction_ = CallReaction::kAllow;
+    return *this;
+  }
+
+  std::optional<CallReaction> GetCallReaction() const { return call_reaction_; }
+
  private:
   // The information in statement
   //
@@ -346,18 +363,13 @@ class OnCallSpec : public UntypedOnCallSpecBase {
   //   matchers                                => matchers_
   //   multi-argument-matcher                  => extra_matcher_
   //   action                                  => action_
+  //   optional call reaction                  => call_reaction_
   ArgumentMatcherTuple matchers_;
   Matcher<const ArgumentTuple&> extra_matcher_;
   Action<F> action_;
+  std::optional<CallReaction> call_reaction_;
 };  // class OnCallSpec
 
-// Possible reactions on uninteresting calls.
-enum CallReaction {
-  kAllow,
-  kWarn,
-  kFail,
-};
-
 }  // namespace internal
 
 // Utilities for manipulating mock objects.
@@ -1798,9 +1810,16 @@ R FunctionMocker<R(Args...)>::InvokeWith(ArgumentTuple&& args)
     // made on this mock object BEFORE performing the action,
     // because the action may DELETE the mock object and make the
     // following expression meaningless.
-    const CallReaction reaction =
+    CallReaction reaction =
         Mock::GetReactionOnUninterestingCalls(MockObject());
 
+    // Check if there is an OnCallSpec that marks this call as a
+    // 'known' uninteresting call that should be allowed regardless.
+    const OnCallSpec<F>* const spec = this->FindOnCallSpec(args);
+    if (spec && spec->GetCallReaction()) {
+      reaction = *spec->GetCallReaction();
+    }
+
     // True if and only if we need to print this call's arguments and return
     // value.  This definition must be kept in sync with
     // the behavior of ReportUninterestingCall().
@@ -1957,6 +1976,11 @@ struct SignatureOf<R(Args...)> {
   using type = R(Args...);
 };
 
+template <typename R, typename... Args>
+struct SignatureOf<R(Args...) const> {
+  using type = R(Args...);
+};
+
 template <template <typename> class C, typename F>
 struct SignatureOf<C<F>,
                    typename std::enable_if<std::is_function<F>::value>::type>

googlemock/test/gmock-function-mocker_test.cc

@@ -942,6 +942,15 @@ static constexpr bool IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedTo(
 
 }  // namespace
 
+// Like std::add_const, but for function types.
+template <typename F>
+struct AddConstToFunction;
+
+template <typename R, typename... Args>
+struct AddConstToFunction<R(Args...)> {
+  using type = R(Args...) const;
+};
+
 template <typename F>
 class MockMethodMockFunctionSignatureTest : public Test {};
 
@@ -953,25 +962,69 @@ TYPED_TEST_SUITE(MockMethodMockFunctionSignatureTest,
 
 TYPED_TEST(MockMethodMockFunctionSignatureTest,
            IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedForRawSignature) {
-  using Argument = TypeParam;
-  MockFunction<Argument> foo;
-  EXPECT_TRUE(IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedTo<TypeParam>(foo));
+  // Non-const
+  {
+    using Argument = TypeParam;
+    MockFunction<Argument> foo;
+    EXPECT_TRUE(IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedTo<TypeParam>(foo));
+  }
+
+  // Const
+  {
+    using Argument = typename AddConstToFunction<TypeParam>::type;
+    MockFunction<Argument> foo;
+    EXPECT_TRUE(IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedTo<TypeParam>(foo));
+  }
 }
 
 TYPED_TEST(MockMethodMockFunctionSignatureTest,
            IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedForStdFunction) {
-  using Argument = std::function<TypeParam>;
-  MockFunction<Argument> foo;
-  EXPECT_TRUE(IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedTo<TypeParam>(foo));
+  // Non-const
+  {
+    using Argument = std::function<TypeParam>;
+    MockFunction<Argument> foo;
+    EXPECT_TRUE(IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedTo<TypeParam>(foo));
+  }
+
+// As of 2026-05 MSVC doesn't know how to deal with this, providing pages of
+// inscrutable errors about std::_Get_function_impl. But this is fine, since
+// std::function<R(Args...) const> doesn't apply the const qualifier correctly
+// anyway.
+#if !defined(_MSC_VER)
+
+  // Const
+  {
+    using Argument =
+        std::function<typename AddConstToFunction<TypeParam>::type>;
+
+    MockFunction<Argument> foo;
+    EXPECT_TRUE(IsMockFunctionTemplateArgumentDeducedTo<TypeParam>(foo));
+  }
+
+#endif
 }
 
 TYPED_TEST(
     MockMethodMockFunctionSignatureTest,
     IsMockFunctionCallMethodSignatureTheSameForRawSignatureAndStdFunction) {
-  using ForRawSignature = decltype(&MockFunction<TypeParam>::Call);
-  using ForStdFunction =
-      decltype(&MockFunction<std::function<TypeParam>>::Call);
-  EXPECT_TRUE((std::is_same<ForRawSignature, ForStdFunction>::value));
+  // Non-const
+  {
+    using ForRawSignature = decltype(&MockFunction<TypeParam>::Call);
+    using ForStdFunction =
+        decltype(&MockFunction<std::function<TypeParam>>::Call);
+    EXPECT_TRUE((std::is_same<ForRawSignature, ForStdFunction>::value));
+  }
+
+  // Const
+  {
+    using ConstTypeParam = typename AddConstToFunction<TypeParam>::type;
+    using ForRawSignature = decltype(&MockFunction<ConstTypeParam>::Call);
+
+    using ForStdFunction =
+        decltype(&MockFunction<std::function<ConstTypeParam>>::Call);
+
+    EXPECT_TRUE((std::is_same<ForRawSignature, ForStdFunction>::value));
+  }
 }
 
 template <typename F>

googlemock/test/gmock-nice-strict_test.cc

@@ -157,6 +157,26 @@ TEST(RawMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCall) {
   GMOCK_FLAG_SET(verbose, saved_flag);
 }
 
+// Tests that a raw mock generates no warnings for declared uninteresting calls.
+TEST(RawMockTest, NoWarningForDeclaredUninterestingCall) {
+  const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG_GET(verbose);
+  GMOCK_FLAG_SET(verbose, "warning");
+
+  MockFoo raw_foo;
+
+  ON_CALL(raw_foo, DoThis()).WillByDefault(InvokeWithoutArgs([](){})).Uninteresting();
+  ON_CALL(raw_foo, DoThat(_)).WillByDefault(Return(1)).Uninteresting();
+
+  CaptureStdout();
+  raw_foo.DoThis();
+  raw_foo.DoThat(true);
+  EXPECT_THAT(GetCapturedStdout(),
+              Not(HasSubstr("Uninteresting mock function call")));
+
+  GMOCK_FLAG_SET(verbose, saved_flag);
+}
+
+
 // Tests that a raw mock generates warnings for uninteresting calls
 // that delete the mock object.
 TEST(RawMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCallAfterDeath) {
@@ -342,6 +362,26 @@ TEST(NaggyMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCall) {
   GMOCK_FLAG_SET(verbose, saved_flag);
 }
 
+// Tests that a raw mock generates no warnings for declared uninteresting calls.
+TEST(NaggyMockTest, NoWarningForDeclaredUninterestingCall) {
+  const std::string saved_flag = GMOCK_FLAG_GET(verbose);
+  GMOCK_FLAG_SET(verbose, "warning");
+
+  NaggyMock<MockFoo> naggy_foo;
+
+  ON_CALL(naggy_foo, DoThis()).WillByDefault(InvokeWithoutArgs([](){})).Uninteresting();
+  ON_CALL(naggy_foo, DoThat(_)).WillByDefault(Return(1)).Uninteresting();
+
+  CaptureStdout();
+  naggy_foo.DoThis();
+  naggy_foo.DoThat(true);
+  EXPECT_THAT(GetCapturedStdout(),
+              Not(HasSubstr("Uninteresting mock function call")));
+
+  GMOCK_FLAG_SET(verbose, saved_flag);
+}
+
+
 // Tests that a naggy mock generates a warning for an uninteresting call
 // that deletes the mock object.
 TEST(NaggyMockTest, WarningForUninterestingCallAfterDeath) {

googletest/include/gtest/gtest-message.h

@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ class GTEST_API_ Message {
                               int>::type = 0
 #endif  // GTEST_HAS_ABSL
       >
-  inline Message& operator<<(const T& val) {
+  Message& operator<<(const T& val) {
         // Some libraries overload << for STL containers.  These
     // overloads are defined in the global namespace instead of ::std.
     //
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ class GTEST_API_ Message {
   template <typename T,
             typename std::enable_if<absl::HasAbslStringify<T>::value,  // NOLINT
                                     int>::type = 0>
-  inline Message& operator<<(const T& val) {
+  Message& operator<<(const T& val) {
     // ::operator<< is needed here for a similar reason as with the non-Abseil
     // version above
     using ::operator<<;

googletest/include/gtest/internal/gtest-death-test-internal.h

@@ -229,7 +229,8 @@ GTEST_API_ bool ExitedUnsuccessfully(int exit_status);
       goto GTEST_CONCAT_TOKEN_(gtest_label_, __LINE__);                        \
     }                                                                          \
     if (gtest_dt != nullptr) {                                                 \
-      std::unique_ptr< ::testing::internal::DeathTest> gtest_dt_ptr(gtest_dt); \
+      const std::unique_ptr< ::testing::internal::DeathTest> gtest_dt_ptr(     \
+          gtest_dt);                                                           \
       switch (gtest_dt->AssumeRole()) {                                        \
         case ::testing::internal::DeathTest::OVERSEE_TEST:                     \
           if (!gtest_dt->Passed(predicate(gtest_dt->Wait()))) {                \