Mocking a method with throw() specifier

Question

I am trying to Google mock a virtual method which has a throw() specifier. The original function looks like this:

virtual ReturnValue FunctionName() const throw();

I am getting the compiler error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual FunctionSignature'

Here is the code I have tried thus far:

MOCK_CONST_METHOD0( FunctionName, ReturnValue() );  
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0( FunctionName, ReturnValue() throw() );  
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0( FunctionName, ReturnValue() ) throw(); // Gives a different error entirely.

I've tried just about every other combination I can think of, but these are the ones which seem most logical. How do I go about Google mocking a method with a throw() specifier?

It seems to me that Google coding style forbids exceptions entirely. — Alexandre C., Feb 07 '11 at 14:50
@Alexandre C: So I guess one question is, is GoogleMock designed to support code not written in Google's house style? — Steve Jessop, Feb 07 '11 at 16:03
They are just slow (probably because they don't care due to their guidelines). Star this bug if you want it: https://code.google.com/p/googlemock/issues/detail?id=122 — StellarVortex, Jul 06 '13 at 14:56

score 2 · Answer 1 · answered Feb 27 '11 at 13:36

2

From what I can tell, you'd have to use the "internal" GMOCK_METHOD0_ macro, and use:

GMOCK_METHOD0_(, const throw(), , FunctionName, ReturnValue)

as MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(m, F) is #defineed to GMOCK_METHOD0_(, const, , m, F), gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h#644 and gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h#347 defines that.

answered Feb 27 '11 at 13:36

Terence Simpson

4,440
2
20
18

Cool, but obviously, the drawback of this is it might not work in the future (because it is internal). – StellarVortex Jul 06 '13 at 14:57

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Apr 30 '13 at 17:16

Google mock does not support exception specifications. The reason is that they think exception specification is mostly a misfeature and should be avoided in practice, even if you use exceptions extensively.

There are some sources that supports this point of view:

Herb Sutter (author of "Exceptional C++" and "More Exceptional C++"): A Pragmatic Look at Exception Specifications http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill22.htm
Anders Hejlsberg (chief designer of C#): The Trouble with Checked Exceptions http://www.artima.com/intv/handcuffs.html

The solution would be rewriting the code as:

virtual ReturnValue FunctionName() const throw();

and then use:

MOCK_CONST_METHOD0( FunctionName, ReturnValue() );

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Mar 02 '11 at 16:13

1

My solution: create an implementation of the virtual function which consists solely of passing through to a mocked method.

MOCK_CONST_METHOD0( MockFunctionName, ReturnValue() );
virtual ReturnValue FunctionName() const throw()  
{  
    return MockFunctionName();  
}

Then, whenever you need to write an Expect_Call or do anything for that method, just refer to MockFunctionName.

answered Mar 02 '11 at 16:13

J R

130
1
5

Ok, now how about EXPECT_THROW – Jul 11 '11 at 19:28

Mocking a method with throw() specifier

3 Answers3