Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit ee3aa831 authored by Sam Sobell's avatar Sam Sobell Committed by Derek Mauro
Browse files

Fix bad advice in cook book (#2308)

This line directly contradicts the warning that google mock spits out on unused mock calls:
```
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen.  Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call.  See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md#knowing-when-to-expect for details.
```
One or the other should be changed, and I believe the advice in this file is incorrect.
parent 437e1008
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
......@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ If a mock method has no `EXPECT_CALL` spec but is called, Google Mock
will print a warning about the "uninteresting call". The rationale is:
* New methods may be added to an interface after a test is written. We shouldn't fail a test just because a method it doesn't know about is called.
* However, this may also mean there's a bug in the test, so Google Mock shouldn't be silent either. If the user believes these calls are harmless, they can add an `EXPECT_CALL()` to suppress the warning.
* However, this may also mean there's a bug in the test, so Google Mock shouldn't be silent either. (Note that the user should [*not* add an `EXPECT_CALL()`](https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md#knowing-when-to-expect) to suppress the warning, even if they think the call is harmless).
However, sometimes you may want to suppress all "uninteresting call"
warnings, while sometimes you may want the opposite, i.e. to treat all
......
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment