[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fundamental question: How to resolve dependencies with mock objects


mock and wrap are two different things. You can mock a function
without the _wrap trick and vice versa. For instance, you can mock a
function like the cmocka example illustrates by providing the full
function prototype and returning the previously prepared return code:

The wrapping is a linker feature that allows you to trick the linker
into calling _wrap_foo() instead of foo(). You can always call the
"real" foo if you like, by calling __real_foo(). This might be useful
to check if foo() was called in the program under test for instance.
In SSSD we have something like:

bool was_foo_called;

__real_foo(); /* You need the declaration */

   was_foo_called = true; /* Let the test driver know foo was called */
  __real_foo();                 /* Call the original foo function */

You can even control whether to call the real foo or some mocked
version based on parameter you pass with will_return in advance. Here
is some example from SSSD:

I hope this helps.

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Frank Lorenz <lorenz-frank@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> starting to use unit tests for an existing project (embedded C), I currently
> try to use cmocka for this.
> I have a lot of dependencies (e.g. to hardware) and interfaces to other
> devices that let me think I require mock objects to do a "simple simulation"
> of hardware/interfaces for unit tests.
> So I started to integrate cmocka and now have a lack of basic understanding
> of the concept:
> As far as I understand, I need to implement a wrapper function for every
> function I want to mock. As an example, for a mock of a function    int
> foo(char* c)    I write a function int    __wrap_foo ( char* c )   and give
> the option "--wrap=foo to the linker.
> My question is:
> If I want to implement unit tests for two modules A and B, and I want to
> have a mock version of B for unit test of A and a mock version of A for unit
> test of B -- how to implement this?
> Because when I implement mock versions of all functions of A and of B and
> tell the linker to use these "wrappers" instead of the real functions, then
> my unit test executable will only contain the mock versions of all the
> functions. The "real" implementation of A and B will not be linked into the
> executable and therefore cannot be tested.
> Or do I miss something?
> best regards,
> Frank

Re: Fundamental question: How to resolve dependencies with mock objects"James Grenning" <james@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fundamental question: How to resolve dependencies with mock objects"Frank Lorenz" <lorenz-frank@xxxxxx>