XDG stable: use mock methods instead of notification lists #275
Conversation
| // XdgSurfaceStable | ||
|
|
||
| wlcs::XdgSurfaceStable::XdgSurfaceStable(wlcs::Client& client, wlcs::Surface& surface) | ||
| { | ||
| EXPECT_CALL(*this, configure).Times(AnyNumber()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should add catch-all expectations like this to the generic code; it might make tests with specific expectations more difficult to write later.
Instead I think we should just instantiate NiceMock<XdgSurfaceStable>s wherever we want to suppress the “No expectation matched” warnings.
| { | ||
| state = wlcs::XdgToplevelStable::State{width, height, states}; | ||
| state = wlcs::XdgToplevelStable::State{args...}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice use of generic lambdas :)
| { | ||
| should_close = true; | ||
| }); | ||
| EXPECT_CALL(xdg_toplevel, close()).Times(0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure that this does what you want? GMock expectations are additive; how does this EXPECT_CALL().Times(0) interact with the previous EXPECT_CALL().Times(AnyNumber())?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe new more specific EXPECT_CALL's supersede old more general ones. If you remove the EXPECT_CALL(xdg_toplevel, close()).Times(1); a few lines down the test fails.
Simplifies and standardizes how events are handled in XDG types