The importance of static code analysis is already a well known thing in the domain of software development. There are plenty of useful and less useful tools for the purpose, especially in the case of C++. However, even if in general the quality of these softwares is adequate they usually suffer from the inability for extending or customizing behavior. Also, a usual problem arises from the fact that the C++ language syntax is overwhelmingly complex and it makes the code parser of any static analysis tool a nightmare. In this article I would like to present a tool called CppDepend that gracefully solves the aforementioned problems primarily focusing on providing an interface that enables 100% adaptability and extensibility for creating customized metrics that are relevant or applicable in a particular domain.

Why static code analysis?

Analysis of computer software, in particular verification and validation, is a very important factor in professional software development. The process behind itself can come in different forms. Generally all kind of verification and validation techniques can be categorized in two major groups: static analysis and dynamic analysis. The key difference between the two is while dynamic analysis verifies the execution of the code, static analysis strictly works on the code base itself.

Well, there are thousands of reasons why using a static code analysis tool makes any benefits to a particular software development process. If you ask various people they will all have their own reasons and rationale behind that. Just to mention my favorites here is a brief excerpt from the long list:

• Find coding errors before executing a single line of code. This is important as it does not require the project to be built or executed as in many cases these two additional phases can be quite expensive from both time and budget point of view.
• Identifies parts of the code that seem to be difficult to maintain or do not conform to various policies of a particular company or organization. This provides us the benefit to move towards a sustainable development by heavily reducing maintenance costs.
• Provides us miscellaneous metrics about our code that can have key importance in measuring the quality of the code base.

If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it – Lord Kelvin

Many people still think that code metrics are overrated. Even if at first sight it seems to be true for micro-projects its importance becomes very obvious when one mets a large code bases specifically talking about situations when legacy code is inherited from earlier software developer generations. When the magnitude of the software goes out of the limits a programmer is capable to keep in mind (this means the 99% of software products) code metrics provide great value to identify “hot spots” in the code base, no matter what actual situation we are talking about.

Also, making decision about whether the evolution of the software goes in the right direction is very difficult if not impossible without ways of measuring the quality of the code. The most naive solution for this problem is to measure the amount of bug reports reported over time, however, code metrics provide a much more sophisticated way of measuring the quality by different aspects and on different levels.

During my career, as a software developer, I also faced many situations when the inspection of the legacy code was necessary in order to introduce new functionalities. Unfortunately, in most of the cases, due to the lack of an adequate static code analyst, this required developers to read and manually inspect the code in order to solve the particular problem. I can tell you that it’s not a joyful duty. Just to mention some of the most critical situations that current developers meet regarding to the topic:

Removing dependencies on deprecated features. This is a thing that each software development faces from time to time. This time interval is usually relatively low, as we talk about few years which can be called quite often compared to other industries. Just think about situations when one migrates to a new version of a third party library that the whole software depends on. As a recent event, we can talk about the release of version 3 of the OpenGL specification. CAD software developer companies faced a huge challenge by being forced to adopt the new features as the old ones became deprecated and obsolete. Actually they were quite lucky that vendors denied to drop features from their implementations. Using a code analyst one can easily identify the modules that needs to be modified in order to adopt to the latest changes.

Introducing multiprocessing. This is also a very imminent problem that every software development company will face sooner or later. Code bases inherited from the previous decades were not prepared to handle concurrent execution of the code thus making big headaches to software architects to redesign the code in order to be SMP compliant, especially when dealing with multi-core processors. I’ve also faced this situation during my career and it was a painful lesson that code analyzing possibilities have a great importance. Before inspecting carefully the whole code base it is very difficult to identify the possible problems that may arise by the introduction of multiprocessing. Automatic inspection of the code can be a very handy tool for minimizing the required efforts.

What makes up a good static code analysis tool?

There are many different aspects that affect how good a particular static code analysis tool is. In many situations having competing alternatives for this purpose is at a premium. Fortunately, this is not the case regarding to C++ as being a well supported programming language from the community. However, in order to choose a suitable alternative we have to collect our requirements:

• Correctness – It must correctly analyze the code. This is a very basic requirement against any software development tool. While this seems to be a completely obvious requirement and one expects that tools behave as expected from this point of view, most of such tools for C++ do not conform to this principle. Those who know the C++ language standard know well that writing a good parser for it is almost impossible.
• Usefulness – There is no sense in using a static code analyst if we don’t get any benefits from it. The reports generated by the analyst should provide useful information that are directly applicable in a particular use case. One typical example that I also faced quite often is that when one analyses legacy code and gets a report about thousands of problematic code parts. These reports are almost impossible to be handled and it makes headaches to the developers even to answer the very simple question: where to start?
• Customizability – This requirement directly relates to the previous one. By examining the previous example if there would be some customization possibility to get reports only about the 10 most problematic module it would be much easier to handle it. However, this requirement goes far beyond this. As an example, beside the build-in metrics of the analysis tool, it should provide means to add or modify metrics in order to have more relevant measures about the code fitting a particular domain or use case.

We’ve just mentioned three requirements explicitly and we already heavily reduced the number of alternatives…

CppDepend as a flawless alternative

Recently I’ve got a request to review a C++ static code analyst tool called CppDepend. After having a brief eye shot on the product I realized that it deserves a thorough inspection as it features a revolutionary technology called CQL that I will talk about a bit later in the article.

CppDepend was developed in partnership with NDepend, it was released six months ago having a two years development history by a very small team of experts. Actually it is accompanied with it’s brothers NDepend and XDepend that accomplish the same job for .NET and Java projects respectively.

We are talking about a Windows application that has tight integration with Visual Studio projects but also provides ways to be applicable in case of projects built with other development tool-set. Beside it is a command-line static code analysis tool for the C++ language, it provides a powerful GUI tool for visual inspection of different aspects of the code base thus enabling increased productivity and ease of use.

Lets have our first sight on the tool by using the visual interface to analyse a sample code base that will be in our case the source code of SFML.

Setting up the basic configuration for an analysis project is very straightforward. Beside that, the code analysis itself is surprisingly fast. While testing, the longest time it took was in case when I parsed the code of the Bullet Physics Library but even that didn’t required a minute on my system.

CppDepend graphical user interface

The visual controls themselves sometimes lack of good responsiveness due to the complex structures and relationships presented by them but we soon forgive CppDepend this minor issue when we take a closer look at the navigation possibilities offered by the tool.

At first sight, the user interface seems to be a bit overcomplicated but we soon realize that each and every element of it is made by purpose in order to provide as much freedom in navigation as possible. Just to mention the most interesting ones here’s the explanation of the purpose of the graphical figures at the top right part of the GUI:

• At top left we see a graphical representation of the currently selected code metric. It shows the magnitude of the result of the metric according to the selected level of granularity. We can easily visualize here as an example how the size of different classes of our project compare to each other.
• At middle left is the dependency matrix of our solution. We can easily find “hot spots” in our code regarding to coupling, by default, on project level. The granularity of the table can be easily changed in a non-proportional way from project level down to method level. I used the word “non-proportional” by intension as we can examine dependency even between a method and a foreign project thus providing additional flexibility over how fine grained we would like to have our numbers.
• My favorite is in the middle, called dependency graph. It can present the dependencies between different software elements from project level down to method level, as usual, by means of a graph that is very convenient for human inspection.

The whole user interface is designed in a way that each time we point on a particular element it shows convenient information about that particular element and its environment, no matter if we talk about the metrics view, the dependency graph or matrix.

Beside the tools for navigation and easy visualization, the GUI provides a collection of built-in reports about different aspects of the code. One of the first thing everybody would try out from these is the query called “Quick summary of methods to refactor”. This is exactly the answer what the developer would like to have for the question “where to start?” that I mentioned earlier.

To emphasize even more the fact that how convenient is the user interface, when one selects a particular query it will immediately show the results by means of a list of classes, methods or whatever, but beside this, the code elements in question are immediately highlighted in the relevant graphical views as well.

Maybe I already convinced most of you that CppDepend is a tool that deserves attention as being a valuable tool in good hands but I haven’t even talked about the most interesting feature that really makes it a uniquely powerful software.

The power of extensibility

I have often brought to relief the importance of extensibility and customizability of a static code analyst. This, in fact, is not just my craze but it is an important factor in the decision of most software developers out there. Being able to get some common metrics about the code is one thing, having the possibility to define own metrics and analysis criterias is another…

The power of CppDepend is behind a revolutionary technology that provides us an interface to retrieve information about the code that is relevant for us as easy as querying a relational database. The apparatus in our hand to achieve this is the Code Query Language (CQL). CppDepend actually builds some internal database structure from the source code and provides us an SQL-like language to make queries that fetches reports from this internal database. Those who are already familiar with SQL will adore this feature. Just to illustrate how easy it is to use CQL in order to build custom queries, let’s query the classes that have more than 20 methods is as simple as the following line of CQL code:

SELECT TYPES WHERE NbMethods > 20

Simple, isn’t it? For further details, please refer to the specification of the Code Query Language: http://www.cppdepend.com/CQL.htm

This means that the software developers have complete freedom over how they define the metrics that indicate whether the code quality reaches the levels required by company policies or individual needs. It is also useful to solve the problems arising from the sample situations I’ve mentioned earlier, namely the problem with dependency on deprecated features and the introduction of multiprocessing, by easily and clearly identifying the modules that need to be changed even in situations when the code base is extremely huge and traditional ways for identifying affected modules are not applicable or simply not feasible.

Endurance test

Well, I’ve already talked enough about the abilities of CppDepend regarding to usefulness and customizability, however, I’ve barely touched the topic of correctness. As I’ve already mentioned, parsing C++ code correctly is not as easy as it may look like. For this purpose I’ve prepared a bunch of template heavy libraries like GLM and GoogleMock to check how well CppDepend handles code bases when it comes to awkward features of the C++ language.

Even though generally static analyst tools does not provide too much useful information about such project, due to their special nature, it still looked convenient to try to make parsed these libraries by CppDepend in order to have a picture about how it would handle huge projects that also take advantage of the templating mechanisms of C++. I have to say that the results are very promising as it had problems only with GoogleMock but the developers were already informed about the problem I’ve encountered.

The dark side of the story

While CppDepend is an excellent tool for software developers working under Windows, especially if they use Visual Studio, I would like to see a cross-platform version of CppDepend in the future, at least for Linux and MacOSX.

Also, CppDepend does not come for free but at a reasonable price. Even though most probably individuals and hobbyists would not consider buying it, for enterprises, even for small ones, the price of the tool will most probably pay back soon by heavily decreasing short- and long-run maintenance costs of the development.

Conclusion

A clever static code analyst tool is nowadays a must for every software development company that deals with code whose size have already ran over a certain threshold but it is also good to use one from the very beginning of a new project. Selecting a particular tool for this purpose is the choice of the enterprise, still, the requirements against such a software are usually the same.

CppDepend proved to me of being a valuable software in the tool-chain of every C++ programmer using Windows as primary development platform. If you are still not convinced then check out the full feature list on the official site.

Even if you are not interested in using CppDepend or in static analysis tools at all, you should still take a look at CQL and the great idea behind it as it is a perfect example how a solution for a well discussed problem can ascend to new levels by adopting good practices from other domains, in this case from relational databases and related technologies.

Nowadays comprehensive testing is a must for any software product. However, it isn’t such a general rule when it comes to graphics applications. Many developers face difficulties when they have to test their rendering codes. Manual tests and visual feedback is sometimes satisfactory but if one would like to have automated regression tests usual approaches seem to fail. Even if at first sight unit testing of rendering code doesn’t look really straightforward, in fact it is. OpenGL is not an exception from this rule as well. In this article I would like to briefly present a few methods how to unit test OpenGL rendering code and also present my choice and the reasons behind the decision.

There are several ways how to create automated test cases for rendering code. To present the different approaches we first have to select a small portion of our rendering code to demonstrate the differences of each technique, mentioning the strengths and weaknesses of them.

Before going any further, we have to lay down our requirements against a good OpenGL unit testing environment:

• Verifies results – This is the most basic requirement for any testing framework. We have to have the ability to check whether the rendering code executed by the module is valid and works as expected.
• Productive – The usage and maintenance of the framework shall require minimal effort. Many times unit testing is attacked because it requires additional code writing. While this is generally true, a nice unit testing environment can be kept very simple yet flexible. An OpenGL testing environment shouldn’t be different.
• Fast – This is a general requirement for any unit testing environment especially when combined with a continuous integration framework. We want our test results as fast as possible as long feedback cycles severely slow down the development process.
• Standalone – Does not require complex setup or environmental support in order to be executed. This is a general requirement when we deal with unit testing as if the code is tightly coupled by any of the surroundings then both development and maintenance costs increase.
• Compatible – Does not require any special hardware so it can be tested on a machine that wouldn’t necessarily be suitable for manually testing the actual product. This is especially important when the target hardware is some type of embedded platform. It is also important to ensure that it will work on hardware provided by different vendors. In one word, it should comply to the standard, not to driver implementations.
• Cross-platform – Does not rely on the services of a particular operating system or platform, instead it can be executed on any machine as usually all unit tests. Of course, this restriction can be relaxed depending on actual use case scenarios.

Now that we know what we would like to achieve, we can continue with a sample use case. Lets say we would like to create an OpenGL 3.2 based rendering engine. One of the first things that we would write is a class (or set of classes) that will help us handling OpenGL buffer objects as it seems to be one of the main building blocks of such a system. As a very basic example, our first version of the buffer handling class will act simply as a wrapper for buffer objects having the following interface:

class Buffer {
public:
    Buffer();
    virtual ~Buffer();
};

As it can be seen for now we just require that our class to handle the creation and deletion of a buffer object. Obviously, our test has to check that the constructor successfully creates a buffer by calling glGenBuffers and the destructor deletes that by calling glDeleteBuffers with proper arguments. Now lets see what possibilities we have to test OpenGL rendering code and whether it conforms to our requirements and is able to test our simple module.

Checking rendered image

The most naive solution for creating automated tests for rendering code is to actually execute the OpenGL commands and check whether the rendering happened as expected. This can be done by comparing reference rendering results to the actual ones. This approach has the benefit that we actually verify the concrete behavior but lets see how it looks like when we check against our previously laid down requirements:

• Verifies results – Partially fulfilled. We check against the correct behavior, however, the ability to reproduce the actual same image is often difficult if not impossible due to different relaxations regarding to precision in both the standard and driver implementations. In order to have reproducible results the testing environment shall also provide some mechanisms to allow slight differences.
• Productive – Not met. It can be quite expensive to create an assertion system. Also, the production of reference data can be quite time consuming.
• Fast – Not met. Even if the checkers are highly optimized components of the framework, it wouldn’t fit into the time-frame of unit test cycles to execute possibly thousands of test cases that require complete verification of the produced image.
• Standalone – Not met. We have to setup a complete rendering environment in order to test even the simplest rendering code. Also, it relies on the assumption that the rendering code actually produces some image. As we can see in our buffer handling example, this is not always the case.
• Compatible – Not met. We need a testing machine that has the hardware capabilities to execute the rendering code and produce the required image.
• Cross-platform – Partially fulfilled. If our rendering code is cross-platform then it is possible to test it on any of the supported platforms. However, this makes the assertion system even more complicated as it also has to support the target platforms. Also, driver implementations may vary even further when dealing with different operating systems.

As we can see, even if this version is quite natural way of thinking for anybody it’s simply impractical and not feasible for actual use. To be able to find a good solution we must look deeper into what unit testing exactly is as the presented solution has nothing to do with it. In order to be able to do real unit testing we have to eliminate the dependency on OpenGL driver implementations and strictly concentrating on the module under test.

Fake OpenGL driver

The second presented solution is to create a layer between the code under testing and the actual OpenGL driver implementation. This can be easily achieved by creating a fake driver, as an example a dynamic library called opengl32.dll in case of Windows. This additional layer would do nothing else than just recording and checking whether the required API calls happened as expected. Providing an interface towards the testing environment that can be used to request the informations needed to make a verdict about the successfulness of the test case.

Beside that this version accommodates much more to the idea behind unit testing it also has the benefit that it is acting as a totally independent layer and does not directly disturb the development of the actual code. Still, if we go back to our checklist we have some issues that raise some concerns regarding to the applicability of this approach:

• Verifies results – Partially fulfilled. It is up to the implementation of the new layer whether it provides the required facilities to properly check the behavior of our tested code. Nevertheless, it also highly depends on the implementation on how we define correct behavior and the responsibility of the library.
• Productive – Partially fulfilled. Now we have a separate module that helps us in the testing. This may introduce some additional maintenance work but, of course, this depends on how intelligently is the library actually implemented.
• Fast – Mostly resolved. We do not have expensive assertions, however, as we have a quite restricted interface between our testing environment and the new layer we most probably met situations when we have to make trade-offs between speed and flexibility.
• Standalone – Resolved. We have a totally independent module that is responsible to simulate the surrounding environment of the code under testing as it should be when doing unit test. However, the question arises whether we would like this layer to be that separated from the testing code.
• Compatible – Resolved. There is no dependency on dedicated graphics hardware or any other piece of metal. In case of a robust driver simulation layer we can test our code on whatever platform we prefer.
• Cross-platform – Resolved. As previously mentioned, if the additional layer is well designed, there should be no problems regarding to this issue.

Now we have a resolution that can be seriously taken into consideration as a good way to test rendering code. It can also be simply applied to test our buffer handling code as well. Also, as it is a totally standalone software element it is also very portable so it is easy to reuse between projects written in different programming languages and for different platforms.

Still, there is one thing that may need further investigation. Most probably for the other portions of our production code we already use some kind of mocking mechanisms for our unit testing. Having an additional interface type to handle the OpenGL related mocking (as the presented fake driver approach is nothing more than a mock library for OpenGL) may reduce the productivity of our developers. Also, it can make the testing code less uniform so introducing a slight maintenance penalty. At least for comparison, we should try to integrate the OpenGL mocking into our existing mocking facilities.

API mocks

All the people who seriously do unit testing use some mocking techniques to eliminate dependency on any external software element like databases, network or another code element. Why should the OpenGL API be different?

As I already written about that I use GoogleMock to test my C++ code. Lets see how this mocking framework is capable for removing OpenGL related dependencies. By default, GoogleMock does support only class mocks, however it is fairly straightforward to mock out OpenGL API functions as well. As an example, our buffer handling class needs at least a mock for the glGenBuffers and glDeleteBuffers API functions. These mocks can be very easily created using GoogleMock as part of a class in the following way:

class CGLMock {
public:
    MOCK_METHOD2( GenBuffers, void(GLsizei n, GLuint* buffers) );
    MOCK_METHOD2( DeleteBuffers, void(GLsizei n, GLuint* buffers) );
};
CGLMock GLMock;

This, however is not enough to replace the already existing real API function pointers with the fake ones. I did this with a nasty little trick by taking advantage of the C preprocessor:

#undef glGenBuffers
#define glGenBuffers                  GLMock.GenBuffers
#undef glDeleteBuffers
#define glDeleteBuffers               GLMock.DeleteBuffers

The #undef is needed because I use GLEW for accessing OpenGL API functions and it uses macros for the API function names as well.

All these are put into a file that can be called like glmock.h. In order to force the production code to use these definitions when trying to access the API inside a test case we have to create a wrapper header called something like opengl.h that will include original headers in case of normal build and include the mock library in case of unit test build. This is kind of a workaround but it works quite well in practice.

In theory, this trick can be applied in case of any mocking framework. As a result, from now we can write a very simple test case to check the creation and deletion of our buffer object as easily as the following few lines of code:

TEST(BufferTest, CreationAndDestruction) {
    EXPECT_CALL(GLMock, GenBuffers(1,_))
        .WillOnce(SetArgumentPointee<1>(13));
    Buffer* buffer = new Buffer;
    EXPECT_CALL(GLMock, DeleteBuffers(1,Pointee(13)));
    delete buffer;
}

I would not like to go into the details related to the interface of GoogleMock. In one word, the test case above checks whether the constructor calls glGenBuffers with a number of 1 for the requested number of buffer objects and returns a buffer ID in the pointer argument, and at the end it checks if glDeleteBuffers was called with the buffer ID value got at creation.

It is maybe a matter of taste whether the second or this third solution is more attractive for you. My choice was this last solution because I didn’t want to develop an separate library and also was afraid of messing up my test code with different syntactical representations of mocks. Finally, lets sum up the achievements of this last version:

• Verifies results – Fulfilled. An existing mocking framework is used for emulating the OpenGL API thus we have all the facilities required for the proper checking of the API calls.
• Productive – Fulfilled. Again, we don’t have to deal with writing an own mocking mechanisms as we have everything out of the box. We can also incrementally extend our mock library on-the-fly while editing the test cases and the production code.
• Fast – Resolved. Our rendering related unit test cases should be as fast as any other test codes as they are indifferent, just the purposes are dissimilar.
• Standalone – Mostly resolved. The mocking library is independent, however, as we’ve seen, the introduction may require some nasty tricks in order to inject foreign code into the production code.
• Compatible – Resolved. From this point of view, this approach behaves the same as the previous version.
• Cross-platform – Resolved. Again, the same like in the previous case, maybe even a bit easier to make it portable.

Conclusion

We’ve seen a few ways how we can extend our testing environment in order to support the verification of rendering code. We’ve also seen that the range varies from techniques that provide high level methods suitable especially for functional testing, until very low level methods that tightly integrate in the mocking methodology of unit testing. These, of course, do not replace traditional testing methods rather they extend it in order to find problems in the early phases of software development.

I also tried to present a very basic example of production code that needs such a facility in order to be tested, as well as a sample test case written using GoogleMocks applying the last presented technique.

While writing this article I got the idea that it would be nice to have a complete and general framework for OpenGL testing. If there is interest for it, maybe I’ll allocate some time to write one. I’m also interested which approach is the most attractive for you, especially if you have some concrete experience with any of these or with some other technique.

Many people are looking for information about which particular C++ unit testing framework they should use for their project and there are also many articles discuss the topic but few articles talk about mock frameworks which are even more important factor when applying unit testing in practice and they have much greater effect on the productivity when doing test-driven development.

Test-driven development in a nutshell

My first experience with unit testing happened to be during my university studies. As we learned Java development, we also worked a little with JUnit as it is the most popular unit testing framework for Java and also the grandfather of almost all current frameworks. I felt about it like pain in the a** because it seemed ridiculous to use it for our very dummy programs and because I’m really not a big fan of Java and it’s monolithic development environment called NetBeans, but I will talk about it in another article.

Next I’ve met unit testing at my current job where we used TNSDLUnit which is a proprietary framework developed by the employees as an internal open-source project for our TNSDL language. Basically this framework is just a TNSDL specific version of the well known CPPUTest framework. This time I’ve seen real life examples and I soon discovered the potentials in unit testing and in particular its application in test-driven development.

Test-driven development, or TDD in short, is a software development process that became very popular in the recent past and not accidentally as it is a very powerful tool in good hands. It introduces a very simple development cycle that results in simple, clean and test covered code. The process consists of five straightforward steps:

1. Add a test – this is made based on a particular requirement
2. Run all tests and see if the new one fails – this ensures that the test really needs modification to the code
3. Write some code – modify code to make the new test pass
4. Run all tests and see them succeed – if the implementation is good then the new test now must pass
5. Refactor code – tidy up the code as you can be sure now that if you do something wrong then tests will fail

Not just this development method provides 100% test coverage for your code but it forces you to make the implementation based on requirements not vice versa.

TDD in a more strict manner also states that one must not write more code than it is necessary to make the test pass. This results sometimes in very awkward implementation stubs at the beginning but it prevents the developer from creating untested code (note that 100% coverage usually does not enough for proper testing).

Why use unit testing?

Many people have concerns about the necessity of testing and ask why test and why use unit testing. Well, as it maybe seems ridiculous to unit test a code which consists of a few hundreds or thousands of source line and is perspicuous even for the less competent people, the importance of testing comes into force when developing huge sized codes which are continuously modified by a group of people. One can not just test whether a newly implemented functionality is working as expected but can execute automated regression sets in order to ensure that no old functionality is crashed due to a modification.

Others have concerns about that unit testing doubles the code as so increases maintenance because the testing code is as big as the implementation itself. By the way, in a real life example the testing code can even be double the size of the production code. However, the added benefit of a well tested product eliminates most of the cost of bug fixes as they are discovered in the very beginning of the development process.

C++ unit test frameworks

When I’ve started to work with C++ one of my first thing was to look around for a good unit test framework. There are plenty of them so I will mention only some of the most popular ones: CPPUnit, CPPUTest, CxxTest, UnitTest++, Boost Test Library, GoogleTest, etc.

Most people spend too much time on deciding which unit test framework to use while they all have very similar syntax structure and all support the most needed assertions and facilities that are needed to get started with TDD. I think this is just a matter of taste.

Resolving dependencies

As one starts to actively use unit testing will face difficulties that rise from the dependencies between different elements of the software system, whether it be an external database, a foreign module or just an own class referenced by the code unit under test. These problems force people to write stubs or mocks to remove external dependencies.

Stubs are just not flexible enough and writing mocks sometimes seems to be too expensive. However, both have a great penalty on development time and maintenance cost. So, at a point, dependencies become the main problem and as such the relevance of which unit test framework to use gets hidden and people start to look for a mock framework. These libraries not just enable easy creation of mock objects but also integrates them tightly into the unit test framework and sometimes they even provide automated mock generation. Fortunately there are also plenty of mock frameworks for C++. Here are some of them: mockpp, Mock Objects, mockcpp, GoogleMock, etc.

Here the differences are much more visible from both from usability, portability and maturity point of view. Some of them automatically generate mocks, others need code for that as well. Some of them depend on specific application binary interface (ABI) formats, others not. Some of them need exotic language features while others work on all the significant compilers. Also, due to the complexity of the C++ language it is very hard to correctly parse code that is heavily obfuscated by macros, so in many cases the automatic generation of mocks simply doesn’t work.

I’ve put my vote on GoogleMock and as such I started to use GoogleTest as a unit test framework because of the following reasons:

• It does not depend on any special language feature or ABI format so it’s portable
• It is natively integrates with GoogleTest so no need to worry about compatibility issues
• Mocks have to be hand written, however it needs just a few lines of code (it also has a mock generator, however I don’t use it)

Summary

As a final conclusion, if you take my advice then you don’t take anybody’s advice. Try it out yourself and see it whether a particular tool set fits your taste or not. It strongly depends on what you plan to unit test. Just keep it simple and have fun with TDD. Yes, it’s really fun!