Index: webrtc/api/test/mock_datachannel.h |
diff --git a/webrtc/api/test/mock_datachannel.h b/webrtc/api/test/mock_datachannel.h |
index a09964e852a022a02179410a16ed43443ad65d1d..1bb39842576ef02f567b61f15cfd293107f2fd61 100644 |
--- a/webrtc/api/test/mock_datachannel.h |
+++ b/webrtc/api/test/mock_datachannel.h |
@@ -18,12 +18,35 @@ namespace webrtc { |
class MockDataChannel : public rtc::RefCountedObject<DataChannel> { |
public: |
- explicit MockDataChannel(DataState state) |
+ MockDataChannel(int id, DataState state) |
+ : MockDataChannel(id, state, 0, 0, 0, 0) { |
+ } |
Taylor Brandstetter
2016/10/18 17:28:11
Instead of these constructors, why not use EXPECT_
hbos
2016/10/18 19:13:38
Acknowledge. I could create a helper function that
|
+ MockDataChannel( |
+ int id, |
+ DataState state, |
+ uint32_t messages_sent, |
+ uint64_t bytes_sent, |
+ uint32_t messages_received, |
+ uint64_t bytes_received) |
: rtc::RefCountedObject<DataChannel>( |
nullptr, cricket::DCT_NONE, "MockDataChannel") { |
+ EXPECT_CALL(*this, id()).WillRepeatedly(testing::Return(id)); |
EXPECT_CALL(*this, state()).WillRepeatedly(testing::Return(state)); |
+ EXPECT_CALL(*this, messages_sent()).WillRepeatedly( |
+ testing::Return(messages_sent)); |
+ EXPECT_CALL(*this, bytes_sent()).WillRepeatedly( |
+ testing::Return(bytes_sent)); |
+ EXPECT_CALL(*this, messages_received()).WillRepeatedly( |
+ testing::Return(messages_received)); |
+ EXPECT_CALL(*this, bytes_received()).WillRepeatedly( |
+ testing::Return(bytes_received)); |
} |
+ MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(id, int()); |
MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(state, DataState()); |
+ MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(messages_sent, uint32_t()); |
+ MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(bytes_sent, uint64_t()); |
+ MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(messages_received, uint32_t()); |
+ MOCK_CONST_METHOD0(bytes_received, uint64_t()); |
}; |
} // namespace webrtc |