sync: Merge apply updates and resolve conflicts

sync/engine/apply_updates_and_resolve_conflicts_command_unittest.cc

 // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 // found in the LICENSE file.
 
 #include <string>
 
 #include "base/location.h"
 #include "base/memory/scoped_ptr.h"
 #include "base/stringprintf.h"
-#include "sync/engine/apply_updates_command.h"
+#include "sync/engine/apply_updates_and_resolve_conflicts_command.h"
 #include "sync/engine/syncer.h"
 #include "sync/internal_api/public/test/test_entry_factory.h"
 #include "sync/protocol/bookmark_specifics.pb.h"
 #include "sync/protocol/password_specifics.pb.h"
 #include "sync/syncable/mutable_entry.h"
 #include "sync/syncable/read_transaction.h"
 #include "sync/syncable/syncable_id.h"
 #include "sync/syncable/syncable_util.h"
 #include "sync/syncable/write_transaction.h"
 #include "sync/test/engine/fake_model_worker.h"
@@ skipping 12 matching lines @@
 using syncable::WriteTransaction;
 
 namespace {
 sync_pb::EntitySpecifics DefaultBookmarkSpecifics() {
   sync_pb::EntitySpecifics result;
   AddDefaultFieldValue(BOOKMARKS, &result);
   return result;
 }
 } // namespace
 
-// A test fixture for tests exercising ApplyUpdatesCommand.
-class ApplyUpdatesCommandTest : public SyncerCommandTest {
+// A test fixture for tests exercising ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommand.
+class ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest : public SyncerCommandTest {
  public:
  protected:
-  ApplyUpdatesCommandTest() {}
-  virtual ~ApplyUpdatesCommandTest() {}
+  ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest() {}
+  virtual ~ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest() {}
 
   virtual void SetUp() {
     workers()->clear();
     mutable_routing_info()->clear();
     workers()->push_back(
         make_scoped_refptr(new FakeModelWorker(GROUP_UI)));
     workers()->push_back(
         make_scoped_refptr(new FakeModelWorker(GROUP_PASSWORD)));
     (*mutable_routing_info())[BOOKMARKS] = GROUP_UI;
     (*mutable_routing_info())[PASSWORDS] = GROUP_PASSWORD;
     (*mutable_routing_info())[NIGORI] = GROUP_PASSIVE;
     SyncerCommandTest::SetUp();
     entry_factory_.reset(new TestEntryFactory(directory()));
     ExpectNoGroupsToChange(apply_updates_command_);
   }
 
  protected:
-  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest);
+  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest);
 
-  ApplyUpdatesCommand apply_updates_command_;
+  ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommand apply_updates_command_;
   scoped_ptr<TestEntryFactory> entry_factory_;
 };
 
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, Simple) {
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest, Simple) {
   string root_server_id = syncable::GetNullId().GetServerId();
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent("parent",
                                                    DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(),
                                                    root_server_id);
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent("child",
                                                    DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(),
                                                    "parent");
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts())
-      << "Simple update shouldn't result in conflicts";
   EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_encryption_conflicts())
       << "Simple update shouldn't result in conflicts";
   EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_hierarchy_conflicts())
       << "Simple update shouldn't result in conflicts";
   EXPECT_EQ(2, status.num_updates_applied())
       << "All items should have been successfully applied";
 }
 
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, UpdateWithChildrenBeforeParents) {
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest,
+       UpdateWithChildrenBeforeParents) {
   // Set a bunch of updates which are difficult to apply in the order
   // they're received due to dependencies on other unseen items.
   string root_server_id = syncable::GetNullId().GetServerId();
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "a_child_created_first", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "parent");
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "x_child_created_first", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "parent");
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "parent", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), root_server_id);
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "a_child_created_second", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "parent");
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "x_child_created_second", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "parent");
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts())
-      << "Simple update shouldn't result in conflicts, even if out-of-order";
   EXPECT_EQ(5, status.num_updates_applied())
       << "All updates should have been successfully applied";
 }
 
-// Runs the ApplyUpdatesCommand on an item that has both local and remote
-// modifications (IS_UNSYNCED and IS_UNAPPLIED_UPDATE).  We expect the command
-// to detect that this update can't be applied because it is in a CONFLICT
-// state.
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, SimpleConflict) {
+// Runs the ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommand on an item that has both
+// local and remote modifications (IS_UNSYNCED and IS_UNAPPLIED_UPDATE).  We
+// expect the command to detect that this update can't be applied because it is
+// in a CONFLICT state.
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest, SimpleConflict) {
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedAndUnsyncedItem("item", BOOKMARKS);
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
-  EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_simple_conflicts())
-      << "Unsynced and unapplied item should be a simple conflict";
+  EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_server_overwrites())
+      << "Unsynced and unapplied item conflict should be resolved";
+  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_updates_applied())
+      << "Update should not be applied; we should override the server.";
 }
 
-// Runs the ApplyUpdatesCommand on an item that has both local and remote
-// modifications *and* the remote modification cannot be applied without
-// violating the tree constraints.  We expect the command to detect that this
-// update can't be applied and that this situation can't be resolved with the
-// simple conflict processing logic; it is in a CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyAndSimpleConflict) {
+// Runs the ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommand on an item that has both
+// local and remote modifications *and* the remote modification cannot be
+// applied without violating the tree constraints.  We expect the command to
+// detect that this update can't be applied and that this situation can't be
+// resolved with the simple conflict processing logic; it is in a
+// CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest, HierarchyAndSimpleConflict) {
   // Create a simply-conflicting item.  It will start with valid parent ids.
   int64 handle = entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedAndUnsyncedItem(
       "orphaned_by_server", BOOKMARKS);
   {
     // Manually set the SERVER_PARENT_ID to bad value.
     // A bad parent indicates a hierarchy conflict.
     WriteTransaction trans(FROM_HERE, UNITTEST, directory());
     MutableEntry entry(&trans, syncable::GET_BY_HANDLE, handle);
     ASSERT_TRUE(entry.good());
 
     entry.Put(syncable::SERVER_PARENT_ID,
               TestIdFactory::MakeServer("bogus_parent"));
   }
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
-
-  // An update that is both a simple conflict and a hierarchy conflict should be
-  // treated as a hierarchy conflict.
   EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_hierarchy_conflicts());
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts());
 }
 
 
-// Runs the ApplyUpdatesCommand on an item with remote modifications that would
-// create a directory loop if the update were applied.  We expect the command to
-// detect that this update can't be applied because it is in a
-// CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyConflictDirectoryLoop) {
+// Runs the ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommand on an item with remote
+// modifications that would create a directory loop if the update were applied.
+// We expect the command to detect that this update can't be applied because it
+// is in a CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest,
+       HierarchyConflictDirectoryLoop) {
   // Item 'X' locally has parent of 'root'.  Server is updating it to have
   // parent of 'Y'.
   {
     // Create it as a child of root node.
     int64 handle = entry_factory_->CreateSyncedItem("X", BOOKMARKS, true);
 
     WriteTransaction trans(FROM_HERE, UNITTEST, directory());
     MutableEntry entry(&trans, syncable::GET_BY_HANDLE, handle);
     ASSERT_TRUE(entry.good());
 
@@ skipping 13 matching lines @@
   // prevent the update from being applied and note that this is a hierarchy
   // conflict.
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
 
   // This should count as a hierarchy conflict.
   EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_hierarchy_conflicts());
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts());
 }
 
-// Runs the ApplyUpdatesCommand on a directory where the server sent us an
-// update to add a child to a locally deleted (and unsynced) parent.  We expect
-// the command to not apply the update and to indicate the update is in a
-// CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyConflictDeletedParent) {
+// Runs the ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommand on a directory where the
+// server sent us an update to add a child to a locally deleted (and unsynced)
+// parent.  We expect the command to not apply the update and to indicate the
+// update is in a CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest,
+       HierarchyConflictDeletedParent) {
   // Create a locally deleted parent item.
   int64 parent_handle;
   entry_factory_->CreateUnsyncedItem(
       Id::CreateFromServerId("parent"), TestIdFactory::root(),
       "parent", true, BOOKMARKS, &parent_handle);
   {
     WriteTransaction trans(FROM_HERE, UNITTEST, directory());
     MutableEntry entry(&trans, syncable::GET_BY_HANDLE, parent_handle);
     entry.Put(syncable::IS_DEL, true);
   }
 
   // Create an incoming child from the server.
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "child", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "parent");
 
   // The server's update may seem valid to some other client, but on this client
   // that new item's parent no longer exists.  The update should not be applied
   // and the update applicator should indicate this is a hierarchy conflict.
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
   EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_hierarchy_conflicts());
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts());
 }
 
-// Runs the ApplyUpdatesCommand on a directory where the server is trying to
-// delete a folder that has a recently added (and unsynced) child.  We expect
-// the command to not apply the update because it is in a CONFLICT_HIERARCHY
-// state.
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyConflictDeleteNonEmptyDirectory) {
+// Runs the ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommand on a directory where the
+// server is trying to delete a folder that has a recently added (and unsynced)
+// child.  We expect the command to not apply the update because it is in a
+// CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest,
+       HierarchyConflictDeleteNonEmptyDirectory) {
   // Create a server-deleted directory.
   {
     // Create it as a child of root node.
     int64 handle =
         entry_factory_->CreateSyncedItem("parent", BOOKMARKS, true);
 
     WriteTransaction trans(FROM_HERE, UNITTEST, directory());
     MutableEntry entry(&trans, syncable::GET_BY_HANDLE, handle);
     ASSERT_TRUE(entry.good());
 
@@ skipping 11 matching lines @@
 
   // The server's request to delete the directory must be ignored, otherwise our
   // unsynced new child would be orphaned.  This is a hierarchy conflict.
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
   // This should count as a hierarchy conflict.
   EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_hierarchy_conflicts());
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts());
 }
 
-// Runs the ApplyUpdatesCommand on a server-created item that has a locally
-// unknown parent.  We expect the command to not apply the update because the
-// item is in a CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyConflictUnknownParent) {
+// Runs the ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommand on a server-created item that
+// has a locally unknown parent.  We expect the command to not apply the update
+// because the item is in a CONFLICT_HIERARCHY state.
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest,
+       HierarchyConflictUnknownParent) {
   // We shouldn't be able to do anything with either of these items.
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "some_item", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "unknown_parent");
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "some_other_item", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "some_item");
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts())
-      << "Updates with unknown parent should not be treated as 'simple'"
-      << " conflicts";
   EXPECT_EQ(2, status.num_hierarchy_conflicts())
       << "All updates with an unknown ancestors should be in conflict";
   EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_updates_applied())
       << "No item with an unknown ancestor should be applied";
 }
 
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, ItemsBothKnownAndUnknown) {
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest, ItemsBothKnownAndUnknown) {
   // See what happens when there's a mixture of good and bad updates.
   string root_server_id = syncable::GetNullId().GetServerId();
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "first_unknown_item", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "unknown_parent");
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "first_known_item", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), root_server_id);
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "second_unknown_item", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "unknown_parent");
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "second_known_item", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "first_known_item");
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "third_known_item", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), "fourth_known_item");
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "fourth_known_item", DefaultBookmarkSpecifics(), root_server_id);
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
   EXPECT_EQ(2, status.num_hierarchy_conflicts())
       << "The updates with unknown ancestors should be in conflict";
   EXPECT_EQ(4, status.num_updates_applied())
       << "The updates with known ancestors should be successfully applied";
 }
 
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, DecryptablePassword) {
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest, DecryptablePassword) {
   // Decryptable password updates should be applied.
   Cryptographer* cryptographer;
   {
     // Storing the cryptographer separately is bad, but for this test we
     // know it's safe.
     syncable::ReadTransaction trans(FROM_HERE, directory());
     cryptographer = directory()->GetCryptographer(&trans);
   }
 
   KeyParams params = {"localhost", "dummy", "foobar"};
   cryptographer->AddKey(params);
 
   sync_pb::EntitySpecifics specifics;
   sync_pb::PasswordSpecificsData data;
   data.set_origin("http://example.com");
 
   cryptographer->Encrypt(data,
                          specifics.mutable_password()->mutable_encrypted());
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItem("item", specifics, false);
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_PASSWORD);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts())
-      << "No update should be in conflict because they're all decryptable";
   EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_updates_applied())
       << "The updates that can be decrypted should be applied";
 }
 
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, UndecryptableData) {
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest, UndecryptableData) {
   // Undecryptable updates should not be applied.
   sync_pb::EntitySpecifics encrypted_bookmark;
   encrypted_bookmark.mutable_encrypted();
   AddDefaultFieldValue(BOOKMARKS, &encrypted_bookmark);
   string root_server_id = syncable::GetNullId().GetServerId();
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItemWithParent(
       "folder", encrypted_bookmark, root_server_id);
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItem("item2", encrypted_bookmark, false);
   sync_pb::EntitySpecifics encrypted_password;
   encrypted_password.mutable_password();
   entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItem("item3", encrypted_password, false);
 
   ExpectGroupsToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_UI, GROUP_PASSWORD);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
-  EXPECT_TRUE(status.HasConflictingUpdates())
-      << "Updates that can't be decrypted should trigger the syncer to have "
-      << "conflicting updates.";
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts())
-      << "Updates that can't be decrypted should not be in regular conflict";
   EXPECT_EQ(3, status.num_encryption_conflicts())
       << "Updates that can't be decrypted should be in encryption conflict";
   EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_updates_applied())
       << "No update that can't be decrypted should be applied";
 }
 
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, SomeUndecryptablePassword) {
+TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesAndResolveConflictsCommandTest, SomeUndecryptablePassword) {
   Cryptographer* cryptographer;
   // Only decryptable password updates should be applied.
   {
     sync_pb::EntitySpecifics specifics;
     sync_pb::PasswordSpecificsData data;
     data.set_origin("http://example.com/1");
     {
       syncable::ReadTransaction trans(FROM_HERE, directory());
       cryptographer = directory()->GetCryptographer(&trans);
 
@@ skipping 17 matching lines @@
 
     other_cryptographer.Encrypt(data,
         specifics.mutable_password()->mutable_encrypted());
     entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItem("item2", specifics, false);
   }
 
   ExpectGroupToChange(apply_updates_command_, GROUP_PASSWORD);
   apply_updates_command_.ExecuteImpl(session());
 
   const sessions::StatusController& status = session()->status_controller();
-  EXPECT_TRUE(status.HasConflictingUpdates())
-      << "Updates that can't be decrypted should trigger the syncer to have "
-      << "conflicting updates.";
-  EXPECT_EQ(0, status.num_simple_conflicts())
-      << "The updates that can't be decrypted should not be in regular "
-      << "conflict";
   EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_encryption_conflicts())
       << "The updates that can't be decrypted should be in encryption "
       << "conflict";
   EXPECT_EQ(1, status.num_updates_applied())
       << "The undecryptable password update shouldn't be applied";
 }
 
 }  // namespace syncer