sync: Merge apply updates and resolve conflicts

sync/engine/apply_updates_command_unittest.cc

Index: sync/engine/apply_updates_command_unittest.cc
diff --git a/sync/engine/apply_updates_command_unittest.cc b/sync/engine/apply_updates_command_unittest.cc
index b261c1dcd32127c0e26511ff5f9b964692aa78bb..ff59363d1d58d2107333bb38b79c94fa0778117d 100644
--- a/sync/engine/apply_updates_command_unittest.cc
+++ b/sync/engine/apply_updates_command_unittest.cc
@@ -82,8 +82,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, Simple) {
   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())
@@ -111,8 +109,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, UpdateWithChildrenBeforeParents) {
   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";
 }
@@ -128,8 +124,10 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, SimpleConflict) {
   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
@@ -156,11 +154,7 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyAndSimpleConflict) {
   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());
 }
 
 
@@ -202,7 +196,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyConflictDirectoryLoop) {
 
   // 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
@@ -234,7 +227,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyConflictDeletedParent) {
 
   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
@@ -273,7 +265,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyConflictDeleteNonEmptyDirectory) {
   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
@@ -290,9 +281,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, HierarchyConflictUnknownParent) {
   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())
@@ -350,8 +338,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, DecryptablePassword) {
   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";
 }
@@ -373,11 +359,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, UndecryptableData) {
   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())
@@ -422,12 +403,6 @@ TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, SomeUndecryptablePassword) {
   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";