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
deleted file mode 100644
index b261c1dcd32127c0e26511ff5f9b964692aa78bb..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
--- a/sync/engine/apply_updates_command_unittest.cc
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,438 +0,0 @@
-// 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/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"
-#include "sync/test/engine/syncer_command_test.h"
-#include "sync/test/engine/test_id_factory.h"
-#include "sync/test/fake_sync_encryption_handler.h"
-#include "sync/util/cryptographer.h"
-#include "testing/gtest/include/gtest/gtest.h"
-
-namespace syncer {
-
-using std::string;
-using syncable::Id;
-using syncable::MutableEntry;
-using syncable::UNITTEST;
-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 {
- public:
- protected:
-  ApplyUpdatesCommandTest() {}
-  virtual ~ApplyUpdatesCommandTest() {}
-
-  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);
-
-  ApplyUpdatesCommand apply_updates_command_;
-  scoped_ptr<TestEntryFactory> entry_factory_;
-};
-
-TEST_F(ApplyUpdatesCommandTest, 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) {
-  // 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) {
-  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";
-}
-
-// 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) {
-  // 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) {
-  // 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());
-
-    // Re-parent from root to "Y"
-    entry.Put(syncable::SERVER_VERSION, entry_factory_->GetNextRevision());
-    entry.Put(syncable::IS_UNAPPLIED_UPDATE, true);
-    entry.Put(syncable::SERVER_PARENT_ID, TestIdFactory::MakeServer("Y"));
-  }
-
-  // Item 'Y' is child of 'X'.
-  entry_factory_->CreateUnsyncedItem(
-      TestIdFactory::MakeServer("Y"), TestIdFactory::MakeServer("X"), "Y", true,
-      BOOKMARKS, NULL);
-
-  // If the server's update were applied, we would have X be a child of Y, and Y
-  // as a child of X.  That's a directory loop.  The UpdateApplicator should
-  // 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) {
-  // 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) {
-  // 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());
-
-    // Delete it on the server.
-    entry.Put(syncable::SERVER_VERSION, entry_factory_->GetNextRevision());
-    entry.Put(syncable::IS_UNAPPLIED_UPDATE, true);
-    entry.Put(syncable::SERVER_PARENT_ID, TestIdFactory::root());
-    entry.Put(syncable::SERVER_IS_DEL, true);
-  }
-
-  // Create a local child of the server-deleted directory.
-  entry_factory_->CreateUnsyncedItem(
-      TestIdFactory::MakeServer("child"), TestIdFactory::MakeServer("parent"),
-      "child", false, BOOKMARKS, NULL);
-
-  // 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) {
-  // 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) {
-  // 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) {
-  // 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) {
-  // 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) {
-  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);
-
-      KeyParams params = {"localhost", "dummy", "foobar"};
-      cryptographer->AddKey(params);
-
-      cryptographer->Encrypt(data,
-          specifics.mutable_password()->mutable_encrypted());
-    }
-    entry_factory_->CreateUnappliedNewItem("item1", specifics, false);
-  }
-  {
-    // Create a new cryptographer, independent of the one in the session.
-    Cryptographer other_cryptographer(cryptographer->encryptor());
-    KeyParams params = {"localhost", "dummy", "bazqux"};
-    other_cryptographer.AddKey(params);
-
-    sync_pb::EntitySpecifics specifics;
-    sync_pb::PasswordSpecificsData data;
-    data.set_origin("http://example.com/2");
-
-    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