Add a unit test for FTP directory listing.

Add a unit test for FTP directory listing.

TEST=Covered by net_unittests.
BUG=none

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=25740

[eroman, 2009-09-08 23:39:41]

lgtm

http://codereview.chromium.org/197052/diff/1/2
File net/url_request/url_request_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/197052/diff/1/2#newcode1965
Line 1965: EXPECT_LT(0, d.bytes_received());
this seems a bit odd to use LT.

Can this be a direct comparison instead like:
  EXPECT_EQ(-1, d.bytes_received());

Also, would be nice if we can verify something which is listing specific.

[eroman, 2009-09-08 23:46:03]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan Jr. <phajdan.jr@chromium.=
org>wrote:

> This is testing 0 < d.bytes_received (=3D we received something).


Ah right, misread that :)

But similar question still stands -- can we check against an absolute value=
?
Or search for a value in the result?

(If the unittest allows a range of values, it may not complain on all
regressions).


>
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 16:39, <eroman@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> lgtm
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052/diff/1/2
>> File net/url_request/url_request_unittest.cc (right):
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052/diff/1/2#newcode1965
>> Line 1965: EXPECT_LT(0, d.bytes_received());
>> this seems a bit odd to use LT.
>>
>> Can this be a direct comparison instead like:
>>  EXPECT_EQ(-1, d.bytes_received());
>>
>> Also, would be nice if we can verify something which is listing
>> specific.
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052
>>
>
>

[eroman, 2009-09-08 23:48:59]

lgtm

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2009-09-08 23:58:05]

This is testing 0 < d.bytes_received (= we received something).

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 16:39, <eroman@chromium.org> wrote:

> lgtm
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052/diff/1/2
> File net/url_request/url_request_unittest.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052/diff/1/2#newcode1965
> Line 1965: EXPECT_LT(0, d.bytes_received());
> this seems a bit odd to use LT.
>
> Can this be a direct comparison instead like:
>  EXPECT_EQ(-1, d.bytes_received());
>
> Also, would be nice if we can verify something which is listing
> specific.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052
>

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2009-09-08 23:59:29]

That's right - it will require more test infrastructure, which I will
probably do in the future. For now, it will at least add Valgrind coverage.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 16:45, Eric Roman <eroman@chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan Jr. <phajdan.jr@chromiu=
m.org>wrote:
>
>> This is testing 0 < d.bytes_received (=3D we received something).
>
>
> Ah right, misread that :)
>
> But similar question still stands -- can we check against an absolute
> value? Or search for a value in the result?
>
> (If the unittest allows a range of values, it may not complain on all
> regressions).
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 16:39, <eroman@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> lgtm
>>>
>>>
>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052/diff/1/2
>>> File net/url_request/url_request_unittest.cc (right):
>>>
>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052/diff/1/2#newcode1965
>>> Line 1965: EXPECT_LT(0, d.bytes_received());
>>> this seems a bit odd to use LT.
>>>
>>> Can this be a direct comparison instead like:
>>>  EXPECT_EQ(-1, d.bytes_received());
>>>
>>> Also, would be nice if we can verify something which is listing
>>> specific.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/197052
>>>
>>
>>
>

[wtc, 2009-09-09 20:23:48]

LGTM.