Changing the installer switches from wchar_t[] to char[]....

base/command_line_unittest.cc

Index: base/command_line_unittest.cc
===================================================================
--- base/command_line_unittest.cc	(revision 66046)
+++ base/command_line_unittest.cc	(working copy)
@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
 #include <string>
 #include <vector>
 
+#include "base/basictypes.h"
 #include "base/command_line.h"
-#include "base/basictypes.h"
 #include "base/file_path.h"
 #include "base/utf_string_conversions.h"
 #include "testing/gtest/include/gtest/gtest.h"
@@ -154,3 +154,17 @@
             cl.command_line_string());
 #endif
 }
+
+// Tests that when AppendArguments is called that both the program and
+// command line strings are equal.
+TEST(CommandLineTest, AppendArguments) {
+  CommandLine cl1(FilePath(FILE_PATH_LITERAL("Program")));
+  cl1.AppendSwitch("switch1");
+  cl1.AppendSwitchASCII("switch2", "foo");
+
+  CommandLine cl2(CommandLine::NO_PROGRAM);
+  cl2.AppendArguments(cl1, true);
+  EXPECT_EQ(cl1.GetProgram().value(), cl2.GetProgram().value());
+  EXPECT_EQ(cl1.command_line_string(), cl2.command_line_string());

[robertshield, 2010/11/14 15:21:31]

Could you also test the new replacement behaviour of AppendArguments when both
CommandLines are not created with NO_PROGRAM?
e.g.
CommandLine c1("Program1");
c1.AppendSwitch("switch1");
CommandLine c2("Program2:);
c2.AppendSwitch("switch2");

c1.AppendArguments(c2, true);
EXPECT_EQ(c1.GetProgram.value(), c2.GetProgram.value());

[tommi (sloooow) - chröme, 2010/11/14 21:28:07]

Done.

+}
+