Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(109)

Issue 661410: Improve autofill unit test (Closed)

Created:
10 years, 9 months ago by skrul
Modified:
9 years, 7 months ago
CC:
chromium-reviews_googlegroups.com, Paweł Hajdan Jr., ncarter (slow), ben+cc_chromium.org, tim (not reviewing), idana
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Improve autofill unit test With chron's help, I was able to get rid of the whole TestModelAssocator thing and use the low level syncapi directly to create the server tagged autofill node before model association starts. Because of this, I was able to revert to the original AutofillModelAssociator::AssociateModels() code that zork had and it now works fine in a test. Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=40524

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 1

Patch Set 2 : Fix copy and paste error. #

Patch Set 3 : Remove TODO. #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+61 lines, -61 lines) Patch
M chrome/browser/sync/engine/syncapi.cc View 1 2 chunks +4 lines, -2 lines 0 comments Download
M chrome/browser/sync/glue/autofill_model_associator.cc View 1 chunk +1 line, -9 lines 0 comments Download
M chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_service.cc View 1 2 2 chunks +2 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_service_autofill_unittest.cc View 1 2 9 chunks +54 lines, -43 lines 0 comments Download
M chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_test_util.h View 1 2 1 chunk +0 lines, -6 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 2 (0 generated)
skrul
10 years, 9 months ago (2010-03-02 23:02:04 UTC) #1
tim (not reviewing)
10 years, 9 months ago (2010-03-02 23:33:56 UTC) #2
http://codereview.chromium.org/661410/diff/1/4
File chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_service.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/661410/diff/1/4#newcode269
chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_service.cc:269: // TODO(timsteele): Is it ok to
do this after the notification?
Hm, it looks like the IfReady() part of the below method doesn't apply anymore?
I can't see anything conditional about it, and except for the unrecoverable
error case we always fire a notification now when the data type manager start
callback is run, so I think as long as we fire that as well it's fine to do this
after the notification here.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698