Had a bug in the handle table unit test.

sandbox/src/handle_table_unittest.cc

Index: sandbox/src/handle_table_unittest.cc
===================================================================
--- sandbox/src/handle_table_unittest.cc	(revision 90713)
+++ sandbox/src/handle_table_unittest.cc	(working copy)
@@ -47,6 +47,8 @@
                              FILE_SHARE_READ | FILE_SHARE_WRITE, NULL,
                              OPEN_EXISTING, FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE, NULL);
   EXPECT_NE(INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE, file);
+  string16 handle_name;
+  ASSERT_EQ(NT_SUCCESS(sandbox::GetHandleName(file, &handle_name)), true);

[nsylvain, 2011/06/30 19:21:46]

TRUE instead of true ?

[jschuh, 2011/07/01 01:24:26]

No, using a bool not BOOL.

[nsylvain, 2011/07/01 19:23:28]

NT_SUCCESS returns TRUE or FALSE, and ASSERT_EQ compares that with "true", this
will work, but i think it is more correct to use TRUE.

 
   // Look for the handle in our process
   bool handle_found = false;
@@ -54,7 +56,7 @@
   for (HandleTable::Iterator it =
       handles.HandlesForProcess(::GetCurrentProcessId());
       it != handles.end(); ++it) {
-    if (it->IsType(HandleTable::kTypeFile) && it->Name().compare(my_file)) {
+    if (it->IsType(HandleTable::kTypeFile) && it->Name() == handle_name) {
       handle_found = true;
       break;
     }