Converted IncognitoForced boolean policy into IncognitoModeAvailability enum policy.

chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_pref_store_unittest.cc

Index: chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_pref_store_unittest.cc
diff --git a/chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_pref_store_unittest.cc b/chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_pref_store_unittest.cc
index 5f56df179877f3d82b18435c634eb828f66cb68e..39061cecf0c51d79c8a04ff1f771f46aad11b491 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_pref_store_unittest.cc
+++ b/chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_pref_store_unittest.cc
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 #include "base/memory/ref_counted.h"
 #include "chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_pref_store.h"
 #include "chrome/browser/policy/mock_configuration_policy_provider.h"
+#include "chrome/browser/prefs/incognito_mode_prefs.h"
 #include "chrome/browser/prefs/proxy_config_dictionary.h"
 #include "chrome/common/pref_names.h"
 #include "chrome/common/pref_store_observer_mock.h"
@@ -200,10 +201,6 @@ INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P(
                     prefs::kPrintingEnabled),
         TypeAndName(kPolicyJavascriptEnabled,
                     prefs::kWebKitJavascriptEnabled),
-        TypeAndName(kPolicyIncognitoEnabled,
-                    prefs::kIncognitoEnabled),
-        TypeAndName(kPolicyIncognitoForced,
-                    prefs::kIncognitoForced),
         TypeAndName(kPolicyRemoteAccessClientFirewallTraversal,
                     prefs::kRemoteAccessClientFirewallTraversal),
         TypeAndName(kPolicyRemoteAccessHostFirewallTraversal,
@@ -697,6 +694,83 @@ TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreDefaultSearchTest, Invalid) {
             store->GetValue(prefs::kDefaultSearchProviderEncodings, NULL));
 }
 
+// Tests Incognito mode availability preference setting.
+class ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest : public testing::Test {
+ protected:
+  void SetPolicies(bool incognito_enabled, int availability) {
+    provider_.AddPolicy(kPolicyIncognitoEnabled,
+                        Value::CreateBooleanValue(incognito_enabled));
+    if (availability >= 0)
+      provider_.AddPolicy(kPolicyIncognitoModeAvailability,
+                          Value::CreateIntegerValue(availability));
+    store_ = new ConfigurationPolicyPrefStore(&provider_);
+  }

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/01 11:13:40]

newline

[rustema, 2011/08/01 23:55:33]

Done.

+  void VerifyValues(IncognitoModePrefs::Availability availability) {
+    const Value* value = NULL;
+    EXPECT_EQ(PrefStore::READ_OK,
+              store_->GetValue(prefs::kIncognitoModeAvailability, &value));
+    EXPECT_TRUE(Value::CreateIntegerValue(availability)->Equals(value));

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/01 11:13:40]

You are leaking the created Value here. Just use
FundamentalValue(availability).Equals(value)

[rustema, 2011/08/01 23:55:33]

Nuts! Chrome tests do not link in heap checker?!

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/03 09:16:08]

We do have valgrind and the tcmalloc heap checker. They run on the continuous
build and for local testing, see tools/heapcheck/chrome_tests.sh and
tools/valgrind/chrome_tests.sh

[rustema, 2011/08/04 07:00:49]

Cool! Thanks for the pointers!

+  }

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/01 11:13:40]

newline

[rustema, 2011/08/01 23:55:33]

Done.

+  MockConfigurationPolicyProvider provider_;
+  scoped_refptr<ConfigurationPolicyPrefStore> store_;
+};
+
+// The following three testcases verify that if the obsolete IncognitoEnabled
+// policy is set to true, the IncognitoModeAvailability values should be copied
+// from policy to pref "as is".

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/01 11:13:40]

Shouldn't it rather check that if the new-style policy is set, the old value
gets ignored?

[rustema, 2011/08/01 23:55:33]

Updated.

+TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest,
+       DefaultObsoletePolicyAndIncognitoEnabled) {
+  SetPolicies(true, IncognitoModePrefs::ENABLED);
+  VerifyValues(IncognitoModePrefs::ENABLED);
+}
+
+TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest,
+       DefaultObsoletePolicyAndIncognitoDisabled) {
+  SetPolicies(true, IncognitoModePrefs::DISABLED);
+  VerifyValues(IncognitoModePrefs::DISABLED);
+}
+
+TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest,
+       DefaultObsoletePolicyAndIncognitoForced) {
+  SetPolicies(true, IncognitoModePrefs::FORCED);
+  VerifyValues(IncognitoModePrefs::FORCED);
+}
+
+TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest,
+       DefaultObsoletePolicyAndIncognitoAvailabilityNotSet) {
+  SetPolicies(true, -1);
+    const Value* value = NULL;
+  EXPECT_EQ(PrefStore::READ_NO_VALUE,

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/01 11:13:40]

In this case, it should return READ_OK with IncognitoModePrefs::ENABLED.

[rustema, 2011/08/01 23:55:33]

Nope, -1 here means no IncognitoModeAvailability specified. I redefined it as a
constant.

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/03 09:16:08]

I was actually referring to the fact that you set kPolicyIncognitoEnabled to
true. That should reflect as READ_OK with IncognitoModePrefs::ENABLED.

[rustema, 2011/08/04 07:00:49]

Yep, ObsoletePolicySetsPreferenceToEnabled verifies that.

+            store_->GetValue(prefs::kIncognitoModeAvailability, &value));
+}
+
+// Checks that if the obsolete IncognitoEnabled policy is set to false,
+// IncognitoModeAvailability is overridden to DISABLED only in case it's
+// originally was not specified.

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/01 11:13:40]

grammar

[rustema, 2011/08/01 23:55:33]

Updated.

+TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest,
+       ObsoletePolicyDoesNotAffectAvailabilityEnabled) {
+  SetPolicies(false, IncognitoModePrefs::ENABLED);
+  VerifyValues(IncognitoModePrefs::ENABLED);
+}
+
+TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest,
+       ObsoletePolicyDoesNotAffectAvailabilityDisabled) {
+  SetPolicies(false, IncognitoModePrefs::DISABLED);
+  VerifyValues(IncognitoModePrefs::DISABLED);
+}
+
+TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest,
+       ObsoletePolicyDoesNotAffectAvailabilityForced) {
+  SetPolicies(false, IncognitoModePrefs::FORCED);
+  VerifyValues(IncognitoModePrefs::FORCED);
+}
+
+TEST_F(ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreIncognitoModeTest,
+       DefaultObsoletePolicyDisablesAvailabilityWhenLatterNotSpecified) {

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/01 11:13:40]

If the policy isn't specified correctly, shouldn't we rather not set the pref at
all?

[rustema, 2011/08/01 23:55:33]

-1 means "not specified".

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/08/03 09:16:08]

Right, sorry for the confusion.

+  SetPolicies(false, -1);
+  VerifyValues(IncognitoModePrefs::DISABLED);
+}
+
 // Test cases for the Sync policy setting.
 class ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreSyncTest
     : public ConfigurationPolicyPrefStoreTestBase<testing::Test> {