Add functions to generate input events to PPB_Testing_Dev. These make

ppapi/proxy/ppb_testing_proxy.cc

Index: ppapi/proxy/ppb_testing_proxy.cc
===================================================================
--- ppapi/proxy/ppb_testing_proxy.cc	(revision 110829)
+++ ppapi/proxy/ppb_testing_proxy.cc	(working copy)
@@ -6,12 +6,18 @@
 
 #include "base/message_loop.h"
 #include "ppapi/c/dev/ppb_testing_dev.h"
+#include "ppapi/proxy/enter_proxy.h"
 #include "ppapi/proxy/plugin_dispatcher.h"
 #include "ppapi/proxy/ppapi_messages.h"
 #include "ppapi/shared_impl/ppapi_globals.h"
 #include "ppapi/shared_impl/resource.h"
 #include "ppapi/shared_impl/resource_tracker.h"
+#include "ppapi/thunk/enter.h"
+#include "ppapi/thunk/ppb_input_event_api.h"
 
+using ppapi::thunk::EnterResource;
+using ppapi::thunk::PPB_InputEvent_API;
+
 namespace ppapi {
 namespace proxy {
 
@@ -68,12 +74,28 @@
   return PP_TRUE;
 }
 
+void SimulateInputEvent(PP_Instance instance_id, PP_Resource input_event) {
+  PluginDispatcher* dispatcher = PluginDispatcher::GetForInstance(instance_id);
+  if (!dispatcher)
+    return;
+  EnterResource<PPB_InputEvent_API> enter(input_event, false);
+  if (enter.failed()) {
+    NOTREACHED();

[piman, 2011/11/19 22:31:00]

Not NOTREACHED() here. It is reachable by an incorrect use from the plugin. I'd
simply return here (and maybe DLOG).

[bbudge, 2011/11/20 02:53:57]

Done. This code idiom was copied from ppp_input_event_proxy.cc:29; is it also
incorrect there?

[piman, 2011/11/20 04:36:49]

I think over there it's ok to have: the call is in the same process as the
renderer,  so there's no trust domain issue, and it can ensure there's no race.

+    return;
+  }
+
+  const InputEventData& input_event_data = enter.object()->GetInputEventData();
+  dispatcher->Send(new PpapiHostMsg_PPBTesting_SimulateInputEvent(
+      API_ID_PPB_TESTING, instance_id, input_event_data));
+}
+
 const PPB_Testing_Dev testing_interface = {
   &ReadImageData,
   &RunMessageLoop,
   &QuitMessageLoop,
   &GetLiveObjectsForInstance,
-  &IsOutOfProcess
+  &IsOutOfProcess,
+  &SimulateInputEvent
 };
 
 InterfaceProxy* CreateTestingProxy(Dispatcher* dispatcher) {
@@ -113,6 +135,8 @@
                         OnMsgReadImageData)
     IPC_MESSAGE_HANDLER(PpapiHostMsg_PPBTesting_GetLiveObjectsForInstance,
                         OnMsgGetLiveObjectsForInstance)
+    IPC_MESSAGE_HANDLER(PpapiHostMsg_PPBTesting_SimulateInputEvent,
+                        OnMsgSimulateInputEvent)
     IPC_MESSAGE_UNHANDLED(handled = false)
   IPC_END_MESSAGE_MAP()
   return handled;
@@ -140,5 +164,16 @@
   *result = ppb_testing_impl_->GetLiveObjectsForInstance(instance);
 }
 
+void PPB_Testing_Proxy::OnMsgSimulateInputEvent(
+    PP_Instance instance,
+    const InputEventData& input_event) {
+  scoped_refptr<InputEventImpl> input_event_impl(
+      new InputEventImpl(InputEventImpl::InitAsProxy(),
+                         instance,
+                         input_event));

[piman, 2011/11/19 22:31:00]

So what you're doing here is unexpected.
The plugin creates an event. That round-trips to the browser, which creates a
resource for it. Now when you call SimulateInputEvent, the proxy extracts the
data out of the resource, sends it over to the browser, which then re-creates a
resource for it, with the same data. That seems very inefficient and
unnecessarily complex...

How about simply sending the host_resource in the message and passing that along
to the browser side's SimulateInputEvent?

[bbudge, 2011/11/20 02:53:57]

I tried that but couldn't get it to work (CLs before #9). Apparently the input
event resources are created on the plugin side.

[piman, 2011/11/20 04:36:49]

I see, ok, that's fine then.

+  ppb_testing_impl_->SimulateInputEvent(instance,
+                                        input_event_impl->pp_resource());
+}
+
 }  // namespace proxy
 }  // namespace ppapi