Implement per-server ProofVerifyDetails in MockCryptoClientStreamFactory.

Implement per-server ProofVerifyDetails in MockCryptoClientStreamFactory.

Implement per-server ProofVerifyDetails in MockCryptoClientStreamFactory, and
use them in QuicStreamFactoryTest.NoHttpsPoolingWithDifferentPins.  This is in
preparation for an upcoming change that will check certificates in
QuicStreamRequest(), therefore every test will have to provide valid
certificates (and pin configurations).

BUG=474217
Committed: https://crrev.com/20daf9a1a09c37dd91343d76312d3c8e22b7d8f4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#330118}

[Bence, 2015-05-14 19:50:56]

bnc@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rch@chromium.org

[Bence, 2015-05-14 19:50:57]

Ryan, PTAL.  Thanks.

[Ryan Hamilton, 2015-05-15 04:21:21]

thanks for doing this!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/1/net/quic/test_tools/mock_cr...
File net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/1/net/quic/test_tools/mock_cr...
net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h:39: void
set_proof_verify_details_for_server(
I'm not in love with having both "default" and "per server" details. I recommend
either
1) Always doing per-server
or
2) Having a queue of details (this matches what we do with SocketDataProviders)

either approach is fine with me. the first might be simpler since you already
have most of the code here.

[Bence, 2015-05-15 12:05:50]

PTAL.  Thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/1/net/quic/test_tools/mock_cr...
File net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/1/net/quic/test_tools/mock_cr...
net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h:39: void
set_proof_verify_details_for_server(
On 2015/05/15 04:21:21, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> I'm not in love with having both "default" and "per server" details. I
recommend
> either
> 1) Always doing per-server
> or
> 2) Having a queue of details (this matches what we do with
SocketDataProviders)
> 
> either approach is fine with me. the first might be simpler since you already
> have most of the code here.

Fair enough.  I choose the queue approach, because it's simpler, and as you
said, it matches SocketDataProviders behavior.

[Ryan Hamilton, 2015-05-15 14:48:04]

LGTM, though I recommend a method be renamed and a comment added. 

This is a great feature!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/20001/net/quic/test_tools/moc...
File net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/20001/net/quic/test_tools/moc...
net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h:34: void
add_proof_verify_details(
Should this be AddProffVerifyDetails() since it's not a simple getter or setter?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/20001/net/quic/test_tools/moc...
net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h:34: void
add_proof_verify_details(
Please comment on ownership.

[Bence, 2015-05-15 17:04:28]

The CQ bit was checked by bnc@chromium.org

[Bence, 2015-05-15 17:04:28]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from rch@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/#ps40001
(title: "Add comment and rename method.")

[Bence, 2015-05-15 17:04:34]

Thanks you.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/20001/net/quic/test_tools/moc...
File net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/20001/net/quic/test_tools/moc...
net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h:34: void
add_proof_verify_details(
On 2015/05/15 14:48:04, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> Please comment on ownership.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1140173002/diff/20001/net/quic/test_tools/moc...
net/quic/test_tools/mock_crypto_client_stream_factory.h:34: void
add_proof_verify_details(
On 2015/05/15 14:48:04, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> Should this be AddProffVerifyDetails() since it's not a simple getter or
setter?

Done.

[Bence, 2015-05-15 17:04:48]

Thank you.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-15 17:05:34]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1140173002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-15 17:11:12]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-15 17:11:56]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/20daf9a1a09c37dd91343d76312d3c8e22b7d8f4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#330118}