Making structure for ContentSettings and its corresponding strings.

components/content_settings/core/browser/content_settings_utils_unittest.cc

 // Copyright (c) 2011 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 // found in the LICENSE file.
 
 #include "components/content_settings/core/browser/content_settings_utils.h"
 
 #include <string>
 
 #include "components/content_settings/core/test/content_settings_test_utils.h"
 #include "testing/gtest/include/gtest/gtest.h"
@@ skipping 26 matching lines @@
   pattern_pair = content_settings::ParsePatternString(
       "http://www.foo.com,http://www.bar.com,");
   EXPECT_FALSE(pattern_pair.first.IsValid());
   EXPECT_FALSE(pattern_pair.second.IsValid());
 
   pattern_pair = content_settings::ParsePatternString(
       "http://www.foo.com,http://www.bar.com,http://www.error.com");
   EXPECT_FALSE(pattern_pair.first.IsValid());
   EXPECT_FALSE(pattern_pair.second.IsValid());
 }
+
+TEST(ContentSettingsUtilsTest, ContentSettingsStringMap) {
+  // Checking content_settings::ContentSettingToString() functionality.

[Bernhard Bauer, 2015/10/06 15:37:25]

Nit: Remove this comment, the code tell you pretty much the same thing ☺

[Deepak, 2015/10/07 04:39:43]

Done.

+  EXPECT_EQ("default",

[AKV, 2015/10/06 16:01:38]

If we define constant variable instead of hard coding it would be good, as we
use same string in 2 places;
const char* kContentSettingAllow = "allow"; for individual string

or

we can define an array like as it was in content_settings_helpers.cc and loop
through and EXPECT_EQ with proper indexes.
This will reduce number of LOCs in test code.

[Deepak, 2015/10/07 04:39:43]

Done.

+            content_settings::ContentSettingToString(CONTENT_SETTING_DEFAULT));
+  EXPECT_EQ("allow",
+            content_settings::ContentSettingToString(CONTENT_SETTING_ALLOW));
+  EXPECT_EQ("block",
+            content_settings::ContentSettingToString(CONTENT_SETTING_BLOCK));
+  EXPECT_EQ("ask",
+            content_settings::ContentSettingToString(CONTENT_SETTING_ASK));
+  EXPECT_EQ("session_only", content_settings::ContentSettingToString(
+                                CONTENT_SETTING_SESSION_ONLY));
+  EXPECT_EQ("detect_important_content",

[AKV, 2015/10/06 16:01:38]

Can we add a test case, for failure case by passing either empty string or
invalid string, to double ensure validities ?

[Deepak, 2015/10/07 04:39:43]

We can add negative test case for content_settings::ContentSettingFromString(),
but negative test for 
content_settings::ContentSettingToString() failed due to DCHECK() in
ContentSettingToString().

[Bernhard Bauer, 2015/10/07 09:32:03]

If we remove that DCHECK (see my other comment), we can add a negative test
case.

+            content_settings::ContentSettingToString(
+                CONTENT_SETTING_DETECT_IMPORTANT_CONTENT));
+
+  // Checking content_settings::ContentSettingFromString() functionality.
+  EXPECT_EQ(CONTENT_SETTING_ALLOW,

[AKV, 2015/10/06 16:01:38]

ditto

[Deepak, 2015/10/07 04:39:43]

Done.

+            content_settings::ContentSettingFromString("allow"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(CONTENT_SETTING_BLOCK,
+            content_settings::ContentSettingFromString("block"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(CONTENT_SETTING_ASK,
+            content_settings::ContentSettingFromString("ask"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(CONTENT_SETTING_SESSION_ONLY,
+            content_settings::ContentSettingFromString("session_only"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(
+      CONTENT_SETTING_DETECT_IMPORTANT_CONTENT,
+      content_settings::ContentSettingFromString("detect_important_content"));
+}