Added HttpUtils::HasValidators and HttpResponse::HasValidators

net/http/http_response_headers.cc

Index: net/http/http_response_headers.cc
diff --git a/net/http/http_response_headers.cc b/net/http/http_response_headers.cc
index 2167aac2d820761738380b15f7346cdfc5705cbe..8f8ce9d38aadbda82e308f653327269e7e89d0af 100644
--- a/net/http/http_response_headers.cc
+++ b/net/http/http_response_headers.cc
@@ -1248,6 +1248,15 @@ bool HttpResponseHeaders::HasStrongValidators() const {
                                        date_header);
 }
 
+bool HttpResponseHeaders::HasValidators() const {

[mmenke, 2016/02/25 07:56:45]

Erm...Wait...I'm not an expert on validators, but shouldn't strong validators be
a subset of validators, not the other way around?

[jamartin, 2016/02/25 11:30:49]

Yes it should and I believe it is so in this implementation.

A strong validator requires either a strong eTag or a LastModified older than 1
min. This function only checks for any eTag (weak or strong) or any LastModified
that can be parsed.

Am I missing something?

[mmenke, 2016/02/25 11:41:06]

Sorry, I was just confused by the fact this actually has no logic in it, and
relies on HttpUtil methods.

+  std::string etag_header;
+  EnumerateHeader(NULL, "etag", &etag_header);
+  std::string last_modified_header;
+  EnumerateHeader(NULL, "Last-Modified", &last_modified_header);
+  return HttpUtil::HasValidators(GetHttpVersion(), etag_header,
+                                 last_modified_header);
+}
+
 // From RFC 2616:
 // Content-Length = "Content-Length" ":" 1*DIGIT
 int64_t HttpResponseHeaders::GetContentLength() const {