Added HttpUtils::HasValidators and HttpResponse::HasValidators

net/http/http_util_unittest.cc

Index: net/http/http_util_unittest.cc
diff --git a/net/http/http_util_unittest.cc b/net/http/http_util_unittest.cc
index e83f6b9916362a4a65391e39e2f1ee4594d380ac..276fef9d89fc00e1d5bac73939fa9a289b4000a8 100644
--- a/net/http/http_util_unittest.cc
+++ b/net/http/http_util_unittest.cc
@@ -1200,4 +1200,53 @@ TEST(HttpUtilTest, IsValidHeaderValueRFC7230) {
   EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::IsValidHeaderValueRFC7230("q\x80q"));
 }
 
+TEST(HttpUtilTest, HasValidators) {
+  const char* const kEmpty = "";
+  const char* const kEtagStrong = "\"strong\"";
+  const char* const kEtagWeak = "W/\"weak\"";
+  const char* const kLastModified = "Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT";
+  const char* const kLastModifiedInvalid = "invalid";
+
+  const HttpVersion v0_9 = HttpVersion(0, 9);
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEmpty, kEmpty));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEtagStrong, kEmpty));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEtagWeak, kEmpty));
+
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEmpty, kLastModified));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEtagStrong, kLastModified));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEtagWeak, kLastModified));
+
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEmpty, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(
+      HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEtagStrong, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v0_9, kEtagWeak, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+
+  const HttpVersion v1_0 = HttpVersion(1, 0);
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEmpty, kEmpty));

[gavinp, 2016/02/25 18:56:20]

Is an empty ETag the same as a not-present ETag for RFC 2616 13.3.3 purposes?

[jamartin, 2016/02/26 14:47:50]

Good question. This is a tricky one that took me some time to research.

An empty ETag is allowed and it is even given as an example (RFC 2616 14.19).
However, the syntax enforces that any ETag should be a quoted-string (see RFC
2616 3.11 for entity-tag and RFC 2616 2.2 for quoted-string), so an empty ETag
would be, in this case, "\"\"". This means that, for valid headers, I can safely
assume that an empty string means that the etag was not present.

LastModified values are not quoted but in this case I'm also safe because I'm
parsing them to make sure it is a valid date, and the empty string is not a
valid date.

Tests and comments added.

+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEtagStrong, kEmpty));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEtagWeak, kEmpty));
+
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEmpty, kLastModified));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEtagStrong, kLastModified));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEtagWeak, kLastModified));
+
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEmpty, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(
+      HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEtagStrong, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_0, kEtagWeak, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+
+  const HttpVersion v1_1 = HttpVersion(1, 1);
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEmpty, kEmpty));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEtagStrong, kEmpty));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEtagWeak, kEmpty));
+
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEmpty, kLastModified));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEtagStrong, kLastModified));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEtagWeak, kLastModified));
+
+  EXPECT_FALSE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEmpty, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEtagStrong, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(HttpUtil::HasValidators(v1_1, kEtagWeak, kLastModifiedInvalid));
+}
+
 }  // namespace net