Update the PushEvent to have a nullable PushMessageData

third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushMessageDataTest.cpp

Index: third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushMessageDataTest.cpp
diff --git a/third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushMessageDataTest.cpp b/third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushMessageDataTest.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..420098638817c5fe28ab1658395e40db5323665d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushMessageDataTest.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+// Copyright 2016 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 "modules/push_messaging/PushMessageData.h"
+
+#include "testing/gtest/include/gtest/gtest.h"
+#include "third_party/WebKit/public/platform/WebString.h"
+
+namespace blink {
+namespace {

[Mike West, 2016/01/27 06:32:14]

Why do you need the extra namespace?

[harkness, 2016/01/27 11:52:18]

I was trying to take the approach of other tests, and the ones I looked at had
the functional area namespace and the anonymous namespace. I did a bit of
looking around and it does look like this is inconsistent across other tests.
Peter@ pointed me to this thread which discusses the appropriate style:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/chromium-dev/anonym...

I don't personally have a strong opinion on the namespace wrappings. My main
goal is to have consistency, and it does seem that other related tests have the
double wrapping.

+
+const char kPushMessageData[] = "Push Message valid data string.";
+
+TEST(PushMessageDataTest, ValidPayload)
+{
+    // Create a WebString with the test message, then create a
+    // PushMessageData from that.
+    WebString s(blink::WebString::fromUTF8(kPushMessageData));
+    PushMessageData* data = PushMessageData::create(s);
+
+    ASSERT_NE(data, nullptr);
+    EXPECT_TRUE(s.equals(data->text()));

[Mike West, 2016/01/27 06:32:14]

Nit: Why not EXPECT_STREQ?

[harkness, 2016/01/27 11:52:18]

Done.

+}
+
+TEST(PushMessageDataTest, ValidEmptyPayload)
+{
+    // Create a WebString with a valid but empty test message, then create
+    // a PushMessageData from that.
+    WebString s("");
+    PushMessageData* data = PushMessageData::create(s);
+
+    ASSERT_NE(data, nullptr);
+    EXPECT_TRUE(s.equals(data->text()));
+}
+
+TEST(PushMessageDataTest, NullPayload)
+{
+    // Create a PushMessageData with a null payload.
+    WebString s;
+    PushMessageData* data = PushMessageData::create(s);
+
+    EXPECT_EQ(data, nullptr);
+}
+}
+} // namespace blink

[Mike West, 2016/01/27 06:32:14]

Nit: If you keep the extra namespace, label the closing `}`. It feels like there
should be some whitespace here as well, at least between the last test and the
namespace-closing braces.

[harkness, 2016/01/27 11:52:18]

Done.