Partial implementation of subscription restrictions.

third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.h

Index: third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.h
diff --git a/third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.h b/third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.h
index d6d9cfdbb80f1bbfeb8e0b47d7429e6242b8f7d6..470084db3ebc3c14b80bbd6b99a1927678ee24bd 100644
--- a/third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.h
+++ b/third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/push_messaging/PushManager.h
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 #define PushManager_h
 
 #include "bindings/core/v8/ScriptWrappable.h"
+#include "bindings/modules/v8/UnionTypesModules.h"
 #include "platform/heap/Handle.h"
 
 namespace blink {
@@ -14,6 +15,7 @@ class PushSubscriptionOptions;
 class ScriptPromise;
 class ScriptState;
 class ServiceWorkerRegistration;
+struct WebPushSubscriptionOptions;
 
 class PushManager final : public GarbageCollected<PushManager>, public ScriptWrappable {
     DEFINE_WRAPPERTYPEINFO();
@@ -29,8 +31,12 @@ public:
 
     DECLARE_TRACE();
 
+    static String toString(const ArrayBufferOrArrayBufferView& applicationServerKey);

[Peter Beverloo, 2016/02/23 14:28:29]

Two thoughts:

  (1) We could avoid exposing this altogether if we were to test the
toWebPushSubscriptionOptions entry point instead. That would further allow us to
have basic test coverage of the `userVisibleOnly` boolean, and potentially other
future values.

  (2) If you would like to expose this, let's pick a clear name. Right now, this
reads as "PushManager::toString(..)", which causes ambiguity with
`pushManager.toString()` (which is completely valid JavaScript), while it does
something completely different.

+
 private:
     explicit PushManager(ServiceWorkerRegistration*);
+    static WebPushSubscriptionOptions toWebPushSubscriptionOptions(
+        const PushSubscriptionOptions&);
 
     Member<ServiceWorkerRegistration> m_registration;
 };