TaskScheduler [4/9] Priority Queue

base/task_scheduler/priority_queue_unittest.cc

Index: base/task_scheduler/priority_queue_unittest.cc
diff --git a/base/task_scheduler/priority_queue_unittest.cc b/base/task_scheduler/priority_queue_unittest.cc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89a1a40bed5cf468cfa4fcfe5aa3508803cfeab0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/base/task_scheduler/priority_queue_unittest.cc
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+// 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 "base/task_scheduler/priority_queue.h"
+
+#include "base/bind.h"
+#include "base/macros.h"
+#include "base/memory/ref_counted.h"
+#include "base/task_scheduler/sequence.h"
+#include "base/task_scheduler/task.h"
+#include "base/task_scheduler/task_traits.h"
+#include "base/time/time.h"
+#include "testing/gmock/include/gmock/gmock.h"
+#include "testing/gtest/include/gtest/gtest.h"
+
+namespace base {
+namespace internal {
+
+namespace {
+class TaskSchedulerPriorityQueueTest : public testing::Test {
+ public:
+  TaskSchedulerPriorityQueueTest() {
+    sequence_a_ = new Sequence;
+    sequence_a_->PushTask(make_scoped_ptr(

[gab, 2016/02/23 03:02:10]

make_scoped_ptr is for scoped_ptr not scoped_refptr, I'm surprised this even
compiles

[fdoray, 2016/02/23 17:02:14]

PushTask expects a scoped_ptr<Task>, not a scoped_refptr.

+        new Task(FROM_HERE, Closure(),
+                 TaskTraits().WithPriority(TaskPriority::USER_VISIBLE))));

[robliao, 2016/02/23 02:10:58]

Maybe we should get some BACKGROUND tasks for completeness.

[fdoray, 2016/02/23 17:02:14]

Done.

+
+    sequence_b_ = new Sequence;
+    sequence_b_->PushTask(make_scoped_ptr(
+        new Task(FROM_HERE, Closure(),
+                 TaskTraits().WithPriority(TaskPriority::USER_BLOCKING))));
+
+    sequence_c_ = new Sequence;
+    sequence_c_->PushTask(make_scoped_ptr(
+        new Task(FROM_HERE, Closure(),
+                 TaskTraits().WithPriority(TaskPriority::USER_BLOCKING))));
+  }
+
+ protected:
+  MOCK_METHOD0(SequenceInsertedInPriorityQueue, void());

[gab, 2016/02/23 03:02:10]

Unused I think (seems to be using PriorityQueueCallbackMock's instead)

[fdoray, 2016/02/23 17:02:14]

Done.

+
+  scoped_refptr<Sequence> sequence_a_;
+  scoped_refptr<Sequence> sequence_b_;
+  scoped_refptr<Sequence> sequence_c_;
+
+ private:
+  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(TaskSchedulerPriorityQueueTest);
+};
+
+class PriorityQueueCallbackMock {
+ public:
+  PriorityQueueCallbackMock() = default;
+  MOCK_METHOD0(SequenceInsertedInPriorityQueue, void());
+
+ private:
+  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(PriorityQueueCallbackMock);
+};
+
+void ExpectSequenceAndSortKey(const PriorityQueue::SequenceAndSortKey& expected,
+                              const PriorityQueue::SequenceAndSortKey& actual) {
+  EXPECT_EQ(expected.sequence, actual.sequence);
+  EXPECT_EQ(expected.sort_key.priority, actual.sort_key.priority);
+  EXPECT_EQ(expected.sort_key.next_task_sequenced_time,
+            actual.sort_key.next_task_sequenced_time);
+}
+
+}  // namespace
+
+TEST_F(TaskSchedulerPriorityQueueTest, PushPopPeek) {
+  const SequenceSortKey sort_key_a = sequence_a_->GetSortKey();
+  const SequenceSortKey sort_key_b = sequence_b_->GetSortKey();
+  const SequenceSortKey sort_key_c = sequence_c_->GetSortKey();
+
+  PriorityQueueCallbackMock mock;

[gab, 2016/02/23 03:02:10]

I think you can make this verify precisely what you want even more with a
StrictMock.

[fdoray, 2016/02/23 17:02:14]

Done.

+  PriorityQueue pq(
+      Bind(&PriorityQueueCallbackMock::SequenceInsertedInPriorityQueue,
+           Unretained(&mock)));
+  scoped_ptr<PriorityQueue::Transaction> transaction(pq.BeginTransaction());
+
+  EXPECT_EQ(nullptr, transaction->PeekSequence().sequence.get());
+
+  transaction->PushSequence(sequence_a_, sort_key_a);
+  ExpectSequenceAndSortKey(
+      PriorityQueue::SequenceAndSortKey(sequence_a_, sort_key_a),
+      transaction->PeekSequence());
+
+  transaction->PushSequence(sequence_b_, sort_key_b);
+  ExpectSequenceAndSortKey(
+      PriorityQueue::SequenceAndSortKey(sequence_b_, sort_key_b),
+      transaction->PeekSequence());
+
+  transaction->PushSequence(sequence_c_, sort_key_c);
+  ExpectSequenceAndSortKey(
+      PriorityQueue::SequenceAndSortKey(sequence_b_, sort_key_b),
+      transaction->PeekSequence());
+
+  transaction->PopSequence();
+  ExpectSequenceAndSortKey(
+      PriorityQueue::SequenceAndSortKey(sequence_c_, sort_key_c),
+      transaction->PeekSequence());
+
+  transaction->PopSequence();
+  ExpectSequenceAndSortKey(
+      PriorityQueue::SequenceAndSortKey(sequence_a_, sort_key_a),
+      transaction->PeekSequence());
+
+  transaction->PopSequence();
+  EXPECT_EQ(nullptr, transaction->PeekSequence().sequence.get());

[gab, 2016/02/23 03:02:10]

PeekSequence().is_null() would be nicer here if above recommendation is adopted
:-)

[fdoray, 2016/02/23 17:02:14]

Done.

+
+  EXPECT_CALL(mock, SequenceInsertedInPriorityQueue()).Times(3);
+  transaction.reset();
+}
+
+}  // namespace internal
+}  // namespace base