OOPIF: Add a test for cross-site frames blocked by X-Frame-Options and CSP.

OOPIF: Add a test for cross-site frames blocked by X-Frame-Options and CSP.

The actual issues with OOPIFs were fixed by
https://codereview.chromium.org/1742923002, which changed blocked
frames to behave like empty 200 responses, rather than canceling the
blocked navigations and keeping the frame's old document around.

BUG=584845
Committed: https://crrev.com/4170f6e85ae2ad64795a78e0ea52851c2d423cf4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#379125}

[alexmos, 2016-03-02 18:30:12]

Description was changed from

==========
OOPIF: Add a test for cross-site frames blocked by X-Frame-Options and CSP.

BUG=584845
==========

to

==========
OOPIF: Add a test for cross-site frames blocked by X-Frame-Options and CSP.

The actual issues with OOPIFs were fixed by
https://codereview.chromium.org/1742923002, which changed blocked
frames to behave like empty 200 responses, rather than canceling the
blocked navigations and keeping the frame's old document around.

BUG=584845
==========

[alexmos, 2016-03-02 18:36:20]

alexmos@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ nasko@chromium.org

[alexmos, 2016-03-02 18:36:21]

Hey Nasko, do you mind reviewing this test for me?  I wrote it in
https://codereview.chromium.org/1710283003/, and Charlie already reviewed and
approved it there.  I ended up fixing the XFO/CSP stuff a different way in
r378762, but thought it would still be useful to have this test.  It is mostly
unchanged apart from one additional check and changing to expect that the
blocked navigation will commit rather than send a DidFailProvisionalLoad.

[nasko, 2016-03-03 18:35:32]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/1754383002/diff/1/content/browser/site_per_pr...
File content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1754383002/diff/1/content/browser/site_per_pr...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:5507:
EXPECT_TRUE(NavigateIframeToURL(shell()->web_contents(), "child-0", c_url));
Is there any specific reason to use NavigateIframeToURL instead of
NavigateFrameToURL? The latter is a bit more efficient, as it does
browser-initiated navigation and avoids roundtrip to the renderer.

[alexmos, 2016-03-03 18:44:49]

Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1754383002/diff/1/content/browser/site_per_pr...
File content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1754383002/diff/1/content/browser/site_per_pr...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:5507:
EXPECT_TRUE(NavigateIframeToURL(shell()->web_contents(), "child-0", c_url));
On 2016/03/03 18:35:31, nasko wrote:
> Is there any specific reason to use NavigateIframeToURL instead of
> NavigateFrameToURL? The latter is a bit more efficient, as it does
> browser-initiated navigation and avoids roundtrip to the renderer.

Yes, this was intentional to test the transfer path, where it was failing due to
incorrect DCHECKS which I removed in a prerequisite CL,
https://codereview.chromium.org/1736393002/.

[alexmos, 2016-03-03 19:40:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1754383002/diff/1/content/browser/site_per_pr...
File content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1754383002/diff/1/content/browser/site_per_pr...
content/browser/site_per_process_browsertest.cc:5507:
EXPECT_TRUE(NavigateIframeToURL(shell()->web_contents(), "child-0", c_url));
On 2016/03/03 18:44:49, alexmos wrote:
> On 2016/03/03 18:35:31, nasko wrote:
> > Is there any specific reason to use NavigateIframeToURL instead of
> > NavigateFrameToURL? The latter is a bit more efficient, as it does
> > browser-initiated navigation and avoids roundtrip to the renderer.
> 
> Yes, this was intentional to test the transfer path, where it was failing due
to
> incorrect DCHECKS which I removed in a prerequisite CL,
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1736393002/.

Added a comment about this.

[alexmos, 2016-03-03 22:29:24]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[alexmos, 2016-03-03 22:29:24]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from nasko@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1754383002/#ps20001
(title: "Added a comment")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-03 22:30:15]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1754383002/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1754383002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-03 22:42:14]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-03 22:45:08]

Description was changed from

==========
OOPIF: Add a test for cross-site frames blocked by X-Frame-Options and CSP.

The actual issues with OOPIFs were fixed by
https://codereview.chromium.org/1742923002, which changed blocked
frames to behave like empty 200 responses, rather than canceling the
blocked navigations and keeping the frame's old document around.

BUG=584845
==========

to

==========
OOPIF: Add a test for cross-site frames blocked by X-Frame-Options and CSP.

The actual issues with OOPIFs were fixed by
https://codereview.chromium.org/1742923002, which changed blocked
frames to behave like empty 200 responses, rather than canceling the
blocked navigations and keeping the frame's old document around.

BUG=584845

Committed: https://crrev.com/4170f6e85ae2ad64795a78e0ea52851c2d423cf4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#379125}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-03 22:45:09]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/4170f6e85ae2ad64795a78e0ea52851c2d423cf4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#379125}