Move non-content specific parts of content::MachBroker into base::MachPortBroker.

base/mac/mach_port_broker_unittest.cc

+// 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/mac/mach_port_broker.h"
+
+#include "base/synchronization/lock.h"
+#include "testing/gtest/include/gtest/gtest.h"
+
+namespace base {
+
+class MachPortBrokerTest : public testing::Test {
+ public:
+  MachPortBrokerTest() : broker_("foo") {}
+
+  // Helper function to acquire/release locks and call |PlaceholderForPid()|.
+  void AddPlaceholderForPid(base::ProcessHandle pid) {
+    base::AutoLock lock(broker_.GetLock());
+    broker_.AddPlaceholderForPid(pid);
+  }
+
+  // Helper function to acquire/release locks and call |FinalizePid()|.
+  void FinalizePid(base::ProcessHandle pid,
+                   mach_port_t task_port) {
+    base::AutoLock lock(broker_.GetLock());
+    broker_.FinalizePid(pid, task_port);
+  }
+
+ protected:
+  MachPortBroker broker_;
+};
+
+TEST_F(MachPortBrokerTest, Locks) {
+  // Acquire and release the locks.  Nothing bad should happen.
+  base::AutoLock lock(broker_.GetLock());
+}
+
+TEST_F(MachPortBrokerTest, AddPlaceholderAndFinalize) {
+  // Add a placeholder for PID 1.
+  AddPlaceholderForPid(1);
+  EXPECT_EQ(0u, broker_.TaskForPid(1));
+
+  // Finalize PID 1.
+  FinalizePid(1, 100u);
+  EXPECT_EQ(100u, broker_.TaskForPid(1));
+
+  // Should be no entry for PID 2.
+  EXPECT_EQ(0u, broker_.TaskForPid(2));
+}
+
+TEST_F(MachPortBrokerTest, FinalizeUnknownPid) {
+  // Finalizing an entry for an unknown pid should not add it to the map.
+  FinalizePid(1u, 100u);

[erikchen, 2016/03/02 06:56:11]

Sorry to impose, but could you add a multiprocess unit test which tests the
functionality of ChildSendTaskPortToParent(), which seems like the real business
logic in the mach port broker?

I won't make this a requirement, since this CL is just a refactor, and if you
end up writing mojo-related tests that end up testing the functionality, then
I'm less worried.

[Anand Mistry (off Chromium), 2016/03/03 01:57:39]

Done.

+  EXPECT_EQ(0u, broker_.TaskForPid(1u));
+}
+
+}  // namespace base