Test for golden version-7 safe-browsing file.

Test for golden version-7 safe-browsing file.

Test that a golden version 7 file can be read and updated, in preparation for
version 8.

BUG=351448

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-26 18:04:43]

I was nervous that a golden file wouldn't work, because cross-platform format
compatibility was a non-goal, but ... trybots pass.  I guess it would be easy
enough to layer in alternate versions if appropriate.

[Tom Sepez, 2014-03-26 18:56:06]

LGTM.  The one place I imagine this would break is if we had a big-endian port. 
If you see a byte-reversed magic number, you might consider bailing.

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-26 19:27:37]

On 2014/03/26 18:56:06, Tom Sepez wrote:
> LGTM.  The one place I imagine this would break is if we had a big-endian
port. 
> If you see a byte-reversed magic number, you might consider bailing.

It seems safe to assume that the only v7 writers will be little-endian, so I
modified to only compile the test under ARCH_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN.  Does that seem
reasonable?

[Tom Sepez, 2014-03-26 19:29:48]

On 2014/03/26 19:27:37, shess wrote:
> On 2014/03/26 18:56:06, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > LGTM.  The one place I imagine this would break is if we had a big-endian
> port. 
> > If you see a byte-reversed magic number, you might consider bailing.
> 
> It seems safe to assume that the only v7 writers will be little-endian, so I
> modified to only compile the test under ARCH_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN.  Does that
seem
> reasonable?
SGTM.

[Tom Sepez, 2014-03-26 19:31:34]

NOTE: you may want to split this into two CLs: one that contains the golden
file, and one that tests against it.  You can then dcommit the first one (to get
around CQ binary bogosity), and CQ the second.

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-26 19:32:20]

On 2014/03/26 19:31:34, Tom Sepez wrote:
> NOTE: you may want to split this into two CLs: one that contains the golden
> file, and one that tests against it.  You can then dcommit the first one (to
get
> around CQ binary bogosity), and CQ the second.

Thanks for the reminder, I totally forgot about the binary-checkin issues.

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-26 19:41:35]

The CQ bit was checked by shess@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-26 19:43:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/shess@chromium.org/211363005/80001

[ernstm1, 2014-03-26 21:13:14]

The CQ bit was unchecked by ernstm@google.com

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-27 22:11:32]

The CQ bit was checked by shess@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-27 22:15:03]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/shess@chromium.org/211363005/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-27 22:15:10]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-27 22:15:10]

Failed to request the patch to try. Please note that binary files are still
unsupported at the moment, this is being worked on.

Thanks for your patience.

Transient error: Can't process patch for file
chrome/test/data/SafeBrowsing/FileStoreVersion7.
Binary file is empty. Maybe the file wasn't uploaded in the first place?

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-27 22:16:54]

On 2014/03/27 22:15:10, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> Failed to request the patch to try. Please note that binary files are still
> unsupported at the moment, this is being worked on.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> 
> Transient error: Can't process patch for file
> chrome/test/data/SafeBrowsing/FileStoreVersion7.
> Binary file is empty. Maybe the file wasn't uploaded in the first place?

OK, that's fair.  I had run trybots on it and wondered "Maybe it's only a
limitation of patching binary files."

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-28 00:20:32]

The CQ bit was checked by shess@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-28 00:21:58]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/shess@chromium.org/211363005/120001

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-28 16:27:49]

On 2014/03/28 00:21:58, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
> https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/shess@chromium.org/211363005/120001

Sheriffs - I'm making the executive decision not to spend three days clicking
the commit-queue button.  dcommit it is.  AFAICT, the c-q jobs all worked,
previous try jobs all worked.  The win_swarm_triggered failure looks completely
unrelated...

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014-03-28 17:25:35]

On 2014/03/28 16:27:49, shess wrote:
> On 2014/03/28 00:21:58, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
> > https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/shess@chromium.org/211363005/120001
> 
> Sheriffs - I'm making the executive decision not to spend three days clicking
> the commit-queue button.  dcommit it is.  AFAICT, the c-q jobs all worked,
> previous try jobs all worked.  The win_swarm_triggered failure looks
completely
> unrelated...

Manually closed because my git cl dcommit hung for 45 minutes and I killed it.