Initial implementation of chrome.browser.openTab.

chrome/browser/extensions/api/browser/browser_apitest.cc

Index: chrome/browser/extensions/api/browser/browser_apitest.cc
diff --git a/chrome/browser/extensions/api/browser/browser_apitest.cc b/chrome/browser/extensions/api/browser/browser_apitest.cc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88754b839bfd4a27f8f447e9f89e0a3634457765
--- /dev/null
+++ b/chrome/browser/extensions/api/browser/browser_apitest.cc
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+// Copyright 2014 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 <string>
+
+#include "base/memory/scoped_ptr.h"
+#include "base/strings/stringprintf.h"
+#include "base/values.h"
+#include "chrome/browser/extensions/api/browser/browser_api.h"
+#include "chrome/browser/extensions/extension_function_test_utils.h"
+#include "chrome/test/base/in_process_browser_test.h"
+
+namespace extensions {
+
+namespace utils = extension_function_test_utils;
+
+namespace {
+
+class BrowserApiTest : public InProcessBrowserTest {
+};
+
+}
+
+IN_PROC_BROWSER_TEST_F(BrowserApiTest, OpenTab) {
+  std::string url = "about:blank";

[miket_OOO, 2014/04/28 18:24:35]

Would a different URL be a better test? For example, a real http URL would
stress more of the system, adding an item to history, making sure other
profile-specific operations were OK, etc.

[rpaquay, 2014/04/28 19:44:12]

Agreed. I only added a "sanity check" test at this point, which exercises
already as-is most of the code in this CL. I didn't want to start with a test
using an actual URL to avoid potential issues with networking, setting up a
local server, etc. I am planning to add more eventually, when/if we get specific
feedback about additional requirements for this API.

+
+  scoped_refptr<api::BrowserOpenTabFunction> function =
+      new api::BrowserOpenTabFunction();
+  scoped_refptr<Extension> extension(utils::CreateEmptyExtension());
+  function->set_extension(extension.get());
+  base::Value* result = utils::RunFunctionAndReturnSingleResult(
+      function.get(),
+      base::StringPrintf("[{\"url\":\"%s\"}]", url.c_str()),
+      browser());
+
+  // result is currently NULL on success.
+  EXPECT_FALSE(result);

[miket_OOO, 2014/04/28 18:24:35]

Is there a failure case? I see the IDL has a void callback. Under what
circumstances could this fail? (If no, that's OK; I just want to think about
it.)

[rpaquay, 2014/04/28 19:44:12]

The failure cases would be reported through "chrome.runtime.lastError.message".
Currently, there are 2 I can see in the code path (re-used from
chrome.tabs.openTab): passing a "crash" url or an "invalid" url (according to
ExtensionTabUtil::ResolvePossiblyRelativeURL).

+}
+
+}  // namespace extensions