PaymentApp: Fix params order of EXPECT/ASSERTs in unit tests.

content/browser/payments/payment_app_context_impl_unittest.cc

Index: content/browser/payments/payment_app_context_impl_unittest.cc
diff --git a/content/browser/payments/payment_app_context_impl_unittest.cc b/content/browser/payments/payment_app_context_impl_unittest.cc
index 213e02129c76fe9a7ac4d280c59c19ef344efe12..4f433f5c009ab04f49326e94089c4fdea45fd45b 100644
--- a/content/browser/payments/payment_app_context_impl_unittest.cc
+++ b/content/browser/payments/payment_app_context_impl_unittest.cc
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ class PaymentAppContextTest : public PaymentAppContentUnitTestBase {
                 base::Bind(&SetManifestCallback, &called, &error));
     ASSERT_TRUE(called);
 
-    ASSERT_EQ(error, payments::mojom::PaymentAppManifestError::NONE);
+    ASSERT_EQ(payments::mojom::PaymentAppManifestError::NONE, error);
   }
 
  private:
@@ -97,17 +97,17 @@ TEST_F(PaymentAppContextTest, Test) {
   GetAllManifests(base::Bind(&GetAllManifestsCallback, &called, &manifests));
   ASSERT_TRUE(called);
 
-  ASSERT_EQ(manifests.size(), 3U);
+  ASSERT_EQ(3U, manifests.size());
   size_t i = 0;
   for (const auto& manifest : manifests) {
-    EXPECT_EQ(manifest.second->icon.value(), "payment-app-icon");
-    EXPECT_EQ(manifest.second->name, kPaymentAppInfo[i++].scopeUrl);
-    ASSERT_EQ(manifest.second->options.size(), 1U);
-    EXPECT_EQ(manifest.second->options[0]->icon.value(), "payment-app-icon");
-    EXPECT_EQ(manifest.second->options[0]->name, "Visa ****");
-    EXPECT_EQ(manifest.second->options[0]->id, "payment-app-id");
-    ASSERT_EQ(manifest.second->options[0]->enabled_methods.size(), 1U);
-    EXPECT_EQ(manifest.second->options[0]->enabled_methods[0], "visa");
+    EXPECT_EQ("payment-app-icon", manifest.second->icon.value());

[please use gerrit instead, 2016/12/19 20:27:58]

If you construct an expected manifest, can you compare the two structs instead
of field-by-field?

[zino, 2016/12/20 17:11:28]

Done.

I agree with you. It makes the codes simpler.
But it's not easy to read its result. Which do you prefer to?

../../content/browser/payments/payment_app_manager_unittest.cc:96: Failure
Value of: read_manifest
  Actual: 8-byte object <C0-D6 05-1D F8-7F 00-00>
Expected: expected
Which is: 8-byte object <80-D7 05-1D F8-7F 00-00>
[  FAILED  ] PaymentAppManagerTest.SetAndGetManifest (4 ms)

[please use gerrit instead, 2016/12/20 17:23:36]

You're right, it's better to keep error messages clear. You can either go back
to your previous approach or implement this function:

std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const PutYourTypeNameHere&
object_name);

+    EXPECT_EQ(kPaymentAppInfo[i++].scopeUrl, manifest.second->name);
+    ASSERT_EQ(1U, manifest.second->options.size());
+    EXPECT_EQ("payment-app-icon", manifest.second->options[0]->icon.value());
+    EXPECT_EQ("Visa ****", manifest.second->options[0]->name);
+    EXPECT_EQ("payment-app-id", manifest.second->options[0]->id);
+    ASSERT_EQ(1U, manifest.second->options[0]->enabled_methods.size());
+    EXPECT_EQ("visa", manifest.second->options[0]->enabled_methods[0]);
   }
 }