Move password-related methods from core.js to password_controller.js.

ios/chrome/browser/passwords/password_controller_unittest.mm

Index: ios/chrome/browser/passwords/password_controller_unittest.mm
diff --git a/ios/chrome/browser/passwords/password_controller_unittest.mm b/ios/chrome/browser/passwords/password_controller_unittest.mm
index 7e454731d4210abc316efeac06f8e884ac9563b0..47100221dee865a577a2135f01c391242433ce3a 100644
--- a/ios/chrome/browser/passwords/password_controller_unittest.mm
+++ b/ios/chrome/browser/passwords/password_controller_unittest.mm
@@ -749,6 +749,49 @@ static NSString* kInputFieldValueVerificationScript =
      "  }"
      "}; result";
 
+// Test html content and expected result for __gCrWeb.hasPasswordField call.
+struct TestDataForPasswordFormDetection {
+  NSString* page_content;
+  BOOL contains_password;
+};
+
+// Test that the existence (or the lack of ) a password field in the page is

[Eugene But (OOO till 7-30), 2017/04/11 18:20:20]

s/Test/Tests

Style Guide has this: "These comments should be descriptive ("Opens the file")
rather than imperative ("Open the file");"

https://engdoc.corp.google.com/eng/doc/devguide/cpp/styleguide.shtml?cl=head#...

[danyao, 2017/04/11 18:52:53]

Done.

+// detected correctly.
+TEST_F(PasswordControllerTest, HasPasswordField) {
+  TestDataForPasswordFormDetection test_data[] = {
+      // Form without a password field.
+      {@"<form><input type='text' name='password'></form>", @NO},
+      // Form with a password field.
+      {@"<form><input type='password' name='password'></form>", @YES}};
+  for (size_t i = 0; i < arraysize(test_data); i++) {
+    TestDataForPasswordFormDetection& data = test_data[i];
+    LoadHtml(data.page_content);
+    id result = ExecuteJavaScript(@"__gCrWeb.hasPasswordField()");
+    EXPECT_NSEQ(data.contains_password, result)
+        << " in test " << i << ": "
+        << base::SysNSStringToUTF8(data.page_content);
+  }
+}
+
+// Test that the existence (or the lack of) a password field in a nested iframe

[Eugene But (OOO till 7-30), 2017/04/11 18:20:20]

ditto

[danyao, 2017/04/11 18:52:53]

Done.

+// is detected correctly.
+TEST_F(PasswordControllerTest, HasPasswordFieldinFrame) {
+  TestDataForPasswordFormDetection data = {
+    // Form with a password field in a nested iframe.
+    @"<iframe name='pf'></iframe>"
+     "<script>"
+     "  var doc = frames['pf'].document.open();"
+     "  doc.write('<form><input type=\\'password\\'></form>');"
+     "  doc.close();"
+     "</script>",
+    @YES
+  };
+  LoadHtml(data.page_content);
+  id result = ExecuteJavaScript(@"__gCrWeb.hasPasswordField()");
+  EXPECT_NSEQ(data.contains_password, result)
+      << base::SysNSStringToUTF8(data.page_content);
+}
+
 struct FillPasswordFormTestData {
   const std::string origin;
   const std::string action;
@@ -764,6 +807,10 @@ struct FillPasswordFormTestData {
 TEST_F(PasswordControllerTest, FillPasswordForm) {
   LoadHtml(kHtmlWithMultiplePasswordForms);
 
+  // TODO(crbug.com/614092): can we remove this assertion? This call is the only
+  // reason why hasPasswordField is a public API on gCrWeb. If the page does
+  // not contain a password field, shouldn't one of the expectations of the
+  // remaining tests also fail?
   EXPECT_NSEQ(@YES, ExecuteJavaScript(@"__gCrWeb.hasPasswordField()"));
 
   const std::string base_url = BaseUrl();