ServiceWorker: Scope should match url in longest-prefix-match way (won't commit)

ServiceWorker: Scope should match url in longest-prefix-match way

Current implementation matches a registration in the first-match way, but the
spec[1] requires to match one in the longest-prefix-match way. To support it,
this CL introduces FindLongestScopeMatch().

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-service-workers-20140508/


BUG=370773
TEST=content_unittests --gtest_filter=ServiceWorkerStorageTest.*
TEST=content_unittests --gtest_filter=ServiceWorkerUtilsTest.*

[nhiroki, 2014-06-02 17:41:11]

Hi, can you review this?

Let me open a new review for the longest-prefix-match change because this new
one is very different from the original patch. The diff from the original is
available in [1].

[1] https://codereview.chromium.org/294593002/

Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/304423004/diff/1/content/browser/service_work...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_storage_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/304423004/diff/1/content/browser/service_work...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_storage_unittest.cc:631:
live_registration1->set_waiting_version(live_version1);
fyi: These dup codes will be refactored in this or following CL.

[michaeln, 2014-06-02 20:20:26]

Since theres lots of review history, and new comments, on the other cl which is
nearly identical, lets use that one for this patch.

[nhiroki, 2014-06-02 22:23:38]

On 2014/06/02 20:20:26, michaeln wrote:
> Since theres lots of review history, and new comments, on the other cl which
is
> nearly identical, lets use that one for this patch.

Okay, let's go back. I'll mark this close.

[jsbell, 2014-06-02 23:11:26]

On 2014/06/02 22:23:38, nhiroki wrote:
> On 2014/06/02 20:20:26, michaeln wrote:
> > Since theres lots of review history, and new comments, on the other cl which
> is
> > nearly identical, lets use that one for this patch.
> 
> Okay, let's go back. I'll mark this close.

Oops, sorry about the churn. I clicked a link in email and didn't notice I was
commenting on the old patch #. :(

[nhiroki, 2014-06-03 01:56:17]

On 2014/06/02 23:11:26, jsbell wrote:
> On 2014/06/02 22:23:38, nhiroki wrote:
> > On 2014/06/02 20:20:26, michaeln wrote:
> > > Since theres lots of review history, and new comments, on the other cl
which
> > is
> > > nearly identical, lets use that one for this patch.
> > 
> > Okay, let's go back. I'll mark this close.
> 
> Oops, sorry about the churn. I clicked a link in email and didn't notice I was
> commenting on the old patch #. :(

Np! Instead I'm sorry to forget to send notification of new one to the old :(