Notification Provider API

chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification_getter/notification_getter_apitest.cc

Index: chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification_getter/notification_getter_apitest.cc
diff --git a/chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification_getter/notification_getter_apitest.cc b/chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification_getter/notification_getter_apitest.cc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fbcd42eb7a19ecc0d2405ecea03fbdab712bc384
--- /dev/null
+++ b/chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification_getter/notification_getter_apitest.cc
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+// Copyright (c) 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 "chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification_getter/notification_getter_api.h"
+#include "chrome/browser/extensions/chrome_extension_function.h"
+#include "chrome/browser/extensions/extension_apitest.h"
+#include "chrome/browser/profiles/profile.h"
+#include "chrome/common/extensions/api/notification_getter.h"
+
+typedef ExtensionApiTest NotificationGetterApiTest;
+
+IN_PROC_BROWSER_TEST_F(NotificationGetterApiTest, Events) {
+  std::string sender_id1_ = "SenderId1", notification_id1_ = "NotificationId1";

[Pete Williamson, 2014/06/30 19:03:49]

Let's use two separate lines for this, it makes code easier to read.

[liyanhou, 2014/07/14 17:44:44]

Done.

+  base::DictionaryValue* options = new base::DictionaryValue();

[Pete Williamson, 2014/06/30 19:03:49]

We have options (declared here) and options_ (declared on line 22).  Let's use
names that are a bit further apart, since these are two different things.  Also,
we normally use trailing underscores only for member variables, and options_ is
not a member variable here.  Maybe the first one could be options_args and the
second one options?

[liyanhou, 2014/07/14 17:44:44]

Done.

+  options->SetWithoutPathExpansion("type", new base::StringValue("basic"));
+  options->SetWithoutPathExpansion("inconUrl",
+                                   new base::StringValue("icon.png"));
+  options->SetWithoutPathExpansion("title", new base::StringValue("Title"));
+  options->SetWithoutPathExpansion(
+      "message", new base::StringValue("Here goes the message."));
+  extensions::api::notification_getter::NotificationOptions* options_ =
+      new extensions::api::notification_getter::NotificationOptions();
+  extensions::api::notification_getter::NotificationOptions::Populate(*options,
+                                                                      options_);
+
+  ResultCatcher catcher;
+  catcher.RestrictToProfile(browser()->profile());
+
+  const extensions::Extension* extension =
+      LoadExtension(test_data_dir_.AppendASCII("notification_getter/events"));
+  ASSERT_TRUE(extension);
+
+  extensions::NotificationGetterEventRouter* event_router =
+      new extensions::NotificationGetterEventRouter(browser()->profile());
+
+  event_router->CreateNotificationForTest(
+      extension->id(), sender_id1_, notification_id1_, *options_);
+  event_router->UpdateNotificationForTest(
+      extension->id(), sender_id1_, notification_id1_, *options_);
+  event_router->CloseNotificationForTest(
+      extension->id(), sender_id1_, notification_id1_);

[Pete Williamson, 2014/06/30 19:03:49]

You are calling three functions in this one test.  If any one of them fails,
will the test fail?  (Have you tested that?) The callbacks seem to be all
returning success, I wonder what would happen if one returned failure, would
this unit test report a failure?

[liyanhou, 2014/07/14 17:44:44]

I just tried it. Yes, if any of them fails, the whole browser test will fail.
After the API is implemented, the test will do more than just returning a
success message. 

+
+  EXPECT_TRUE(catcher.GetNextResult()) << catcher.message();
+}