mojo: Run validation tests on java

mojo: Run validation tests on java

Also move backward compatibility test into its own suite, as backward compatibility is implemented in Java and the test is passing.

R=ppi@chromium.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/2d8ad5ca705e2ddab7a42ab8620f0a0c514615cb

[qsr, 2014-09-01 16:19:51]

qsr@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ ppi@chromium.org, yzshen@chromium.org

[qsr, 2014-09-01 16:19:52]

This is not ready to commit because it is failing for one of the validation
test. yzshen@, would you mind looking at my review comment? Thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/1/mojo/android/javatests/src/o...
File mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/1/mojo/android/javatests/src/o...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:94: //
TODO(qsr): Found out what is the expected result here according to the specs.
yzshen@ -> I don't understand this test. You are sending a message with a field
number of 0 for a struct that has a single float element. Given that we do not
have any way to specify that a float element is mandatory, I do not understand
why this should be failing validation. What am I missing?

[ppi, 2014-09-02 13:07:45]

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
File
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/BindingsTestUtils.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/BindingsTestUtils.java:93:
return new SimpleMessage(message, new ArrayList<Handle>()).asMojoMessage();
Not related to this CL, but why we need to go through SimpleMessage to have a
MojoMessage / MessageWithHeader constructed from a data buffer? Can this be a
constructor of MojoMessage / MessageWithHeader?

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
File mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:26: *
Testing deserialization validation.
nit: Testing validation upon deserialization.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:26: *
Testing deserialization validation.
Let's indicate ".. using the interfaces defined in the (..).mojom file." ?

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:40:
public File file;
nit: s/file/dataFile/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:42:
public String result;
s/result/expectedResult/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:71: //
Do not fail if not test path is given, just skip the test.
Did you mean "if test path is not given"? Also, when does this happen?

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:77:
for (File data : VALIDATION_TEST_DATA_PATH.listFiles(new
DataFileFilter(prefix))) {
s/data/dataFile/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:78:
File expected = new File(data.getParent(),
s/expected/resultFile/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:90: *
Run all the test with the given prefix on the given {@link MessageReceiver}.
s/Run/Runs/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:96: //
TODO(qsr): Found out what is the expected result here according to the specs.
s/Found/Find/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:96: //
TODO(qsr): Found out what is the expected result here according to the specs.
Nit: Add "// Temporarily disable a failing test." above the TODO to explain what
the TODO and the if block is about.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:107:
boolean result = messageReceiver.accept(message);
s/result/passed/ maybe?

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:110:
": The message should have been refused. Error expected: " + test.result);
s/Error expected/Expected error/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:128: *
(non-Javadoc)
'git grep "non-Javadoc" | wc -l' returns 0, could you explain why not Javadoc?
Lack of the second star at the beginning seems to be breaking rietveld syntax
coloring:/.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:190:
runTest("integration_",
should this be extracted into a constant next to VALIDATION_TEST_DATA_PATH ?

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
File mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:136: *
Deserializes a {@link DataHeader} at the given offset and check it is correct
for an array
s/check it is correct/checks if it is correct/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:589: *
Deserializes a {@link DataHeader} at the given offset and check it is correct
for an array of
s/check it is correct/checks if it is correct/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
File
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/MessageReceiver.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/MessageReceiver.java:15:
* Receive a {@link MessageWithHeader}. The {@link MessageReceiver} is allowed to
mutable the
s/MessageWithHeader/Message/, s/mutable/modify/, s/Receive/Receives/

[qsr, 2014-09-02 13:28:54]

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
File
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/BindingsTestUtils.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/BindingsTestUtils.java:93:
return new SimpleMessage(message, new ArrayList<Handle>()).asMojoMessage();
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> Not related to this CL, but why we need to go through SimpleMessage to have a
> MojoMessage / MessageWithHeader constructed from a data buffer? Can this be a
> constructor of MojoMessage / MessageWithHeader?

 There is no usage out of the tests. So unless you feel strongly about it, I
prefer not to add an API just for the tests. Also remove the asMojoMessage from
here and returned a Message because all caller expect Message. Keep the name to
specify that the message indeed has correct header and that calling
asMojoMessage() on it will not fail.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
File mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:26: *
Testing deserialization validation.
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> Let's indicate ".. using the interfaces defined in the (..).mojom file." ?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:26: *
Testing deserialization validation.
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> nit: Testing validation upon deserialization.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:40:
public File file;
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> nit: s/file/dataFile/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:42:
public String result;
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> s/result/expectedResult/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:71: //
Do not fail if not test path is given, just skip the test.
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> Did you mean "if test path is not given"? Also, when does this happen?

 It happens if you do not specify --test-data on the runtest command line. At
least for now, until the bot are all settled and I'm sure everything is correct,
I prefer not to risk to have all the bots turning red and blocking develloper
workflow.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:77:
for (File data : VALIDATION_TEST_DATA_PATH.listFiles(new
DataFileFilter(prefix))) {
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> s/data/dataFile/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:78:
File expected = new File(data.getParent(),
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> s/expected/resultFile/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:90: *
Run all the test with the given prefix on the given {@link MessageReceiver}.
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> s/Run/Runs/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:96: //
TODO(qsr): Found out what is the expected result here according to the specs.
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> s/Found/Find/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:96: //
TODO(qsr): Found out what is the expected result here according to the specs.
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> Nit: Add "// Temporarily disable a failing test." above the TODO to explain
what
> the TODO and the if block is about.

 I do not plan to push this. I want to resolve the issue and then either fix the
validation, or remove the test.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:107:
boolean result = messageReceiver.accept(message);
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> s/result/passed/ maybe?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:110:
": The message should have been refused. Error expected: " + test.result);
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> s/Error expected/Expected error/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:128: *
(non-Javadoc)
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> 'git grep "non-Javadoc" | wc -l' returns 0, could you explain why not Javadoc?
> Lack of the second star at the beginning seems to be breaking rietveld syntax
> coloring:/.

 This is an automatic comment for Eclipse. Removed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:190:
runTest("integration_",
On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> should this be extracted into a constant next to VALIDATION_TEST_DATA_PATH ?

 I don't know. I feel this information fits in the test itself, but if you think
it is better as a constant, I'll move it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
File mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:136: *
Deserializes a {@link DataHeader} at the given offset and check it is correct
for an array
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> s/check it is correct/checks if it is correct/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:589: *
Deserializes a {@link DataHeader} at the given offset and check it is correct
for an array of
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> s/check it is correct/checks if it is correct/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
File
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/MessageReceiver.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/MessageReceiver.java:15:
* Receive a {@link MessageWithHeader}. The {@link MessageReceiver} is allowed to
mutable the
On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> s/MessageWithHeader/Message/, s/mutable/modify/, s/Receive/Receives/

Done.

[ppi, 2014-09-02 13:57:40]

lgtm % some more nits, thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
File mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:71: //
Do not fail if not test path is given, just skip the test.
On 2014/09/02 13:28:53, qsr wrote:
> On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> > Did you mean "if test path is not given"? Also, when does this happen?
> 
>  It happens if you do not specify --test-data on the runtest command line. At
> least for now, until the bot are all settled and I'm sure everything is
correct,
> I prefer not to risk to have all the bots turning red and blocking develloper
> workflow.

Ok. Is this automatically handled by "test_runner.py instrumentation" ? If not,
let's maybe document somewhere how to run the tests? Maybe in the class comment?

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:190:
runTest("integration_",
On 2014/09/02 13:28:53, qsr wrote:
> On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> > should this be extracted into a constant next to VALIDATION_TEST_DATA_PATH ?
> 
>  I don't know. I feel this information fits in the test itself, but if you
think
> it is better as a constant, I'll move it.

I see, let's keep these where they are.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
File
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/test/mojom/mojo/IntegrationTestInterface2TestHelper.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/test/mojom/mojo/IntegrationTestInterface2TestHelper.java:24:
* Create a new {@link MessageReceiver} use for the callback of
s/Creates/Create/, s/use/to use/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
File mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:124: if
(size < 0 || numFields < 0) {
nit: maybe splitting this into two with definite error messages would make
debugging easier?

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:126:
"Negative size or number of fields. Unsigned integer are not valid for java.");
s/integer/integers/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:136: *
Deserializes a {@link DataHeader} at the given offset and check if it is correct
for an array
s/check/checks/

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:589: *
Deserializes a {@link DataHeader} at the given offset and check if it is correct
for an array
s/check/checks/

[qsr, 2014-09-02 14:15:23]

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
File mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:71: //
Do not fail if not test path is given, just skip the test.
On 2014/09/02 13:57:39, ppi wrote:
> On 2014/09/02 13:28:53, qsr wrote:
> > On 2014/09/02 13:07:45, ppi wrote:
> > > Did you mean "if test path is not given"? Also, when does this happen?
> > 
> >  It happens if you do not specify --test-data on the runtest command line.
At
> > least for now, until the bot are all settled and I'm sure everything is
> correct,
> > I prefer not to risk to have all the bots turning red and blocking
develloper
> > workflow.
> 
> Ok. Is this automatically handled by "test_runner.py instrumentation" ? If
not,
> let's maybe document somewhere how to run the tests? Maybe in the class
comment?

It is not handled automatically. You need to add --test_data=bindings:{path to
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/data} to the test_runner.py -> will add a
comment.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/20001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:190:
runTest("integration_",
On 2014/09/02 13:57:39, ppi wrote:
> On 2014/09/02 13:28:53, qsr wrote:
> > On 2014/09/02 13:07:44, ppi wrote:
> > > should this be extracted into a constant next to VALIDATION_TEST_DATA_PATH
?
> > 
> >  I don't know. I feel this information fits in the test itself, but if you
> think
> > it is better as a constant, I'll move it.
> 
> I see, let's keep these where they are.

Acknowledged.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
File
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/test/mojom/mojo/IntegrationTestInterface2TestHelper.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/android/javatests/s...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/test/mojom/mojo/IntegrationTestInterface2TestHelper.java:24:
* Create a new {@link MessageReceiver} use for the callback of
On 2014/09/02 13:57:39, ppi wrote:
> s/Creates/Create/, s/use/to use/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
File mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:124: if
(size < 0 || numFields < 0) {
On 2014/09/02 13:57:40, ppi wrote:
> nit: maybe splitting this into two with definite error messages would make
> debugging easier?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:126:
"Negative size or number of fields. Unsigned integer are not valid for java.");
On 2014/09/02 13:57:39, ppi wrote:
> s/integer/integers/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:136: *
Deserializes a {@link DataHeader} at the given offset and check if it is correct
for an array
On 2014/09/02 13:57:40, ppi wrote:
> s/check/checks/

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/80001/mojo/public/java/binding...
mojo/public/java/bindings/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/Decoder.java:589: *
Deserializes a {@link DataHeader} at the given offset and check if it is correct
for an array
On 2014/09/02 13:57:40, ppi wrote:
> s/check/checks/

Done.

[yzshen1, 2014-09-02 16:51:23]

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/1/mojo/android/javatests/src/o...
File mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/1/mojo/android/javatests/src/o...
mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:94: //
TODO(qsr): Found out what is the expected result here according to the specs.
On 2014/09/01 16:19:52, qsr wrote:
> yzshen@ -> I don't understand this test. You are sending a message with a
field
> number of 0 for a struct that has a single float element. Given that we do not
> have any way to specify that a float element is mandatory, I do not understand
> why this should be failing validation. What am I missing?

This is only because we haven't developed support for backward compatibility.
(C++ and JavaScript)

The bindings currently cannot handle incoming structs with fewer fields than the
version that it uses. So I developed this test to make sure we don't crash/make
out-of-bound access in this case. It may need to be changed once we support
backward compatibility.

(However, if we adopt the idea of "RequiredFields" attribute, and decide that
"omitting the attribute means all fields are required", then it is consistent
with what we do here.)

Have you developed backward compatibility support for Java? If yes, I think you
could skip this test, or maybe we can move this test to a different suite, which
is only run by C++ and JavaScript for now.

[qsr, 2014-09-03 08:11:53]

On 2014/09/02 16:51:23, yzshen1 wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/1/mojo/android/javatests/src/o...
> File mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java
> (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/522353003/diff/1/mojo/android/javatests/src/o...
> mojo/android/javatests/src/org/chromium/mojo/bindings/ValidationTest.java:94:
//
> TODO(qsr): Found out what is the expected result here according to the specs.
> On 2014/09/01 16:19:52, qsr wrote:
> > yzshen@ -> I don't understand this test. You are sending a message with a
> field
> > number of 0 for a struct that has a single float element. Given that we do
not
> > have any way to specify that a float element is mandatory, I do not
understand
> > why this should be failing validation. What am I missing?
> 
> This is only because we haven't developed support for backward compatibility.
> (C++ and JavaScript)
> 
> The bindings currently cannot handle incoming structs with fewer fields than
the
> version that it uses. So I developed this test to make sure we don't
crash/make
> out-of-bound access in this case. It may need to be changed once we support
> backward compatibility.
> 
> (However, if we adopt the idea of "RequiredFields" attribute, and decide that
> "omitting the attribute means all fields are required", then it is consistent
> with what we do here.)
>> Have you developed backward compatibility support for Java? If yes, I think
you
> could skip this test, or maybe we can move this test to a different suite,
which
> is only run by C++ and JavaScript for now.

 Yes, java handles backward compatibility, so I will move this test to another
suite.

[qsr, 2014-09-04 08:02:39]

The CQ bit was checked by qsr@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-04 08:04:02]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/qsr@chromium.org/522353003/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-04 08:51:34]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-04 08:51:35]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_clang_dbg_recipe on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_clang_d...)

[qsr, 2014-09-04 09:12:34]

Committed patchset #7 (id:120001) manually as 2d8ad5c (presubmit successful).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-10 03:30:45]

Patchset 7 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/2d8ad5ca705e2ddab7a42ab8620f0a0c514615cb
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#293282}