ServiceWorker: Clean up fetch-event.html

ServiceWorker: Clean up fetch-event.html

This change...
- removes unnecessary 'wait_for_update' calls because a register promise
is resolved with a registration object that has an installing worker.
- removes 't.step_func' from promise chains.
- unloads iframes gracefully.


BUG=401381
TEST=run_webkit_tests.py --debug http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=181465

[nhiroki, 2014-09-03 05:24:37]

nhiroki@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ horo@chromium.org

[nhiroki, 2014-09-03 05:26:56]

PTAL

[horo, 2014-09-03 06:13:49]

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
File LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html:19: return
wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');
How about introducing wait_for_activated(t, registration)?

[nhiroki, 2014-09-04 06:47:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
File LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html:19: return
wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');
On 2014/09/03 06:13:48, horo wrote:
> How about introducing wait_for_activated(t, registration)?

I'd prefer to keep it as is because I think the behavior of the helper could be
ambiguous in some cases. For example, if the given registration does not have
'.installing' but has '.waiting', does the helper make '.waiting' for
'activated'?

[horo, 2014-09-04 09:07:13]

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
File LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html:19: return
wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');
On 2014/09/04 06:47:09, nhiroki wrote:
> On 2014/09/03 06:13:48, horo wrote:
> > How about introducing wait_for_activated(t, registration)?
> 
> I'd prefer to keep it as is because I think the behavior of the helper could
be
> ambiguous in some cases. For example, if the given registration does not have
> '.installing' but has '.waiting', does the helper make '.waiting' for
> 'activated'?

I think there are many tests which just need an activated ServiceWorker.
They don't need to know about the state of registrations and versions.
I think "wait_for_activated(t, registration)" will be useful for such tests.

[nhiroki, 2014-09-04 09:20:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
File LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html:19: return
wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');
On 2014/09/04 09:07:13, horo wrote:
> On 2014/09/04 06:47:09, nhiroki wrote:
> > On 2014/09/03 06:13:48, horo wrote:
> > > How about introducing wait_for_activated(t, registration)?
> > 
> > I'd prefer to keep it as is because I think the behavior of the helper could
> be
> > ambiguous in some cases. For example, if the given registration does not
have
> > '.installing' but has '.waiting', does the helper make '.waiting' for
> > 'activated'?
> 
> I think there are many tests which just need an activated ServiceWorker.
> They don't need to know about the state of registrations and versions.
> I think "wait_for_activated(t, registration)" will be useful for such tests.

"make '.waiting' for 'activated'?" -> "make '.waiting' *wait* for 'activated'?"
:p

I see, that make sense. I'll make it...

[nhiroki, 2014-09-05 07:39:12]

Patchset #3 (id:40001) has been deleted

[nhiroki, 2014-09-05 07:42:09]

horo-san, can you take another look?

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
File LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/531423002/diff/1/LayoutTests/http/tests/servi...
LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event.html:19: return
wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');
On 2014/09/04 09:20:40, nhiroki wrote:
> On 2014/09/04 09:07:13, horo wrote:
> > On 2014/09/04 06:47:09, nhiroki wrote:
> > > On 2014/09/03 06:13:48, horo wrote:
> > > > How about introducing wait_for_activated(t, registration)?
> > > 
> > > I'd prefer to keep it as is because I think the behavior of the helper
could
> > be
> > > ambiguous in some cases. For example, if the given registration does not
> have
> > > '.installing' but has '.waiting', does the helper make '.waiting' for
> > > 'activated'?
> > 
> > I think there are many tests which just need an activated ServiceWorker.
> > They don't need to know about the state of registrations and versions.
> > I think "wait_for_activated(t, registration)" will be useful for such tests.
> 
> "make '.waiting' for 'activated'?" -> "make '.waiting' *wait* for
'activated'?"
> :p
> 
> I see, that make sense. I'll make it...

Done.

[horo, 2014-09-05 10:47:03]

lgtm.
Thank you.

[nhiroki, 2014-09-05 10:56:38]

The CQ bit was checked by nhiroki@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-05 10:57:35]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nhiroki@chromium.org/531423002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-05 11:02:08]

Committed patchset #3 (id:60001) as 181465