mojom: Add conformance tests for map<>.

mojom: Add conformance tests for map<>.

BUG=413863
R=yzshen@chromium.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/mojo/+/f4883d3b8d79bb891f8149b44a74d7807e54260c

[Elliot Glaysher, 2014-10-15 17:52:27]

erg@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ yzshen@chromium.org

[Elliot Glaysher, 2014-10-15 17:52:27]

(Landing this depends on Hans landing his implementation of the javascript
bindings. I made a small hack in validation_unittests.js to try to ignore these
new tests, but it didn't work.)

[yzshen1, 2014-10-15 18:07:44]

LGTM

Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/651823005/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/b...
File
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/data/validation/conformance_mthd10_non_unique_keys.data
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/651823005/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/b...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/data/validation/conformance_mthd10_non_unique_keys.data:1:
[dist4]message_header  // num_bytes
Please consider adding good_ in the name:
conformance_mthd10_good_non_unique_keys

https://codereview.chromium.org/651823005/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/b...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/validation_test_interfaces.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/651823005/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/b...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/validation_test_interfaces.mojom:45:
Method10(map<string, uint8> param0);
(optional) It would be nice to have a test for more complex scenario, for
example
map<int8, array<uint8, 5>>
to make sure that fixed-size array validation works correctly.

[Elliot Glaysher, 2014-10-15 19:29:52]

https://codereview.chromium.org/651823005/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/b...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/validation_test_interfaces.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/651823005/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/b...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/validation_test_interfaces.mojom:45:
Method10(map<string, uint8> param0);
On 2014/10/15 18:07:44, yzshen1 wrote:
> (optional) It would be nice to have a test for more complex scenario, for
> example
> map<int8, array<uint8, 5>>
> to make sure that fixed-size array validation works correctly.

I tried making a test case for that, but it doesn't work because of the current
restriction on arrays of fixed sized arrays.

[yzshen1, 2014-10-15 19:52:21]

On 2014/10/15 19:29:52, Elliot Glaysher wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/651823005/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/b...
> File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/validation_test_interfaces.mojom
> (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/651823005/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/b...
> mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/validation_test_interfaces.mojom:45:
> Method10(map<string, uint8> param0);
> On 2014/10/15 18:07:44, yzshen1 wrote:
> > (optional) It would be nice to have a test for more complex scenario, for
> > example
> > map<int8, array<uint8, 5>>
> > to make sure that fixed-size array validation works correctly.
> 
> I tried making a test case for that, but it doesn't work because of the
current
> restriction on arrays of fixed sized arrays.

I see! :) I just landed a CL and remove that restriction, I believe.

[qsr, 2014-10-16 13:51:04]

I fixed a couple of issues in the java generation that explain the try bots
failure. java tests should go green as soon as those land.

[Elliot Glaysher, 2014-10-22 23:52:20]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) manually as
f4883d3b8d79bb891f8149b44a74d7807e54260c (presubmit successful).