Improve script to find user actions.

tools/metrics/actions/extract_actions_test.py

 #!/usr/bin/env python
 # Copyright 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.
 
 import unittest
 
 import extract_actions
 
 # Empty value to be inserted to |ACTIONS_MOCK|.
@@ skipping 96 matching lines @@
     '<!--comment-->\n\n'
     '<actions>\n\n'
     '<action name="action1">\n'
     '  <owner>name1@google.com</owner>\n'
     '  <owner>name2@google.com</owner>\n'
     '  <description>Description.</description>\n'
     '</action>\n\n'
     '</actions>\n'
 )
 
-
 class ActionXmlTest(unittest.TestCase):
 
   def _GetProcessedAction(self, owner, description, obsolete, new_actions=[],
                           comment=NO_VALUE):
     """Forms an actions XML string and returns it after processing.
 
     It parses the original XML string, adds new user actions (if there is any),
     and pretty prints it.
 
     Args:
@@ skipping 59 matching lines @@
   def testAddNewActions(self):
     xml_result = self._GetProcessedAction(TWO_OWNERS, DESCRIPTION, NO_VALUE,
                                           new_actions=['action2'])
     self.assertEqual(ADD_ACTION_EXPECTED_XML, xml_result)
 
   def testComment(self):
     xml_result = self._GetProcessedAction(TWO_OWNERS, DESCRIPTION, NO_VALUE,
                                           comment=COMMENT)
     self.assertEqual(COMMENT_EXPECTED_XML, xml_result)
 
+  def testUserMetricsActionSpanningTwoLines(self):
+    code = 'base::UserMetricsAction(\n"Foo.Bar"));'
+    names, _ = extract_actions.FindActionNames(code, 0)
+    self.assertEqual(['Foo.Bar'], names)
+
+  def testTernaryUserMetricsAction(self):
+    code = 'base::UserMetricsAction(foo ? "Foo.Bar" : "Bar.Foo"));'

[Ilya Sherman, 2015/01/09 22:25:44]

I'm not convinced that we want to support this.  Instead, IMO, this should be
written as """foo ? base::UserMetricsAction("Foo.Bar") :
base::UserMetricsAction("Bar.Foo")""".

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015/01/12 19:58:24]

We could do that. The disadvantage is we'll need to go back and clean up code
where code slips in that doesn't conform - which was my motivation for making
the script support this - less maintenance work for us.

+    names, _ = extract_actions.FindActionNames(code, 0)
+    self.assertEqual(['Foo.Bar', 'Bar.Foo'], names)
 
 if __name__ == '__main__':
   unittest.main()