Add HttpServerPropertiesManagerTest.UpdateCacheWithPrefs.

Add HttpServerPropertiesManagerTest.UpdateCacheWithPrefs.

Add HttpServerPropertiesManagerTest.UpdateCacheWithPrefs to test that
preferences like AlternateProtocol, SupportsQuic, and ServerNetworkStats are
saved to PrefService properly.

BUG=392575
Committed: https://crrev.com/4d5b877dcab754769ee594a043c75e9bcf27d776
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#314822}

[Bence, 2015-02-04 20:16:47]

bnc@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rch@chromium.org

[Bence, 2015-02-04 20:16:47]

Ryan, PTAL.  Thanks.

[Ryan Hamilton, 2015-02-04 22:33:29]

What do you think?

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/1/net/http/http_server_propert...
File net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/1/net/http/http_server_propert...
net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc:695:
pref_service_.GetUserPref(kTestHttpServerProperties);
Oh nice! This is great.
I do wonder if we can make this test any simpler. Effectively, you're verifying
that the JSON data looks the way we expect.  What if we did something like

char expectedJson[] = "..."

And then verified that this http_server_properties.ToString() (or whatever)
matches.

What do you think?

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/1/net/http/http_server_propert...
net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc:748: "supports_quic",
&supports_quic_dict));
I have a CL in flight which changes the supports quic stuff, just FYI.
https://codereview.chromium.org/892203004/
It would have landed already but it merge-conflicted with your
HasAlternateProtocol removal CL :> If you don't mind, it'd be great if my CL
could land first.

[Bence, 2015-02-05 14:53:24]

Ryan, PTAL.

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/1/net/http/http_server_propert...
File net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/1/net/http/http_server_propert...
net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc:695:
pref_service_.GetUserPref(kTestHttpServerProperties);
On 2015/02/04 22:33:29, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> Oh nice! This is great.
> I do wonder if we can make this test any simpler. Effectively, you're
verifying
> that the JSON data looks the way we expect.  What if we did something like
> 
> char expectedJson[] = "..."
> 
> And then verified that this http_server_properties.ToString() (or whatever)
> matches.
> 
> What do you think?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/1/net/http/http_server_propert...
net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc:748: "supports_quic",
&supports_quic_dict));
On 2015/02/04 22:33:29, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> I have a CL in flight which changes the supports quic stuff, just FYI.
> https://codereview.chromium.org/892203004/
> It would have landed already but it merge-conflicted with your
> HasAlternateProtocol removal CL :> If you don't mind, it'd be great if my CL
> could land first.

Rebased, changed test to adapt to your CL.  Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/40001/net/http/http_server_pro...
File net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/40001/net/http/http_server_pro...
net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc:677: "\"servers\":{"
This indentation is easier to read, but it is not git cl format compliant. 
Shall we stick with this, or have a single line string literal, or break it up
at 80 char limits?

[Ryan Hamilton, 2015-02-05 15:29:14]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/40001/net/http/http_server_pro...
File net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/893403005/diff/40001/net/http/http_server_pro...
net/http/http_server_properties_manager_unittest.cc:677: "\"servers\":{"
On 2015/02/05 14:53:24, Bence wrote:
> This indentation is easier to read, but it is not git cl format compliant. 
> Shall we stick with this, or have a single line string literal, or break it up
> at 80 char limits?

Either way is fine with me. Your call.

[Bence, 2015-02-05 15:56:08]

The CQ bit was checked by bnc@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-05 15:56:32]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/893403005/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-05 16:20:07]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-05 16:21:36]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/4d5b877dcab754769ee594a043c75e9bcf27d776
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#314822}