Cpp bindings: Return false from Validator::Accept() on unrecognized message or invalid flags

mojo/public/cpp/bindings/tests/validation_unittest.cc

 // 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.
 
 #include <stdio.h>
 
 #include <algorithm>
 #include <string>
 #include <vector>
 
@@ skipping 353 matching lines @@
 
 TEST_F(ValidationTest, Conformance) {
   DummyMessageReceiver dummy_receiver;
   mojo::internal::FilterChain validators(&dummy_receiver);
   validators.Append<mojo::internal::MessageHeaderValidator>();
   validators.Append<ConformanceTestInterface::RequestValidator_>();
 
   RunValidationTests("conformance_", validators.GetHead());
 }
 
+// This test is similar to the Conformance test but for responses.

[yzshen1, 2015/03/13 22:55:03]

"Conformance" means "all binding implementations need to pass these tests to
claim that they conform to the validation algorithm".
"Response" sounds like a different way of categorizing tests. But these tests
are still conformance tests.

One idea is to use conformance_rqst_ (request) and conformance_resp_ (response)
as prefix.

Another issue: I am pretty sure that other language bindings won't run these
test cases (unless you make similar changes) because they use prefix to filter
tests as well.

[rudominer, 2015/03/16 21:24:31]

I have settled on the "conformance_" prefix for the current request-oriented
tests and "resp_conformance_" prefix for the response-oriented tests. Notice
that there is no real advantage to having the two sets of files have a common
prefix because in every language we need to have the testing code treat the two
sets differently because they use different interfaces. In other words if we
were to use "conformance_req_" and "conformance_resp_" as the prefixes, that
would involve a lot of work to change the existing file names but no real
advantage because the tests would then no longer be able to look for the prefix
"conformance_" but would have to start looking for the two prefixes
conformance_req_" and conformance_resp" separately.
Right and that is good for now since the tests would break and we would have to
exclude them as we have done with the JS test.

+TEST_F(ValidationTest, Response) {
+  DummyMessageReceiver dummy_receiver;
+  mojo::internal::FilterChain validators(&dummy_receiver);
+  validators.Append<mojo::internal::MessageHeaderValidator>();
+  validators.Append<ConformanceTestInterface::ResponseValidator_>();
+
+  RunValidationTests("response_", validators.GetHead());
+}
+
 // Test that InterfacePtr<X> applies the correct validators and they don't
 // conflict with each other:
 //   - MessageHeaderValidator
 //   - X::ResponseValidator_
 TEST_F(ValidationIntegrationTest, InterfacePtr) {
   IntegrationTestInterfacePtr interface_ptr =
       MakeProxy<IntegrationTestInterface>(testee_endpoint().Pass());
   interface_ptr.internal_state()->router_for_testing()->EnableTestingMode();
 
   RunValidationTests("integration_intf_resp", test_message_receiver());
@@ skipping 11 matching lines @@
       MakeRequest<IntegrationTestInterface>(testee_endpoint().Pass()));
   binding.internal_router()->EnableTestingMode();
 
   RunValidationTests("integration_intf_rqst", test_message_receiver());
   RunValidationTests("integration_msghdr", test_message_receiver());
 }
 
 }  // namespace
 }  // namespace test
 }  // namespace mojo