The Tor Browser: js/src/tests/js1_5/String/regress-179068.js@129ffea94266 (annotated)

js/src/tests/js1_5/String/regress-179068.js@129ffea94266 (annotated)

js/src/tests/js1_5/String/regress-179068.js

Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:18:00 +0100

author: Michael Schloh von Bennewitz <michael@schloh.com>
date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:18:00 +0100
branch: TOR_BUG_3246
changeset 7: 129ffea94266
permissions: -rw-r--r--

Conditionally enable double key logic according to:
private browsing mode or privacy.thirdparty.isolate preference and
implement in GetCookieStringCommon and FindCookie where it counts...
With some reservations of how to convince FindCookie users to test
condition and pass a nullptr when disabling double key logic.

 /* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 2; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 2 -*- */
 /* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
  * License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
  * file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. */
 /*
  *
  * Date:    09 November 2002
  * SUMMARY: Test that interpreter can handle string literals exceeding 64K
  * See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179068
  *
  * Test that the interpreter can handle string literals exceeding 64K limit.
  * For that the script passes to eval() "str ='LONG_STRING_LITERAL';" where
  * LONG_STRING_LITERAL is a string with 200K chars.
  *
  *   Igor Bukanov explains the technique used below:
  *
  * > Philip Schwartau wrote:
  * >...
  * > Here is the heart of the testcase:
  * >
  * >   // Generate 200K long string
  * >   var long_str = duplicate(LONG_STR_SEED, N);
  * >   var str = "";
  * >   eval("str='".concat(long_str, "';"));
  * >   var test_is_ok = (str.length == LONG_STR_SEED.length * N);
  * >
  * >
  * > The testcase creates two identical strings, |long_str| and |str|. It
  * > uses eval() simply to assign the value of |long_str| to |str|. Why is
  * > it necessary to have the variable |str|, then? Why not just create
  * > |long_str| and test it? Wouldn't this be enough:
  * >
  * >   // Generate 200K long string
  * >   var long_str = duplicate(LONG_STR_SEED, N);
  * >   var test_is_ok = (long_str.length == LONG_STR_SEED.length * N);
  * >
  * > Or do we specifically need to test eval() to exercise the interpreter?
  *
  * The reason for eval is to test string literals like in 'a string literal
  * with 100 000 characters...', Rhino deals fine with strings generated at
  * run time where lengths > 64K. Without eval it would be necessary to have
  * a test file excedding 64K which is not that polite for CVS and then a
  * special treatment for the compiled mode in Rhino should be added.
  *
  *
  * >
  * > If so, is it important to use the concat() method in the assignment, as
  * > you have done: |eval("str='".concat(long_str, "';"))|, or can we simply
  * > do |eval("str = long_str;")| ?
  *
  * The concat is a replacement for eval("str='"+long_str+"';"), but as
  * long_str is huge, this leads to constructing first a new string via
  * "str='"+long_str and then another one via ("str='"+long_str) + "';"
  * which takes time under JDK 1.1 on a something like StrongArm 200MHz.
  * Calling concat makes less copies, that is why it is used in the
  * duplicate function and this is faster then doing recursion like in the
  * test case to test that 64K different string literals can be handled.
  *
  */
 //-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 var UBound = 0;
 var BUGNUMBER = 179068;
 var summary = 'Test that interpreter can handle string literals exceeding 64K';
 var status = '';
 var statusitems = [];
 var actual = '';
 var actualvalues = [];
 var expect= '';
 var expectedvalues = [];
 var LONG_STR_SEED = "0123456789";
 var N = 20 * 1024;
 var str = "";
 // Generate 200K long string and assign it to |str| via eval()
 var long_str = duplicate(LONG_STR_SEED, N);
 eval("str='".concat(long_str, "';"));
 status = inSection(1);
 actual = str.length == LONG_STR_SEED.length * N
   expect = true;
 addThis();
 //-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 test();
 //-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 function duplicate(str, count)
 {
   var tmp = new Array(count);
   while (count != 0)
     tmp[--count] = str;
   return String.prototype.concat.apply("", tmp);
 }
 function addThis()
 {
   statusitems[UBound] = status;
   actualvalues[UBound] = actual;
   expectedvalues[UBound] = expect;
   UBound++;
 }
 function test()
 {
   enterFunc('test');
   printBugNumber(BUGNUMBER);
   printStatus(summary);
   for (var i=0; i<UBound; i++)
   {
     reportCompare(expectedvalues[i], actualvalues[i], statusitems[i]);
   }
   exitFunc ('test');
 }