Tighten link-local IPv6 routing exclusion check

Tighten link-local routing exclusion check

Also add a unit test for this behavior.

BUG=https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=4823
R=pthatcher@webrtc.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/b8b0143a11afd495b8e9c1a1cc388cdbd4340b99

[bemasc2, 2015-07-07 14:48:47]

bemasc@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ guoweis@webrtc.org, pthatcher@webrtc.org

[pthatcher1, 2015-07-07 18:11:16]

Good fix.  But could you please add a few more test cases?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/1/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc
File webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/1/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest...
webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc:1416: EXPECT_EQ(0U,
ports[0]->connections().size());
Should we also need a test cases for other combinations?

link-local to link-local
link-local to localhost
localhost to link-local
link-local to standard
localhost to standard

[bemasc2, 2015-07-07 19:26:00]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/1/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc
File webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/1/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest...
webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc:1416: EXPECT_EQ(0U,
ports[0]->connections().size());
On 2015/07/07 18:11:16, pthatcher1 wrote:
> Should we also need a test cases for other combinations?
> 
> link-local to link-local
> link-local to localhost
> localhost to link-local
> link-local to standard
> localhost to standard

Done.

[pthatcher1, 2015-07-07 20:53:24]

lgtm, with a nit

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/20001/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unit...
File webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/20001/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unit...
webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc:1399: void PortTest::TestPortsCanConnect(Port*
p1, Port* p2, bool can_connect) {
I'd call this ExpectPortsCanConnect, and make the first argument the expected
one.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/20001/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unit...
webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc:1439: TestPortsCanConnect(standard, localhost,
true);
Looks nice

[bemasc2, 2015-07-07 21:00:07]

The CQ bit was checked by bemasc@webrtc.org

[bemasc2, 2015-07-07 21:00:08]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from pthatcher@webrtc.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/#ps40001 (title:
"Change TestPortsCanConnect to ExpectPortsCanConnect")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-07 21:00:18]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1218293016/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-07 21:00:19]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-07 21:00:20]

No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. Only full committers are accepted.
Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
_not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[bemasc2, 2015-07-07 21:00:35]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/20001/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unit...
File webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1218293016/diff/20001/webrtc/p2p/base/port_unit...
webrtc/p2p/base/port_unittest.cc:1399: void PortTest::TestPortsCanConnect(Port*
p1, Port* p2, bool can_connect) {
On 2015/07/07 20:53:24, pthatcher1 wrote:
> I'd call this ExpectPortsCanConnect, and make the first argument the expected
> one.
> 

Done.

[pthatcher1, 2015-07-07 23:46:05]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) manually as
b8b0143a11afd495b8e9c1a1cc388cdbd4340b99 (presubmit successful).