[Signature-based SRI] Typo in test description.

The description suggests that the script should load: it should, in
fact, be blocked. That's happily what the test is actually testing,
so this CL only aims to reduce (my own!) confusion; it has no effect
on behavior

Change-Id: I79df6c4733129f46be961a5dbaa8c93aab5bb502
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6272004
Reviewed-by: Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <yoavweiss@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Mike West <mkwst@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1420929}

subresource-integrity/signatures/tentative/csp.window.js

@@ -12,10 +12,10 @@ document.head.appendChild(el);
 
 // Unsigned scripts should not load, regardless of integrity metadata:
 generate_script_test(kUnsignedShouldBlock, "", EXPECT_BLOCKED,
-                     "No signature, no integrity check: loads.");
+                     "No signature, no integrity check: blocked.");
 
 generate_script_test(kUnsignedShouldBlock, "ed25519-???", EXPECT_BLOCKED,
-                     "No signature, malformed integrity check: loads.");
+                     "No signature, malformed integrity check: blocked.");
 
 generate_script_test(kUnsignedShouldBlock, `ed25519-${kValidKeys['rfc']}`, EXPECT_BLOCKED,
                      "No signature, integrity check: blocked.");