Add ManagedModePolicyProvider and extension API to get and set policies.

Add ManagedModePolicyProvider and extension API to get and set policies.


BUG=128318
TEST=none


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=142720

[Bernhard Bauer, 2012-06-06 14:11:28]

Hi Mattias and Joao, 

please take a look at this CL, then I'll add OWNERS for the other parts later.

Thanks!

[Joao da Silva, 2012-06-06 16:36:38]

Looks good. Please notice that the whole policy/ directory is not compiled in
when ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY is not defined (except for the
policy_service_stub).

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/extensions/...
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/extensions/...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:18: #include
"chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h"
#ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/extensions/...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:103:
ManagedModePolicyProviderFactory::GetForProfile(profile_);
#ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/extensions/...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:104: const base::Value*
policy = policy_provider->GetPolicy(key);
This only reads policies from the ManagedModePolicyProvider, and won't read
policies from other providers. This is ok if that's what you want, otherwise
this should read from the PolicyService.

SetPolicyFunction can also set a policy that will be overridden by a platform
provider, such that a Get after a Set won't return the same value.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/extensions/...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:117:
policy::ManagedModePolicyProvider* policy_provider =
#ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:35: }
This must call UpdatePolicies(), because callers of RefreshPolicies() are
waiting for a notification (even if policy didn't change).

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:46: dict = new
DictionaryValue;
base::DictionaryValue

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:62: dict->Get(key,
&value);
GetWithoutPathExpansion?

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:86:
policy_bundle->Get(POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME, std::string()).MergeFrom(policy_map);
.LoadFrom() can be directly invoked in the bundle, to spare the unnecessary
copying:

policy_bundle->Get(POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME, std::string()).LoadFrom(...)

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h:18: class
ManagedModePolicyProvider
Please keep the declaration order in the .h and the definition order in the .cc
the same

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/profiles/pr...
File chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/profiles/pr...
chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc:24: #include
"chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h"
#ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/profiles/pr...
chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc:205:
ManagedModePolicyProviderFactory::GetInstance();
#ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi...
chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:1636:
'browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h',
Alphabetic order (before network_configuration_updater.cc)

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/common/extensions/a...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/managed_mode_private.json (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/common/extensions/a...
chrome/common/extensions/api/managed_mode_private.json:67: "description":
"Policy key"
End the description with a "." for consistency?

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/common/extensions/a...
chrome/common/extensions/api/managed_mode_private.json:79: ]
Remove the newline? ("parameters": [])

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/common/extensions/a...
chrome/common/extensions/api/managed_mode_private.json:91: "description":
"Policy key"
Same about the "."

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2012-06-06 17:22:09]

A unit test for ManagedModePolicyProvider would be good (we have an abstract
test you can instantiate in configuration_policy_provider_test.h).

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/brow...
File chrome/browser/policy/browser_policy_connector.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/brow...
chrome/browser/policy/browser_policy_connector.cc:183:
ManagedModePolicyProviderFactory::GetForProfile(profile));
This is another instance of relying on OnProviderGoingAway AFAICT, because the
provider gets deleted before the policy service. So we're wiggling our way
around destruction order again. I don't think that's a reason to stop this CL,
it's more another indicator to bite the bullet and convert PrefService to a
ProfileKeyedService.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:70:
store_->ReportValueChanged(kPolicies);
necessary?

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:81: void
ManagedModePolicyProvider::UpdatePolicies() {
Having two functions, one called UpdatePolicies and another called UpdatePolicy
is rather confusing :) How about renaming this to PublishPolicy() or
ReloadPolicy() or another suitable name of your choice.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:86:
policy_bundle->Get(POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME, std::string()).MergeFrom(policy_map);
I think Joao means Swap().

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h:17: 
Please put a comment describing what this class is good for and how it's
supposed to be used.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h:43: 
Put a comment explaining that this is used for persisting policy and to avoid
confusion, mention that this PrefStore is not hooked up with PrefService.

[Joao da Silva, 2012-06-06 19:07:24]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:86:
policy_bundle->Get(POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME, std::string()).MergeFrom(policy_map);
On 2012/06/06 17:22:09, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> I think Joao means Swap().

That also works. I meant

policy_bundle->Get(POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME, std::string()).LoadFrom(dict, ...)

[Bernhard Bauer, 2012-06-08 10:06:44]

Thanks for the reviews!

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/ext...
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/ext...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:18: #include
"chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h"
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> #ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/ext...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:103:
ManagedModePolicyProviderFactory::GetForProfile(profile_);
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> #ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/ext...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:104: const base::Value*
policy = policy_provider->GetPolicy(key);
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> This only reads policies from the ManagedModePolicyProvider, and won't read
> policies from other providers. This is ok if that's what you want, otherwise
> this should read from the PolicyService.

I think so. I don't want the extension to have to deal with stuff like policy
provider precedences. In general, the situation where a machine is both
admin-managed and parent-managed is not a use case I'm going to optimize for.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/ext...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:117:
policy::ManagedModePolicyProvider* policy_provider =
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> #ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:35: }
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> This must call UpdatePolicies(), because callers of RefreshPolicies() are
> waiting for a notification (even if policy didn't change).

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:46: dict = new
DictionaryValue;
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> base::DictionaryValue

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:62: dict->Get(key,
&value);
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> GetWithoutPathExpansion?

Good catch! Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:70:
store_->ReportValueChanged(kPolicies);
On 2012/06/06 17:22:09, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> necessary?

I'm not using the SetValue method on the PrefStore, so I need to trigger the
change notification myself (to write the dictionary to disk).

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:81: void
ManagedModePolicyProvider::UpdatePolicies() {
On 2012/06/06 17:22:09, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> Having two functions, one called UpdatePolicies and another called
UpdatePolicy
> is rather confusing :) How about renaming this to PublishPolicy() or
> ReloadPolicy() or another suitable name of your choice.

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.cc:86:
policy_bundle->Get(POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME, std::string()).MergeFrom(policy_map);
On 2012/06/06 19:07:24, Joao da Silva wrote:
> On 2012/06/06 17:22:09, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> > I think Joao means Swap().
> 
> That also works. I meant
> 
> policy_bundle->Get(POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME, std::string()).LoadFrom(dict, ...)

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h:17: 
On 2012/06/06 17:22:09, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> Please put a comment describing what this class is good for and how it's
> supposed to be used.

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h:18: class
ManagedModePolicyProvider
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> Please keep the declaration order in the .h and the definition order in the
.cc
> the same

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider.h:43: 
On 2012/06/06 17:22:09, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> Put a comment explaining that this is used for persisting policy and to avoid
> confusion, mention that this PrefStore is not hooked up with PrefService.

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pro...
File chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pro...
chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc:24: #include
"chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h"
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> #ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/browser/pro...
chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc:205:
ManagedModePolicyProviderFactory::GetInstance();
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> #ifdef ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/chrome_brow...
File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/chrome_brow...
chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:1636:
'browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h',
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> Alphabetic order (before network_configuration_updater.cc)

Indeed. This alphabet, it's a tricky one.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/common/exte...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/managed_mode_private.json (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/common/exte...
chrome/common/extensions/api/managed_mode_private.json:67: "description":
"Policy key"
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> End the description with a "." for consistency?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/common/exte...
chrome/common/extensions/api/managed_mode_private.json:79: ]
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> Remove the newline? ("parameters": [])

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/16004/chrome/common/exte...
chrome/common/extensions/api/managed_mode_private.json:91: "description":
"Policy key"
On 2012/06/06 16:36:38, Joao da Silva wrote:
> Same about the "."

Done.

[Joao da Silva, 2012-06-08 10:30:58]

lgtm!

I wrote #ifdef in the comments for brevity, but the common format is #if
defined(FOO); please fix those :-) Thanks!

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/11030/chrome/browser/ext...
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/11030/chrome/browser/ext...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:23: #ifdef
ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY
#if defined(ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY) is the common form

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/11030/chrome/browser/ext...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:105: #ifdef
ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY
#if defined()

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/11030/chrome/browser/ext...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_managed_mode_api.cc:122: #ifdef
ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY
#if defined()

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/11030/chrome/browser/pro...
File chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/11030/chrome/browser/pro...
chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc:51: #ifdef
ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY
#if defined()

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/11030/chrome/browser/pro...
chrome/browser/profiles/profile_dependency_manager.cc:211: #ifdef
ENABLE_CONFIGURATION_POLICY
#if defined()

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2012-06-08 10:32:17]

I'm not sure whether you've just missed my comment that requested a unit tests
or whether you're intentionally ignoring it. Can you add a test for
ManagedModePolicyProvider please?

[Bernhard Bauer, 2012-06-11 10:52:17]

On 2012/06/08 10:32:17, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> I'm not sure whether you've just missed my comment that requested a unit tests
> or whether you're intentionally ignoring it. Can you add a test for
> ManagedModePolicyProvider please?

I wasn't ignoring it on purpose (I just counted comments on the review to check
whether I had addressed everything, and overlooked your top-level one) :-D

So: done.

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2012-06-12 02:58:53]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/14021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/14021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc:6: #include
"chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_provider_test.h"
alphabetize (or blank line between managed_mode_policy_provider.h, but we
usually don't treat the corresponding header specially in tests, assuming it's
already included first in the impl)

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/14021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc:129:
testing::Values(TestHarness::Create));
Can you please also add test cases for the interface used by the extension API?

[Bernhard Bauer, 2012-06-12 21:27:18]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/14021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/14021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc:6: #include
"chrome/browser/policy/configuration_policy_provider_test.h"
On 2012/06/12 02:58:54, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> alphabetize (or blank line between managed_mode_policy_provider.h, but we
> usually don't treat the corresponding header specially in tests, assuming it's
> already included first in the impl)

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/14021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc:129:
testing::Values(TestHarness::Create));
On 2012/06/12 02:58:54, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> Can you please also add test cases for the interface used by the extension
API?

Done.

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2012-06-13 04:53:44]

LGTM. If you decide to implement that additional test, please have a second pair
of eyes do a sanity check, but I don't want to block this on another iteration
over timezones.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/23018/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/23018/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h:31: Profile*
profile) const OVERRIDE;
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN?

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/23018/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/23018/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc:164: }
To get full coverage, a test making sure that persistence works (i.e. creating a
new provider on the existing pref store) would be good.

[Bernhard Bauer, 2012-06-13 14:42:29]

Meh, I forgot that I need OWNERS reviews anyway.

Sailesh, Finnur, can I get OWNERS reviews for profiles and extension API,
respectively? Thanks!

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/23018/chrome/browser/pol...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/23018/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_factory.h:31: Profile*
profile) const OVERRIDE;
On 2012/06/13 04:53:44, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN?

Done (I always forget this one).

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/23018/chrome/browser/pol...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10510006/diff/23018/chrome/browser/pol...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc:164: }
On 2012/06/13 04:53:44, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> To get full coverage, a test making sure that persistence works (i.e. creating
a
> new provider on the existing pref store) would be good.

Done.

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2012-06-13 14:49:56]

LGTM

[Finnur, 2012-06-13 14:55:21]

Extensions part LGTM.

[sail, 2012-06-13 16:28:48]

Profiles LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-06-13 16:40:04]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bauerb@chromium.org/10510006/25002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-06-13 17:40:10]

Try job failure for 10510006-25002 (retry) on mac_rel for step "unit_tests".
It's a second try, previously, step "unit_tests" failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=mac_rel&nu...

[Bernhard Bauer, 2012-06-14 19:09:44]

Sorry, I need another look :)

Turns out, my newly added test was failing because TestingPrefStore cleared its
preferences in the ReadPrefs() methods. Dominic agreed that that doesn't make
much sense, so I removed it (and nothing seems to break so far).

[Joao da Silva, 2012-06-16 17:01:19]

lgtm; see the comment inline.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/24021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/24021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc:12: const char
kPolicies[] = "policies";
Used?

[Bernhard Bauer, 2012-06-18 14:07:52]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/24021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
File chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10510006/diff/24021/chrome/browser/policy/mana...
chrome/browser/policy/managed_mode_policy_provider_unittest.cc:12: const char
kPolicies[] = "policies";
On 2012/06/16 17:01:19, Joao da Silva wrote:
> Used?

No, I'm using the one from ManagedModePolicyProvider. Thanks for noticing!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-06-18 14:08:40]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bauerb@chromium.org/10510006/30001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-06-18 15:59:07]

Change committed as 142720