Safely handle uninitialized load_timing info in ResourceResponseHead.

Safely handle uninitialized load_timing info in ResourceResponseHead.

This is often uninitialized in UI and browser tests. This blocks issue 10829031
from landing.

BUG=139093
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=149761

[darin (slow to review), 2012-08-02 04:53:15]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10831104/diff/2001/content/common/reso...
File content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10831104/diff/2001/content/common/reso...
content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc:358: IPC::Message*
response_message =
nit: no need to heap allocate the IPC message :)

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10831104/diff/2001/content/common/reso...
content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc:368: }
nit: do these need OVERRIDE?

[James Simonsen, 2012-08-02 19:02:57]

Sorry, I'd lazily copied from the other tests in this file. They needed the same
TLC, so updated them too.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10831104/diff/2001/content/common/resource_dis...
File content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10831104/diff/2001/content/common/resource_dis...
content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc:358: IPC::Message*
response_message =
On 2012/08/02 04:53:15, darin wrote:
> nit: no need to heap allocate the IPC message :)

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10831104/diff/2001/content/common/resource_dis...
content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc:368: }
On 2012/08/02 04:53:15, darin wrote:
> nit: do these need OVERRIDE?

Done.

[darin (slow to review), 2012-08-02 20:30:03]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10831104/diff/13001/content/common/resource_di...
File content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10831104/diff/13001/content/common/resource_di...
content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc:261:
dispatcher_->OnMessageReceived(response_message);
typo?  looks like you need to pass data_message instead.

by the way, you can also avoid the temporary variable name, and just do:

  dispatcher_->OnMessageReceived(
      ResourceMsg_DataReceived(0, 0, duplicated_handle, 100, 100));

that might be less error prone and be a tad more readable too (less verbose).

[James Simonsen, 2012-08-02 21:29:32]

Bummer that old test passed even with the typo. :(

http://codereview.chromium.org/10831104/diff/13001/content/common/resource_di...
File content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10831104/diff/13001/content/common/resource_di...
content/common/resource_dispatcher_unittest.cc:261:
dispatcher_->OnMessageReceived(response_message);
On 2012/08/02 20:30:04, darin wrote:
> typo?  looks like you need to pass data_message instead.
> 
> by the way, you can also avoid the temporary variable name, and just do:
> 
>   dispatcher_->OnMessageReceived(
>       ResourceMsg_DataReceived(0, 0, duplicated_handle, 100, 100));
> 
> that might be less error prone and be a tad more readable too (less verbose).

Done.

[darin (slow to review), 2012-08-02 22:12:19]

LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-02 23:14:58]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/simonjam@chromium.org/10831104/10002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-03 01:02:17]

Change committed as 149761