Support for loading all default intent services. Necessary to allow editing of defaults from settin…

Support for loading all default intent services. Necessary to allow editing of defaults from settings.



Add support for loading all defaults from WebIntentsRegistry.


BUG=137907
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=149349

[Steve McKay, 2012-07-31 18:57:03]

This is pipelined off of change 10834076.

[Greg Billock, 2012-07-31 21:43:36]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
File chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry.h:33: // Callback used by
WebIntentsRegistry to return results of data fetch.
Put what kind of data here and in :29 to differentiate.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry.h:131: // Handles derfault services
loaded, supplying an unfiltered list
default

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
File chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry_unittest.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry_unittest.cc:142: // Wait for the UI
message loop to terminate - happens when OnIntesQueryDone
OnIntentsQueryDone, but I think that name is obsolete, no?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry_unittest.cc:152: class
ServiceListConsumer : public TestConsumer {
I think this is easier to follow with the registrations and defaults smooshed
into TestConsumer. They can just apply to different tests.

[Steve McKay, 2012-07-31 22:09:59]

PTAL.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
File chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry.h:33: // Callback used by
WebIntentsRegistry to return results of data fetch.
On 2012/07/31 21:43:36, Greg Billock wrote:
> Put what kind of data here and in :29 to differentiate.

Done. Revised docs.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry.h:131: // Handles derfault services
loaded, supplying an unfiltered list
On 2012/07/31 21:43:36, Greg Billock wrote:
> default

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
File chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry_unittest.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry_unittest.cc:152: class
ServiceListConsumer : public TestConsumer {
On 2012/07/31 21:43:36, Greg Billock wrote:
> I think this is easier to follow with the registrations and defaults smooshed
> into TestConsumer. They can just apply to different tests.

The refactoring increased the delta which definitely makes the change harder to
read, but the introduction of the new callback type would have made a unitary
TestConsumer much more gnarly necessarily including another field, and more
access methods. More importantly I think the test method bodies read much better
when we have the separate classes using consistent naming conventions.

[Greg Billock, 2012-07-31 23:41:59]

lgtm

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
File chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry_unittest.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10838004/diff/2001/chrome/browser/inte...
chrome/browser/intents/web_intents_registry_unittest.cc:152: class
ServiceListConsumer : public TestConsumer {
Yeah, the tests read a bit better. We can keep this.

On 2012/07/31 22:09:59, Steve McKay wrote:
> On 2012/07/31 21:43:36, Greg Billock wrote:
> > I think this is easier to follow with the registrations and defaults
smooshed
> > into TestConsumer. They can just apply to different tests.
> 
> The refactoring increased the delta which definitely makes the change harder
to
> read, but the introduction of the new callback type would have made a unitary
> TestConsumer much more gnarly necessarily including another field, and more
> access methods. More importantly I think the test method bodies read much
better
> when we have the separate classes using consistent naming conventions.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-01 00:14:22]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/smckay@chromium.org/10838004/2002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-08-01 01:41:18]

Change committed as 149349