Add a manifest property declaring USB printers supported by an app.

Add a manifest property declaring USB printers supported by an app.

This new manifest property "usb_printers" declares a set of USB device
filters matching the printers supported by an app. This will be used by
the printerProvider API to allow the user to select a printer that can
be supported by the app and in so doing grant the app permission to
connect to the printer.

BUG=468955
Committed: https://crrev.com/1f30d4f3bd5c6058d32984de32e57db8205daaa5
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#328845}

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2015-05-05 22:52:35]

reillyg@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ asargent@chromium.org

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2015-05-05 22:52:59]

Please take a look. The trybots are going to fail until
https://codereview.chromium.org/1128523003/ lands.

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2015-05-06 18:05:15]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[asargent_no_longer_on_chrome, 2015-05-07 18:13:44]

One high-level question: would we ever want to allow developers to specify not
just include DeviceFilters, but exclude ones as well? I.e. would a developer
ever want to say "My app supports all printers for vendor id 52, but not product
id 6824"?

Assuming the answer is "no one would ever want that"/"we're not interested in
supporting it", the CL lgtm.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1123093003/diff/60001/extensions/common/api/e...
File extensions/common/api/extensions_manifest_types.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1123093003/diff/60001/extensions/common/api/e...
extensions/common/api/extensions_manifest_types.json:199: "optional": true
In the usb API documentation, for interfaceSubclass and interfaceProtocol we
mention that these are only checked if interfaceClass and interfaceSubclass,
respectively, are provided. Would it make sense to mention the same thing here?

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2015-05-07 20:33:26]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1123093003/diff/60001/extensions/common/api/e...
File extensions/common/api/extensions_manifest_types.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1123093003/diff/60001/extensions/common/api/e...
extensions/common/api/extensions_manifest_types.json:199: "optional": true
On 2015/05/07 18:13:43, Antony Sargent wrote:
> In the usb API documentation, for interfaceSubclass and interfaceProtocol we
> mention that these are only checked if interfaceClass and interfaceSubclass,
> respectively, are provided. Would it make sense to mention the same thing
here?

That was my intention in referencing interfaceClass and interfaceSubclass here
(except I mentioned interfaceProtocol instead).

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2015-05-07 20:35:55]

The CQ bit was checked by reillyg@chromium.org

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2015-05-07 20:35:56]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
asargent@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1123093003/#ps80001
(title: "Fix interfaceProtocol documentation.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-07 20:39:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1123093003/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-07 21:48:24]

Committed patchset #4 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-07 21:49:24]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/1f30d4f3bd5c6058d32984de32e57db8205daaa5
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#328845}