Add Flush() method to ByteStream.

Add Flush() method to ByteStream.

To be used by Stream implementation to push received data to
StreamURLRequestJob at arbitrary point.

BUG=169957
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=214545

[sky, 2013-07-15 18:04:12]

Same comment as last review.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2013-07-17 03:50:24]

+rdsmith as a main reviewer

[Randy Smith (Not in Mondays), 2013-07-17 11:03:45]

Will review tonight or tomorrow AM.

[Randy Smith (Not in Mondays), 2013-07-18 16:11:44]

My only concern is the below test nit.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18098004/diff/4/content/browser/byte_stream_u...
File content/browser/byte_stream_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18098004/diff/4/content/browser/byte_stream_u...
content/browser/byte_stream_unittest.cc:159: byte_stream_input->Flush();
nit: I'd like there to be part of this test that confirms that the data
*doesn't* get there until you flush, i.e. that the difference between
before/after flush is the absence/presence of data.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2013-07-25 05:13:37]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18098004/diff/4/content/browser/byte_stream_u...
File content/browser/byte_stream_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18098004/diff/4/content/browser/byte_stream_u...
content/browser/byte_stream_unittest.cc:159: byte_stream_input->Flush();
On 2013/07/18 16:11:44, rdsmith wrote:
> nit: I'd like there to be part of this test that confirms that the data
> *doesn't* get there until you flush, i.e. that the difference between
> before/after flush is the absence/presence of data.

Added expectation.

[Randy Smith (Not in Mondays), 2013-07-29 17:54:09]

LGTM.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2013-07-30 07:36:01]

Hi sky,

It's reviewed by rdsmith. Could you please review this again just as an OWNER?

[sky, 2013-07-30 16:48:45]

As I said, I'm not a good reviewer for this. I'm randomly picking one for you:
+avi
-sky

[Randy Smith (Not in Mondays), 2013-07-30 17:20:04]

To be clear: I think I am a fine reviewer for this code.  The only reason we
need a rubberstamp from anyone else is that it was moved out of the downloads
directory a while ago.  I don't believe it requires any kind of deep review
(though whoever does review it is welcome to feel otherwise, obviously).

[Randy Smith (Not in Mondays), 2013-07-30 17:21:09]

To be clear, I think I'm a fine primary reviewer for this code, and that it's
fine to commit based on my LGTM.  The only reason that we need another reviewer
is that it was moved out of downloads some time ago.  But I know the code well. 


So we're just looking for a rubberstamp.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2013-07-30 19:18:57]

On 2013/07/30 17:21:09, rdsmith wrote:
> To be clear, I think I'm a fine primary reviewer for this code, and that it's
> fine to commit based on my LGTM.  The only reason that we need another
reviewer
> is that it was moved out of downloads some time ago.  But I know the code
well. 
> 
> 
> So we're just looking for a rubberstamp.

I'll stamp (shrug). LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-30 20:35:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tyoshino@chromium.org/18098004/18001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-31 01:06:21]

Step "update" is always a major failure.
Look at the try server FAQ for more details.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-31 03:50:45]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tyoshino@chromium.org/18098004/18001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-31 03:59:39]

Change committed as 214545