[SystemInfo API] Move Storage API out of experimental namespace and rename to the "system" namespace

[SystemInfo API] Move Storage API out of experimental namespace and rename to the "system" namespace.

experimental.systemInfo.storage.get ---> system.storage.getInfo
experimental.systemInfo.storage.onAttached ---> system.storage.onAttached
experimental.systemInfo.storage.onDetached ---> system.storage.onDetached
experimental.systemInfo.ejectDevice/mediaGalleriesPrivate.ejectDevice ---> system.storage.ejectDevice

experimental.systemInfo.storage.addWatch --->
    system.storage.addAvailableCapacityWatch (! dev availability only)
experimental.systemInfo.storage.removeWatch --->
    system.storage.removeAvailableCapacityWatch (! dev availability only)
experimental.systemInfo.storage.getAllWatch --->
    system.storage.getAllAvailableCapacityWatches (! dev availability only)
experimental.systemInfo.storage.removeAllWatch --->
    system.storage.removeAllAvailableCapacityWatches (! dev availability only)
experimental.systemInfo.storage.onAvailableCapacityChanged ---> system.storage.onAvailableCapacityChanged (! dev availability only)

BUG=252994
TEST=browser_tests --gtest_filter=SystemStorageApiTest.*
TEST=unit_tests --gtest_filter=StorageInfoProviderTest.*

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=213857

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-08 05:29:06]

hongbo@ for initial review.
Ilya@ for histograms.xml.
Greg@, Jeffrey@ for extension api.

[Hongbo Min, 2013-07-08 06:52:43]

Good progress!

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/experimental_system_info_storage.idl (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/experimental_system_info_storage.idl:9: enum
StorageUnitType {
nit: Now we can remove StorageUnitType definition.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/experimental_system_info_storage.idl:74: static
void onAvailableCapacityChanged(StorageFreeSpaceChangeInfo info);
Maybe here we need to add 'getAvailableCapacity' function and leave it in
experimental namespace. It should be fine to do this in another CL.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/system_info_storage.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_info_storage.idl:6: // storage device
information and be notified when it changes.
nit: ... and be notified when a storage device is attached and detached.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_info_storage.idl:26: // Default value is 0
if query operation fails.
Seems the description of "Default value is 0 if query operation fails" is a bit
confused since if a query operation fails, no such a StorageUnitInfo object is
returned for it. Can we remove it?

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/perm...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/perm...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h:140: kSystemInfoStorage,
nit: please keep alpha order for all kSystemInfo* stuff.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/test/data/extensions/a...
File
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/systeminfo/storage_attachment/manifest.json
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/test/data/extensions/a...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/systeminfo/storage_attachment/manifest.json:6:
"permissions": ["systemInfo.storage"],
No 'experimental' permission granted for this test?

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/tools/metrics/histograms/hist...
File tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/tools/metrics/histograms/hist...
tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml:1: <!--G
nit: remove 'G'.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-08 07:46:30]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/experimental_system_info_storage.idl (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/experimental_system_info_storage.idl:9: enum
StorageUnitType {
On 2013/07/08 06:52:43, Hongbo Min wrote:
> nit: Now we can remove StorageUnitType definition.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/experimental_system_info_storage.idl:74: static
void onAvailableCapacityChanged(StorageFreeSpaceChangeInfo info);
On 2013/07/08 06:52:43, Hongbo Min wrote:
> Maybe here we need to add 'getAvailableCapacity' function and leave it in
> experimental namespace. It should be fine to do this in another CL.

Yes. My plan is to implement the 'getAvailableCapacity' function in a new CL.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/system_info_storage.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_info_storage.idl:6: // storage device
information and be notified when it changes.
On 2013/07/08 06:52:43, Hongbo Min wrote:
> nit: ... and be notified when a storage device is attached and detached.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/api/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_info_storage.idl:26: // Default value is 0
if query operation fails.
On 2013/07/08 06:52:43, Hongbo Min wrote:
> Seems the description of "Default value is 0 if query operation fails" is a
bit
> confused since if a query operation fails, no such a StorageUnitInfo object is
> returned for it. Can we remove it?

Yes, I think so. Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/perm...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/perm...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h:140: kSystemInfoStorage,
On 2013/07/08 06:52:43, Hongbo Min wrote:
> nit: please keep alpha order for all kSystemInfo* stuff.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/test/data/extensions/a...
File
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/systeminfo/storage_attachment/manifest.json
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/chrome/test/data/extensions/a...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/systeminfo/storage_attachment/manifest.json:6:
"permissions": ["systemInfo.storage"],
On 2013/07/08 06:52:43, Hongbo Min wrote:
> No 'experimental' permission granted for this test?

Yes. This test code only contains onAttached and onDetached which have been
moved out of experimental namespace.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/tools/metrics/histograms/hist...
File tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/1/tools/metrics/histograms/hist...
tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml:1: <!--G
On 2013/07/08 06:52:43, Hongbo Min wrote:
> nit: remove 'G'.

Done.

[Hongbo Min, 2013-07-08 07:50:27]

LGTM. ping gbillock@

[Greg Billock, 2013-07-08 17:24:47]

On 2013/07/08 07:50:27, Hongbo Min wrote:
> LGTM. ping gbillock@

Let's wait on moving it out until we get some more adjustments to the code done.
Are there pieces of this change you want to peel off and keep that other
adjustments depend on?

[Ilya Sherman, 2013-07-08 22:14:15]

LGTM

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-08 23:11:57]

On 2013/07/08 17:24:47, Greg Billock wrote:
> On 2013/07/08 07:50:27, Hongbo Min wrote:
> > LGTM. ping gbillock@
> 
> Let's wait on moving it out until we get some more adjustments to the code
done.
> Are there pieces of this change you want to peel off and keep that other
> adjustments depend on?

OK. Currently this patch has no dependency on others. I will rebase this patch
after other code adjustments done.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-15 05:18:31]

On 2013/07/08 23:11:57, Haojian Wu wrote:
> On 2013/07/08 17:24:47, Greg Billock wrote:
> > On 2013/07/08 07:50:27, Hongbo Min wrote:
> > > LGTM. ping gbillock@
> > 
> > Let's wait on moving it out until we get some more adjustments to the code
> done.
> > Are there pieces of this change you want to peel off and keep that other
> > adjustments depend on?
> 
> OK. Currently this patch has no dependency on others. I will rebase this patch
> after other code adjustments done.

This patch has been rebased now.

[Greg Billock, 2013-07-15 17:40:44]

On 2013/07/15 05:18:31, Haojian Wu wrote:
> On 2013/07/08 23:11:57, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > On 2013/07/08 17:24:47, Greg Billock wrote:
> > > On 2013/07/08 07:50:27, Hongbo Min wrote:
> > > > LGTM. ping gbillock@
> > > 
> > > Let's wait on moving it out until we get some more adjustments to the code
> > done.
> > > Are there pieces of this change you want to peel off and keep that other
> > > adjustments depend on?
> > 
> > OK. Currently this patch has no dependency on others. I will rebase this
patch
> > after other code adjustments done.
> 
> This patch has been rebased now.

Thanks. This looks about right. Just waiting on the rename adjustments to get
finalized. Might as well include them in this as well.

[Greg Billock, 2013-07-16 17:54:40]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/24001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/system_info_storage.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/24001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_info_storage.idl:1: // Copyright (c) 2012
The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
Can you rework this according to bug 252994 now? I think we can keep it all in
one file, and just adjust the permissions to keep the available capacity watch
API in dev.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-18 08:51:20]

The patch has been updated. Also rename to the new "system" namespace.
Please have a review, thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:577: },
I'm not sure whether this is the right way to make storage related
AvailableCapacity APIs only in dev channel since I don't find any other similar
API examples to follow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW, how to test these APIs under different channel(dev/stable)?

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h:126:
kSystemStorageOnAvailableCapacityChanged,
Do we need to these kSystemStorage*AvalableCapacity* flags here?

[Hongbo Min, 2013-07-18 09:56:43]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:577: },
On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this is the right way to make storage related
> AvailableCapacity APIs only in dev channel since I don't find any other
similar
> API examples to follow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> BTW, how to test these APIs under different channel(dev/stable)?

I think you are right.

Testing the api in dev channel is the same as current approach, writing apitest
and run browsertest since you are building on trunk.

Dev channel is generally behind trunk about 1~2 weeks

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-18 10:44:29]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:577: },
On 2013/07/18 09:56:43, Hongbo Min wrote:
> On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether this is the right way to make storage related
> > AvailableCapacity APIs only in dev channel since I don't find any other
> similar
> > API examples to follow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > 
> > BTW, how to test these APIs under different channel(dev/stable)?
> 
> I think you are right.
> 
> Testing the api in dev channel is the same as current approach, writing
apitest
> and run browsertest since you are building on trunk.
> 
> Dev channel is generally behind trunk about 1~2 weeks 

That means we can only build the trunk-channel chromium on our local machine?

So now we can not test these related Storage APIs whether are available on
dev/stable channel, right?

[方觉(Fang Jue), 2013-07-18 11:44:30]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:577: },
On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this is the right way to make storage related
> AvailableCapacity APIs only in dev channel since I don't find any other
similar
> API examples to follow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> BTW, how to test these APIs under different channel(dev/stable)?

No. This will not make these methods dev only. _permission_features.json only
contains permissions. _api_features.json can contain API methods but can only
restrict them to specific contexts but not specific channels. Probably you
should ask kalman about this. I think it's a common case to add new experimental
API within existing namespaces.

To make only those methods restricted to dev channel, you probably have to do it
in C++ implementation. Here's an example in the web request API in the past:
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12077029/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensi....

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-18 15:43:30]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:577: },
On 2013/07/18 11:44:30, 方觉(Fang Jue) wrote:
> On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether this is the right way to make storage related
> > AvailableCapacity APIs only in dev channel since I don't find any other
> similar
> > API examples to follow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > 
> > BTW, how to test these APIs under different channel(dev/stable)?
> 
> No. This will not make these methods dev only. _permission_features.json only
> contains permissions. _api_features.json can contain API methods but can only
> restrict them to specific contexts but not specific channels. Probably you
> should ask kalman about this. I think it's a common case to add new
experimental
> API within existing namespaces.
> 
> To make only those methods restricted to dev channel, you probably have to do
it
> in C++ implementation. Here's an example in the web request API in the past:
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12077029/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensi....

Thanks for the useful instructions and link.

kalman@, Do we need to restrict these APIs in C++ implementation?

[not at google - send to devlin, 2013-07-18 17:06:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc:219:
DispatchStorageAttachedEvent(info);
it looks like this patch is more than just a rename?

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.cc:2: // Use of
this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
ditto

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.h:11: namespace
extensions {
Is there any chance you can tell git/svn to make this a move operation from
system_info_storage_api.h? There is a --similarity option to git that might do
it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:577: },
On 2013/07/18 15:43:31, Haojian Wu wrote:
> On 2013/07/18 11:44:30, 方觉(Fang Jue) wrote:
> > On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > > I'm not sure whether this is the right way to make storage related
> > > AvailableCapacity APIs only in dev channel since I don't find any other
> > similar
> > > API examples to follow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > 
> > > BTW, how to test these APIs under different channel(dev/stable)?
> > 
> > No. This will not make these methods dev only. _permission_features.json
only
> > contains permissions. _api_features.json can contain API methods but can
only
> > restrict them to specific contexts but not specific channels. Probably you
> > should ask kalman about this. I think it's a common case to add new
> experimental
> > API within existing namespaces.
> > 
> > To make only those methods restricted to dev channel, you probably have to
do
> it
> > in C++ implementation. Here's an example in the web request API in the past:
> >
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12077029/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensi....
> 
> Thanks for the useful instructions and link.
> 
> kalman@, Do we need to restrict these APIs in C++ implementation? 

This is almost correct, you don't need to restrict in C++, you can do it via
features.

However this per-API-call thing should be done in _api_features not here. See
the various runtime.* methods.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/experimental_systemInfo_storage.html
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/experimental_systemInfo_storage.html:1:
{{+partials.standard_extensions_api api:apis.experimental_system_info_storage}}
please add redirects for these deleted public files.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h:126:
kSystemStorageOnAvailableCapacityChanged,
On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> Do we need to these kSystemStorage*AvalableCapacity* flags here?

no. If the permission is same (for the sake of showing permission warnings etc)
then you only need the system permission.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/test/data/extensio...
File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/system/storage/test_storage_api.js
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/test/data/extensio...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/system/storage/test_storage_api.js:9: var
testData = [
same deal with move detection

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-19 08:47:12]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc:219:
DispatchStorageAttachedEvent(info);
On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> it looks like this patch is more than just a rename?

Actually this patch also update the storage APIs definition. We have removed the
|available_capacity| field in StorageUnitInfo.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.cc:2: // Use of
this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> ditto

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.h:11: namespace
extensions {
On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> Is there any chance you can tell git/svn to make this a move operation from
> system_info_storage_api.h? There is a --similarity option to git that might do
> it.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:577: },
On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> On 2013/07/18 15:43:31, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > On 2013/07/18 11:44:30, 方觉(Fang Jue) wrote:
> > > On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure whether this is the right way to make storage related
> > > > AvailableCapacity APIs only in dev channel since I don't find any other
> > > similar
> > > > API examples to follow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > BTW, how to test these APIs under different channel(dev/stable)?
> > > 
> > > No. This will not make these methods dev only. _permission_features.json
> only
> > > contains permissions. _api_features.json can contain API methods but can
> only
> > > restrict them to specific contexts but not specific channels. Probably you
> > > should ask kalman about this. I think it's a common case to add new
> > experimental
> > > API within existing namespaces.
> > > 
> > > To make only those methods restricted to dev channel, you probably have to
> do
> > it
> > > in C++ implementation. Here's an example in the web request API in the
past:
> > >
> >
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12077029/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensi....
> > 
> > Thanks for the useful instructions and link.
> > 
> > kalman@, Do we need to restrict these APIs in C++ implementation? 
> 
> This is almost correct, you don't need to restrict in C++, you can do it via
> features.
> 
> However this per-API-call thing should be done in _api_features not here. See
> the various runtime.* methods.

Done. Please check whether I get your point.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/experimental_systemInfo_storage.html
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/experimental_systemInfo_storage.html:1:
{{+partials.standard_extensions_api api:apis.experimental_system_info_storage}}
On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> please add redirects for these deleted public files.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h:126:
kSystemStorageOnAvailableCapacityChanged,
On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > Do we need to these kSystemStorage*AvalableCapacity* flags here?
> 
> no. If the permission is same (for the sake of showing permission warnings
etc)
> then you only need the system permission.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/test/data/extensio...
File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/system/storage/test_storage_api.js
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/test/data/extensio...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/system/storage/test_storage_api.js:9: var
testData = [
On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> same deal with move detection

Done.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-22 15:31:39]

On 2013/07/19 08:47:12, Haojian Wu wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
> File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
> chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc:219:
> DispatchStorageAttachedEvent(info);
> On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > it looks like this patch is more than just a rename?
> 
> Actually this patch also update the storage APIs definition. We have removed
the
> |available_capacity| field in StorageUnitInfo.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
> File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.cc
(right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
> chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.cc:2: // Use
of
> this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
> On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > ditto
> 
> Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
> File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.h
(right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
> chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_storage/system_storage_api.h:11:
namespace
> extensions {
> On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > Is there any chance you can tell git/svn to make this a move operation from
> > system_info_storage_api.h? There is a --similarity option to git that might
do
> > it.
> 
> Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
> File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
> chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:577: },
> On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > On 2013/07/18 15:43:31, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > > On 2013/07/18 11:44:30, 方觉(Fang Jue) wrote:
> > > > On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > > > > I'm not sure whether this is the right way to make storage related
> > > > > AvailableCapacity APIs only in dev channel since I don't find any
other
> > > > similar
> > > > > API examples to follow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > > 
> > > > > BTW, how to test these APIs under different channel(dev/stable)?
> > > > 
> > > > No. This will not make these methods dev only. _permission_features.json
> > only
> > > > contains permissions. _api_features.json can contain API methods but can
> > only
> > > > restrict them to specific contexts but not specific channels. Probably
you
> > > > should ask kalman about this. I think it's a common case to add new
> > > experimental
> > > > API within existing namespaces.
> > > > 
> > > > To make only those methods restricted to dev channel, you probably have
to
> > do
> > > it
> > > > in C++ implementation. Here's an example in the web request API in the
> past:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12077029/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensi....
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the useful instructions and link.
> > > 
> > > kalman@, Do we need to restrict these APIs in C++ implementation? 
> > 
> > This is almost correct, you don't need to restrict in C++, you can do it via
> > features.
> > 
> > However this per-API-call thing should be done in _api_features not here.
See
> > the various runtime.* methods.
> 
> Done. Please check whether I get your point.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
> File
>
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/experimental_systemInfo_storage.html
> (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
>
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/experimental_systemInfo_storage.html:1:
> {{+partials.standard_extensions_api
api:apis.experimental_system_info_storage}}
> On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > please add redirects for these deleted public files.
> 
> Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
> File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/common/extensions/...
> chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h:126:
> kSystemStorageOnAvailableCapacityChanged,
> On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > On 2013/07/18 08:51:20, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > > Do we need to these kSystemStorage*AvalableCapacity* flags here?
> > 
> > no. If the permission is same (for the sake of showing permission warnings
> etc)
> > then you only need the system permission.
> 
> Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/test/data/extensio...
> File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/system/storage/test_storage_api.js
> (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/test/data/extensio...
> chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/system/storage/test_storage_api.js:9: var
> testData = [
> On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > same deal with move detection
> 
> Done.

ping kalman@, Jeffrey@.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2013-07-22 15:55:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc:219:
DispatchStorageAttachedEvent(info);
On 2013/07/19 08:47:12, Haojian Wu wrote:
> On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > it looks like this patch is more than just a rename?
> 
> Actually this patch also update the storage APIs definition. We have removed
the
> |available_capacity| field in StorageUnitInfo.

Yes that is my point. The CL description says it's just a rename. I would rather
this were in 2 patches.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/45001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_api_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/45001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_api_features.json:474: "contexts":
["blessed_extension"]
these features automatically inherit from their "parents" (in all of these
cases, system.storage), so you don't need the extra "contents" key. Just the
channel override.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-23 03:20:20]

On 2013/07/22 15:55:57, kalman wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
> File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/31001/chrome/browser/extensions...
> chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc:219:
> DispatchStorageAttachedEvent(info);
> On 2013/07/19 08:47:12, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > On 2013/07/18 17:06:18, kalman wrote:
> > > it looks like this patch is more than just a rename?
> > 
> > Actually this patch also update the storage APIs definition. We have removed
> the
> > |available_capacity| field in StorageUnitInfo.
> 
> Yes that is my point. The CL description says it's just a rename. I would
rather
> this were in 2 patches.

I have separated a new "update storage APIs definition"
CL(https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/19672022/).
I will update this CL after the "update" CL gets landed.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-23 13:37:24]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/45001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_api_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/45001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_api_features.json:474: "contexts":
["blessed_extension"]
On 2013/07/22 15:55:57, kalman wrote:
> these features automatically inherit from their "parents" (in all of these
> cases, system.storage), so you don't need the extra "contents" key. Just the
> channel override.

Done.

[Hongbo Min, 2013-07-24 00:19:15]

Haojian, please have a look at https://codereview.chromium.org/19532006/, it
conflicts this change, please rebase this CL.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-24 01:04:56]

On 2013/07/24 00:19:15, Hongbo Min wrote:
> Haojian, please have a look at https://codereview.chromium.org/19532006/, it
> conflicts this change, please rebase this CL.

I see it. I will rebase after https://codereview.chromium.org/19532006/ and
https://codereview.chromium.org/19672022/ get landed.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-24 01:05:18]

On 2013/07/24 00:19:15, Hongbo Min wrote:
> Haojian, please have a look at https://codereview.chromium.org/19532006/, it
> conflicts this change, please rebase this CL.

I see it. I will rebase after https://codereview.chromium.org/19532006/ and
https://codereview.chromium.org/19672022/ get landed.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-24 15:39:11]

On 2013/07/24 01:05:18, Haojian Wu wrote:
> On 2013/07/24 00:19:15, Hongbo Min wrote:
> > Haojian, please have a look at https://codereview.chromium.org/19532006/, it
> > conflicts this change, please rebase this CL.
> 
> I see it. I will rebase after https://codereview.chromium.org/19532006/ and
> https://codereview.chromium.org/19672022/ get landed.

This patch has been rebased now. ping kalman@.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2013-07-24 16:01:47]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc:1: // Copyright
2013 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
so eventually we'll be deleting this file, right? and everything else under
api/system_info?

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info_storage/storage_info_provider.h
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info_storage/storage_info_provider.h:1: //
Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
is rietveld confused? it says M but it looks like a D. There are a couple of
other files under system_info/ with the same oddness.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:545: "extension",
"packaged_app", "hosted_app", "platform_app"
none of these system APIs should have hosted_app, and it looks like there are
other APIs in this file that have incorrectly been given hosted app access
(power).

so pls don't add it here, and then later we can go through and clean up the rest
of the system APIs + other APIs. I can do it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/system_storage.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_storage.idl:80: static void
addAvailableCapacityWatch(
... but we're about to delete this API method, right?

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/apps/redirects.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/apps/redirects.json:8:
"experimental_systemInfo_storage.html": "system_storage.html"
alphabetical pls

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/redirects.json
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/redirects.json:6:
"experimental_systemInfo_storage.html": "system_storage.html"
alphabetical pls

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h:124:
kSystemStorageOnAvailableCapacityChanged,
you only need kSystemStorage

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-25 04:21:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info/system_info_api.cc:1: // Copyright
2013 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> so eventually we'll be deleting this file, right? and everything else under
> api/system_info?

I'm not sure whether we will delete this file,but I think we should keep it now.

And all systemInfo APIs will move to api/system_*(cpu/memory/display/storage)
directories.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info_storage/storage_info_provider.h
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info_storage/storage_info_provider.h:1: //
Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> is rietveld confused? it says M but it looks like a D. There are a couple of
> other files under system_info/ with the same oddness.

Yes. It's a D, not M.

I have updated my git log on my local machine and upload with similarity
option.I ever tried to create a new CL for testing, the new CL has a good diff
track, see(https://codereview.chromium.org/20207004/).

However, I tried several times in this CL, it doesn't make sense, the diff log
still the same :(.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:545: "extension",
"packaged_app", "hosted_app", "platform_app"
On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> none of these system APIs should have hosted_app, and it looks like there are
> other APIs in this file that have incorrectly been given hosted app access
> (power).
> 
> so pls don't add it here, and then later we can go through and clean up the
rest
> of the system APIs + other APIs. I can do it.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/system_storage.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_storage.idl:80: static void
addAvailableCapacityWatch(
On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> ... but we're about to delete this API method, right?

But I don't know we plan to delete this API. Any details about it?

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/apps/redirects.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/apps/redirects.json:8:
"experimental_systemInfo_storage.html": "system_storage.html"
On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> alphabetical pls

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/redirects.json
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/docs/templates/public/extensions/redirects.json:6:
"experimental_systemInfo_storage.html": "system_storage.html"
On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> alphabetical pls

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.h:124:
kSystemStorageOnAvailableCapacityChanged,
On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> you only need kSystemStorage

Done.

[Hongbo Min, 2013-07-25 04:48:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info_storage/storage_info_provider.h
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/browser/extensions...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/system_info_storage/storage_info_provider.h:1: //
Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2013/07/25 04:21:57, Haojian Wu wrote:
> On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> > is rietveld confused? it says M but it looks like a D. There are a couple of
> > other files under system_info/ with the same oddness.
> 
> Yes. It's a D, not M.
> 
> I have updated my git log on my local machine and upload with similarity
> option.I ever tried to create a new CL for testing, the new CL has a good diff
> track, see(https://codereview.chromium.org/20207004/).
> 
> However, I tried several times in this CL, it doesn't make sense, the diff log
> still the same :(.

It might be a bug in rietveld which I met the same problem before.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2013-07-25 14:35:51]

lgtm, see how the CQ likes this patch. if it doesn't you can try uploading to a
new one and TBRing it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/system_storage.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_storage.idl:80: static void
addAvailableCapacityWatch(
On 2013/07/25 04:21:57, Haojian Wu wrote:
> On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> > ... but we're about to delete this API method, right?
> 
> But I don't know we plan to delete this API. Any details about it?

I see. I am remembering this CL:
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/19672022/ which removed the
availableCapacity field from the StorageUnitInfo struct.

I should have asked this at the time of that CL, but are we also going to delete
the onAvailableCapacityChanged event? It seems like an event that is very easy
to introduce bad behaviour with (extension gets available capacity; logs it;
available capacity changes; etc).

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-25 15:33:45]

On 2013/07/25 14:35:51, kalman wrote:
> lgtm, see how the CQ likes this patch. if it doesn't you can try uploading to
a
> new one and TBRing it.

I'm afraid I don't catch your mean here. Could you please explain in more
detail?

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-25 15:36:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/system_storage.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18578008/diff/68001/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/api/system_storage.idl:80: static void
addAvailableCapacityWatch(
On 2013/07/25 14:35:51, kalman wrote:
> On 2013/07/25 04:21:57, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > On 2013/07/24 16:01:47, kalman wrote:
> > > ... but we're about to delete this API method, right?
> > 
> > But I don't know we plan to delete this API. Any details about it?
> 
> I see. I am remembering this CL:
> https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/19672022/ which removed the
> availableCapacity field from the StorageUnitInfo struct.
> 
> I should have asked this at the time of that CL, but are we also going to
delete
> the onAvailableCapacityChanged event? It seems like an event that is very easy
> to introduce bad behaviour with (extension gets available capacity; logs it;
> available capacity changes; etc).

In original API review meeting, we decide to keep the
onAvaialableCapacityChanged event in experimental namespace. And in the rename
"systemInfo" namespace discussion, we restrict this event in dev-channel.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2013-07-25 15:51:07]

On 2013/07/25 15:33:45, Haojian Wu wrote:
> On 2013/07/25 14:35:51, kalman wrote:
> > lgtm, see how the CQ likes this patch. if it doesn't you can try uploading
to
> a
> > new one and TBRing it.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't catch your mean here. Could you please explain in more
> detail?

You made a new patch. I'm saying, try to submit this one first. If that doesn't
work then do the other one.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-26 03:45:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/Hokein.Wu@gmail.com/18578008/89002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-26 06:37:54]

Retried try job too often on chromium_presubmit for step(s) presubmit
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=chromium_p...

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-26 07:06:13]

On 2013/07/26 06:37:54, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> Retried try job too often on chromium_presubmit for step(s) presubmit
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=chromium_p...

Ping Lei@, need your LGTM for storage_monitor.

[Lei Zhang, 2013-07-26 07:13:02]

c/b/storage_monitor lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-26 07:22:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/Hokein.Wu@gmail.com/18578008/89002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-26 09:14:31]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/Hokein.Wu@gmail.com/18578008/135002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-26 12:19:16]

Change committed as 213857

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-29 07:26:35]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/18578008/diff/135002/chrome/common/ext...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/18578008/diff/135002/chrome/common/ext...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:533: "whitelist": [""]
Should we remove the "whitelist" restriction of system.cpu and system.memory
here? 

Now extensions/web apps using these APIs should be included in whitelist(run
through ./chrome.exe --whitelisted-extension-id=XX), otherwise these APIs are
not available.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2013-07-29 14:51:52]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/18578008/diff/135002/chrome/common/ext...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/18578008/diff/135002/chrome/common/ext...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:533: "whitelist": [""]
On 2013/07/29 07:26:36, Haojian Wu wrote:
> Should we remove the "whitelist" restriction of system.cpu and system.memory
> here? 
> 
> Now extensions/web apps using these APIs should be included in whitelist(run
> through ./chrome.exe --whitelisted-extension-id=XX), otherwise these APIs are
> not available. 

Why do we bother supporting this...?

[not at google - send to devlin, 2013-07-29 14:52:28]

as in rather than just not having a whitelist and restricting it to dev channel.
It's a *very* weird API which is only available to extension IDs specified on
the command line.

[Haojian Wu, 2013-07-30 02:10:46]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/18578008/diff/135002/chrome/common/ext...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/18578008/diff/135002/chrome/common/ext...
chrome/common/extensions/api/_permission_features.json:533: "whitelist": [""]
On 2013/07/29 14:51:52, kalman wrote:
> On 2013/07/29 07:26:36, Haojian Wu wrote:
> > Should we remove the "whitelist" restriction of system.cpu and system.memory
> > here? 
> > 
> > Now extensions/web apps using these APIs should be included in whitelist(run
> > through ./chrome.exe --whitelisted-extension-id=XX), otherwise these APIs
are
> > not available. 
> 
> Why do we bother supporting this...?

I just keep the cpu/memory API unchanged here.
see
(https://codereview.chromium.org/16256023/diff/24001/chrome/common/extensions/...,
and
https://codereview.chromium.org/15817008/diff/27001/chrome/common/extensions/...)
these two patches add "whitelist" restrictions.