[Activity log] Strip incognito URLs entirely from the database

[Activity log] Strip incognito URLs entirely from the database

When logging an Action which refers to an incognito URL to the database
using the normal (non-testing) policy, clear the URL fields entirely.
Do not even leave an indication that an incognito URL had been present,
as was done previously.

This change was requested as part of the privacy review for the
extension watchdog.

BUG=244841
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=221577

[mvrable, 2013-09-05 20:11:05]

This is the incognito handling change that came up in the privacy review.  If
you have a bug I should use for this I can add it to the description.

--Michael Vrable

[felt, 2013-09-05 20:12:25]

On 2013/09/05 20:11:05, mvrable wrote:
> This is the incognito handling change that came up in the privacy review.  If
> you have a bug I should use for this I can add it to the description.
> 
> --Michael Vrable

Hi Michael, can you use BUG=244841? I think that would be the right one to use
here.

[felt, 2013-09-05 20:15:13]

On 2013/09/05 20:12:25, felt wrote:
> On 2013/09/05 20:11:05, mvrable wrote:
> > This is the incognito handling change that came up in the privacy review. 
If
> > you have a bug I should use for this I can add it to the description.
> > 
> > --Michael Vrable
> 
> Hi Michael, can you use BUG=244841? I think that would be the right one to use
> here.

looks good, but are there tests that will need to be updated?

[mvrable, 2013-09-05 20:19:10]

On 2013/09/05 20:15:13, felt wrote:
> On 2013/09/05 20:12:25, felt wrote:
> > On 2013/09/05 20:11:05, mvrable wrote:
> > > This is the incognito handling change that came up in the privacy review. 
> If
> > > you have a bug I should use for this I can add it to the description.
> > > 
> > > --Michael Vrable
> > 
> > Hi Michael, can you use BUG=244841? I think that would be the right one to
use
> > here.

I added the bug number.

> looks good, but are there tests that will need to be updated?

One test covering incognito URL handling was updated.  I think that was the only
one needed, though the trybots will catch me if I'm wrong on that.

--Michael Vrable

[felt, 2013-09-05 20:20:10]

On 2013/09/05 20:19:10, mvrable wrote:
> On 2013/09/05 20:15:13, felt wrote:
> > On 2013/09/05 20:12:25, felt wrote:
> > > On 2013/09/05 20:11:05, mvrable wrote:
> > > > This is the incognito handling change that came up in the privacy
review. 
> > If
> > > > you have a bug I should use for this I can add it to the description.
> > > > 
> > > > --Michael Vrable
> > > 
> > > Hi Michael, can you use BUG=244841? I think that would be the right one to
> use
> > > here.
> 
> I added the bug number.
> 
> > looks good, but are there tests that will need to be updated?
> 
> One test covering incognito URL handling was updated.  I think that was the
only
> one needed, though the trybots will catch me if I'm wrong on that.
> 
> --Michael Vrable

In my head I'd imagined there would be more to change but after glancing, I
guess not. The browser test relies on the stream which doesn't change. so: lgtm!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-05 20:21:45]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mvrable@chromium.org/23432006/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-06 05:19:30]

Change committed as 221577