Fix and re-enable PrerenderTaskManager test

Fix and re-enable PrerenderTaskManager test

The NOTREACHED it hit a year ago was removed from the code in r205020. But the
test in the meantime has broken because TaskManagerModel now caches values.
Explicitly call TaskManagerModel::Refresh before querying values.

This makes TaskManagerModel::Refresh public.

BUG=131836
TEST=PrerenderBrowserTest.PrerenderTaskManager

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=221270

[davidben, 2013-09-04 14:34:33]

This doesn't actually fix the flake in the original bug, so I don't know if we
want to re-enable it or not. (I don't have a Windows machine.) But this at least
makes it no longer always fail. And GetProcId doesn't even have a NOTREACHED in
there anymore.

[yoshiki, 2013-09-04 14:37:14]

lgtm

[gavinp, 2013-09-04 17:56:15]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23523024/diff/1/chrome/browser/prerender/prer...
File chrome/browser/prerender/prerender_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23523024/diff/1/chrome/browser/prerender/prer...
chrome/browser/prerender/prerender_browsertest.cc:1891: // See crbug.com/131836.
Should we lose this comment? I'm guessing probably not until we're sure it's not
a windows flake?

https://codereview.chromium.org/23523024/diff/1/chrome/browser/task_manager/t...
File chrome/browser/task_manager/task_manager.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23523024/diff/1/chrome/browser/task_manager/t...
chrome/browser/task_manager/task_manager.h:310: void Refresh();
From Chromium style:
   Function declaration order should match function definition order.

[gavinp, 2013-09-04 17:56:41]

prerender lgtm, but I think the ordering in task_manager is worth fixing.

[davidben, 2013-09-04 18:14:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23523024/diff/1/chrome/browser/prerender/prer...
File chrome/browser/prerender/prerender_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23523024/diff/1/chrome/browser/prerender/prer...
chrome/browser/prerender/prerender_browsertest.cc:1891: // See crbug.com/131836.
On 2013/09/04 17:56:15, gavinp wrote:
> Should we lose this comment? I'm guessing probably not until we're sure it's
not
> a windows flake?

Oops, didn't even notice that comment. Keeping it around until we're sure of
Windows seems a good plan.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23523024/diff/1/chrome/browser/task_manager/t...
File chrome/browser/task_manager/task_manager.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23523024/diff/1/chrome/browser/task_manager/t...
chrome/browser/task_manager/task_manager.h:310: void Refresh();
On 2013/09/04 17:56:15, gavinp wrote:
> From Chromium style:
>    Function declaration order should match function definition order.

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-04 18:19:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/davidben@chromium.org/23523024/14001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-04 21:12:32]

Change committed as 221270