Mus+Ash: Towards Unifying CompositorFrameSink terminology

services/ui/ws/window_tree_client_unittest.cc

Index: services/ui/ws/window_tree_client_unittest.cc
diff --git a/services/ui/ws/window_tree_client_unittest.cc b/services/ui/ws/window_tree_client_unittest.cc
index 013d54be15d5037803e421ea0c51cbdf504ef64f..7f1f43ddb4edcc747db8be7598baf229815e9c71 100644
--- a/services/ui/ws/window_tree_client_unittest.cc
+++ b/services/ui/ws/window_tree_client_unittest.cc
@@ -2146,9 +2146,9 @@ TEST_F(WindowTreeClientTest, SurfaceIdPropagation) {
   changes1()->clear();
 
   // Submit a CompositorFrame to window_2_101 and make sure server gets it.
-  mojom::SurfacePtr surface_ptr;
-  mojom::SurfaceClientRequest client_request;
-  mojom::SurfaceClientPtr surface_client_ptr;
+  cc::mojom::MojoCompositorFrameSinkPtr surface_ptr;

[sky, 2016/10/21 03:18:36]

Isn't the Mojo in 'cc::mojom::Mojo redundant with the namespace? Why not just
cc::mojom::CompositorFrameSinkPtr?

[Fady Samuel, 2016/10/21 03:25:16]

I agree it's redundant. I'll have a chat with cc folks who suggested this name
separately.

+  cc::mojom::MojoCompositorFrameSinkClientRequest client_request;
+  cc::mojom::MojoCompositorFrameSinkClientPtr surface_client_ptr;
   client_request = mojo::GetProxy(&surface_client_ptr);
   wt2()->AttachSurface(window_2_101, mojom::SurfaceType::DEFAULT,
                        mojo::GetProxy(&surface_ptr),
@@ -2162,8 +2162,7 @@ TEST_F(WindowTreeClientTest, SurfaceIdPropagation) {
                       gfx::Transform());
   compositor_frame.delegated_frame_data->render_pass_list.push_back(
       std::move(render_pass));
-  surface_ptr->SubmitCompositorFrame(std::move(compositor_frame),
-                                     base::Closure());
+  surface_ptr->SubmitCompositorFrame(std::move(compositor_frame));
   // Make sure the parent connection gets the surface ID.
   wt_client1()->WaitForChangeCount(1);
   // Verify that the submitted frame is for |window_2_101|.