Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in cookie_util.mm.

Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in cookie_util.mm.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=droger@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2878943002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#473694}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/b4ee2b4a14244ae634817e234a3c911c0cf5a099

[fdoray, 2017-05-12 17:41:38]

The CQ bit was checked by fdoray@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[fdoray, 2017-05-12 17:41:39]

Please take a look.

This CL was generated automatically.

The base::MayBlock() trait was specified for all call sites and the
base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND trait was specified for all non-test call sites.
That may not be appropriate for your use case.

Please verify that appropriate traits were used
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/base/task_scheduler/task_traits.h
If everything looks good, lgtm and CQ this CL. Otherwise, tell us what's wrong.

Thanks.

- FAQ -

What if bots are red? Ignore this CL. A human will look at errors shortly.

What if the shutdown behavior is not set explicitly (no
base::TaskShutdownBehavior)?
If shutdown behavior is important for a task, it should be set explicitly.
It's not necessary to specify it if you're fine with either BLOCK_SHUTDOWN or
SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN. Note that the default shutdown behavior is BLOCK_SHUTDOWN in
SequencedWorkerPool and SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN in TaskScheduler.

What if the task priority is not set explicitly (no base::TaskPriority)?
When there is no explicit priority, the priority is inherited from the
calling context (e.g. a task posted from a BACKGROUND task without an
explicit priority will have a BACKGROUND priority).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 17:43:00]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 18:35:25]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-12 18:35:27]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[fdoray, 2017-05-19 19:13:43]

Description was changed from

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in cookie_util.mm.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=droger@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in cookie_util.mm.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=droger@chromium.org
==========

[fdoray, 2017-05-19 19:13:43]

fdoray@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rohitrao@chromium.org

[fdoray, 2017-05-19 19:14:41]

On 2017/05/12 17:41:39, fdoray wrote:
> Please take a look.
> 
> This CL was generated automatically.
> 
> The base::MayBlock() trait was specified for all call sites and the
> base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND trait was specified for all non-test call
sites.
> That may not be appropriate for your use case.
> 
> Please verify that appropriate traits were used
> https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/base/task_scheduler/task_traits.h
> If everything looks good, lgtm and CQ this CL. Otherwise, tell us what's
wrong.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - FAQ -
> 
> What if bots are red? Ignore this CL. A human will look at errors shortly.
> 
> What if the shutdown behavior is not set explicitly (no
> base::TaskShutdownBehavior)?
> If shutdown behavior is important for a task, it should be set explicitly.
> It's not necessary to specify it if you're fine with either BLOCK_SHUTDOWN or
> SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN. Note that the default shutdown behavior is BLOCK_SHUTDOWN in
> SequencedWorkerPool and SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN in TaskScheduler.
> 
> What if the task priority is not set explicitly (no base::TaskPriority)?
> When there is no explicit priority, the priority is inherited from the
> calling context (e.g. a task posted from a BACKGROUND task without an
> explicit priority will have a BACKGROUND priority).

+rohitrao@chromium.org (no reply from droger in 1 week)

[rohitrao (ping after 24h), 2017-05-22 12:58:08]

lgtm

[fdoray, 2017-05-22 20:56:28]

The CQ bit was checked by fdoray@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-22 20:56:52]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-22 21:12:37]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1495486588665810, "parent_rev":
"8c780e9d6bd5a1917f99c6daa4b9d0b1d258e2f5", "commit_rev":
"b4ee2b4a14244ae634817e234a3c911c0cf5a099"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-22 21:13:21]

Description was changed from

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in cookie_util.mm.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=droger@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in cookie_util.mm.

SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.

BUG=667892
R=droger@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2878943002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#473694}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/b4ee2b4a14244ae634817e234a3c...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-22 21:13:23]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/b4ee2b4a14244ae634817e234a3c...