Refactor the various ways to control what users can do to extensions.

chrome/browser/extensions/test_extension_system.cc

Index: chrome/browser/extensions/test_extension_system.cc
===================================================================
--- chrome/browser/extensions/test_extension_system.cc	(revision 138227)
+++ chrome/browser/extensions/test_extension_system.cc	(working copy)
@@ -64,10 +64,25 @@
   return extension_service_.get();
 }
 
+extensions::ManagementPolicy* TestExtensionSystem::CreateManagementPolicy() {
+  management_policy_.reset(new extensions::ManagementPolicy());
+
+  DCHECK(extension_prefs_.get());
+  management_policy_->RegisterProvider(extension_prefs_.get());
+  DCHECK(extension_service_.get());
+  management_policy_->RegisterProvider(extension_service_.get());
+
+  return management_policy_.get();
+}
+
 ExtensionService* TestExtensionSystem::extension_service() {
   return extension_service_.get();
 }
 
+extensions::ManagementPolicy* TestExtensionSystem::management_policy() {

[Aaron Boodman, 2012/05/22 15:56:11]

Why bother overriding this? ManagementPolicy is fine to use in tests as it is...
if callers want they can ClearProviders() on it and add their own. Seems a
little simpler.

[Pam (message me for reviews), 2012/05/23 15:00:58]

TestExtensionSystem is a subclass of ExtensionSystem, not of
ExtensionSystemImpl, so we need to implement the abstract method here. And
management_policy_ is private to ExtensionSystemImpl::Shared, normally exposed
only via the ExtensionSystemImpl, so we need a local one for testing.

+  return management_policy_.get();
+}
+
 void TestExtensionSystem::SetExtensionService(ExtensionService* service) {
   extension_service_.reset(service);
 }