Implement pref policy for disabling incognito mode.

chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json

Index: chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json
===================================================================
--- chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json	(revision 72113)
+++ chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json	(working copy)
@@ -206,6 +206,19 @@
       If this setting is disabled, web pages cannot use JavaScript.''',
     },
     {
+      'name': 'IncognitoEnabled',

[danno, 2011/01/24 12:09:10]

I'm wondering if this is one of those policies where the polarity should be
reversed (like disabling Sync) and should be called "IncognitoDisabled". That
seems to be the pattern we've de facto adopted for policies that could be
phrased as "XXXXEnable" but for which enabling them would have no effect.

[Finnur, 2011/01/24 13:14:32]

Well, I think we are a bit inconsistent here as we use JavascriptEnabled, for
example, and leaving it default means it is enabled. Personally, I've been
bitten using the term  fooDisabled (in a previous life when designing settings
pages) due to double-negative confusion of when setting them to false. You don't
have that problem with fooEnabled.

On 2011/01/24 12:09:10, danno wrote:

[danno, 2011/01/24 14:45:42]

I don't feel that strongly about it, but . Maybe you might want to ask Mattias
for his opinion.

On 2011/01/24 13:14:32, Finnur wrote:

[Finnur, 2011/01/24 18:43:10]

Who? Nissler?

On 2011/01/24 14:45:42, danno wrote:

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/01/25 09:33:43]

I'm OK with both. For some bits we've just mimicked what the command line and/or
prefs do, otherwise I've loosely followed the rule to name it according to what
admins would intend when they set it, i.e. the main use case.

+      'type': 'main',
+      'supported_on': ['chrome.win:11-'],

[danno, 2011/01/24 14:45:42]

why only on windows? otherwise you need chrome.* BTW, if you get this committed
today, won't it also be in Chrome 10? e.g.:
chrome.*:10-

[Finnur, 2011/01/24 18:43:10]

Because I don't run any OS' other than Windows at the moment so I can't test any
changes I would make. My Linux box is dead in the water and I've never had a
Mac.

As for v10 or 11, I didn't want to rush it for 10, so I put 11. 


On 2011/01/24 14:45:42, danno wrote:

+      'features': {'dynamic_refresh': 0},

[danno, 2011/01/24 12:09:10]

You use a BooleanPrefMember? That's should properly respond to preference
changes, so can't this be a "1"?

[Finnur, 2011/01/24 13:14:32]

Ah, I'm glad you caught this. I meant to ask you about this, as I'm not sure
what this does and it is not well documented at the top of this file nor in the
checkin/associated bug.

But I have flipped the bit here.


On 2011/01/24 12:09:10, danno wrote:

+      'example_value': True,

[danno, 2011/01/24 14:45:42]

Example value should be False, since True doesn't actually do anything.

[Finnur, 2011/01/24 18:43:10]

Done.

On 2011/01/24 14:45:42, danno wrote:

+      'caption': '''Enable Incognito mode''',
+      'desc': '''Enables Incognito mode in <ph name="PRODUCT_NAME">$1<ex>Google Chrome</ex></ph>.
+
+      If this setting is enabled or not configured, users can open web pages in incognito mode.
+
+      If this setting is disabled, users cannot open web pages in incognito mode.''',
+    },
+    {
       'name': 'SavingBrowserHistoryDisabled',
       'type': 'main',
       'supported_on': ['chrome.*:8-'],