[Chrome OS] Add setting for enabling whitelisting to device policy proto

[Chrome OS] Add setting for enabling whitelisting to device policy proto

Today, we allow users to specify a whitelist but not enforce it.  I can see
an argument for changing this semantic...but in M13 :-)

Add a field to the device policy proto buffer so that we can avoid changing the UI right now.

BUG=13230
TEST=build chrome

R=jkummerow@chromium.org,gfeher@chromium.org

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=81263

[gfeher, 2011-04-12 16:18:29]

Sorry guys, I forgot to tell last time that field number 5 is already taken on
the server's side. Please shift fields 5,6,7 to 6,7,8. This was my fault, but
please fix it in this CL. I'll add number 5 when this is landed.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6825078/diff/1/chrome/browser/policy/proto/chr...
File chrome/browser/policy/proto/chrome_device_policy.proto (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6825078/diff/1/chrome/browser/policy/proto/chr...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/chrome_device_policy.proto:42: optional bool
allow_new_users = 1;
Do I understand correctly, that we only need this field to persist the state of
a checkbox on the GUI, but it is okay if the server never sets it to present?

[Chris Masone, 2011-04-12 16:22:39]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6825078/diff/1/chrome/browser/policy/proto/chr...
File chrome/browser/policy/proto/chrome_device_policy.proto (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6825078/diff/1/chrome/browser/policy/proto/chr...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/chrome_device_policy.proto:42: optional bool
allow_new_users = 1;
On 2011/04/12 16:18:29, gfeher wrote:
> Do I understand correctly, that we only need this field to persist the state
of
> a checkbox on the GUI, but it is okay if the server never sets it to present?

Essentially, yes.  We will use this to persist (and honor) the state of a
checkbox on the GUI, but the server never needs to worry about it.

I will advocate that we move away from the extra checkbox in the future as well,
but for now...this is the path of least resistance.

[gfeher, 2011-04-12 16:28:25]

Thanks.
LGTM

[Jakob Kummerow, 2011-04-12 16:36:20]

LGTM