Add new Content settings type AUTO-SUBMIT-CERTIFICATE

content/browser/ssl/ssl_client_auth_handler.h

Index: content/browser/ssl/ssl_client_auth_handler.h
diff --git a/content/browser/ssl/ssl_client_auth_handler.h b/content/browser/ssl/ssl_client_auth_handler.h
index 4dbcaa77ade9aaccbff4a77186ce2912d7472bec..6a060eab9d1e84d39956a8bb339100187ca87958 100644
--- a/content/browser/ssl/ssl_client_auth_handler.h
+++ b/content/browser/ssl/ssl_client_auth_handler.h
@@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ class SSLClientAuthHandler
   void DoCertificateSelected(net::X509Certificate* cert);
 
   // Calls the SSL helper on the UI thread.
-  void ShowClientCertificateRequestDialog(int render_process_host_id,
-                                          int render_view_host_id);
+  void SelectClientCertificate(int render_process_host_id,

[wtc, 2011/08/11 18:33:55]

"SelectClientCertificate" is too similar to the public method
"SelectCertificate".

There are several conventions used in the Chromium tree to
indicate this relationship, including these two:

1. Foo() posts a task, and DoFoo() does the real work.

2. Foo() posts a task (to the UI Thread), and FooOnUIThread()
does the real work.

So, please rename this function DoSelectCertificate or
SelectCertificateOnUIThread.

Also, the "SSL helper" in the comment is not clear and may
be a little out of date.  In the .cc file, we are calling
content::GetContentClient()->browser() now, but it seems
that it ultimately calls TabContentsSSLHelper.  So,
"SSL helper" probably should be changed to "ContentBrowserClient"
or "TabContentsSSLHelper".

[markusheintz_, 2011/08/15 19:09:04]

Thanks a lot for the explanation.
I named it DoSelectCertificate since this convention is already by the
CertificateSelected/DoCertificateSelected method pair.
Maybe we should not mention any implementation details in the comment at all and
just describe the overall functionality of the method. (It "Selects a client
Certificate ...") then it's less likely that the comment get's outdated when the
implementation changes. Would that be fine with you?

[wtc, 2011/08/18 19:34:21]

Yes.  This is actually what the Style Guide recommends for
function comments in header files!

+                               int render_view_host_id);
 
   // The net::URLRequest that triggered this client auth.
   net::URLRequest* request_;