Add ChromeRenderViewHostTestHarness to get rid of the dependency from RVHTH to profile

chrome/browser/ui/tab_contents/test_tab_contents_wrapper.cc

Index: chrome/browser/ui/tab_contents/test_tab_contents_wrapper.cc
diff --git a/chrome/browser/ui/tab_contents/test_tab_contents_wrapper.cc b/chrome/browser/ui/tab_contents/test_tab_contents_wrapper.cc
index 34f298530cadf8be11aa945be60f7a623e1f3122..26fcc08bf6df0a89a227796e4ae02e097d19cbbf 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/ui/tab_contents/test_tab_contents_wrapper.cc
+++ b/chrome/browser/ui/tab_contents/test_tab_contents_wrapper.cc
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 #include "content/browser/tab_contents/test_tab_contents.h"
 
 TabContentsWrapperTestHarness::TabContentsWrapperTestHarness()
-    : RenderViewHostTestHarness() {
+    : ChromeRenderViewHostTestHarness() {
 }
 
 TabContentsWrapperTestHarness::~TabContentsWrapperTestHarness() {
@@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ void TabContentsWrapperTestHarness::SetContents(TestTabContents* contents) {
 }
 
 void TabContentsWrapperTestHarness::SetUp() {
+  if (!browser_context_.get())

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2011/09/13 19:16:36]

Is this needed? Why don't we call ChromeRender...TestHarness::SetUp here?

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2011/09/13 19:39:36]

because that would create a "raw" tab contents. TabContentsWrapperTestHarness
overrides all those methods to use contents_wrapper_ instead

+    browser_context_.reset(new TestingProfile());
   SetContents(CreateTestTabContents());
 }
 
@@ -36,10 +38,10 @@ void TabContentsWrapperTestHarness::TearDown() {
   contents_wrapper_.reset();
 
   // Make sure that we flush any messages related to TabContents destruction
-  // before we destroy the profile.
+  // before we destroy the browser context.
   MessageLoop::current()->RunAllPending();
 
-  // Release the profile on the UI thread.
-  message_loop_.DeleteSoon(FROM_HERE, profile_.release());
+  // Release the browser context on the UI thread.
+  message_loop_.DeleteSoon(FROM_HERE, browser_context_.release());
   message_loop_.RunAllPending();

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2011/09/13 19:16:36]

Why don't we call parent's TearDown here?

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2011/09/13 19:39:36]

because we didn't invoke the parent's setup

 }