Rename network configuration policy as per Zhanyong's proposal.

Rename network configuration policy as per Zhanyong's proposal.

BUG=None
TEST=compiles and passes tests.

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=107124

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011-10-24 15:35:04]

Please review! Zhanyong, please let me know whether these names work for you.

[wan, 2011-10-24 17:12:49]

lgtm

Just one question.  Thanks!

http://codereview.chromium.org/8382005/diff/1/chrome/app/policy/policy_templa...
File chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8382005/diff/1/chrome/app/policy/policy_templa...
chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json:1834: 'id': 107,
Is this the id for the protobuf field?  In the internal change you sent out, the
OpenNetworkConfiguration field has id 109.  Do they not need to match?

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011-10-25 08:48:54]

Julian: friendly ping.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8382005/diff/1/chrome/app/policy/policy_templa...
File chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8382005/diff/1/chrome/app/policy/policy_templa...
chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json:1834: 'id': 107,
On 2011/10/24 17:12:49, wan wrote:
> Is this the id for the protobuf field?  In the internal change you sent out,
the
> OpenNetworkConfiguration field has id 109.  Do they not need to match?

Sigh. Ideally they would match. In practice, the protobuf IDs are off-by-two
from the IDs given here for legacy reasons. Needless to say I'm not very happy
with that... That said, the user-level policy protobuf has even more weirdness,
the most obvious being that multi-setting policies (such as proxy policy, you'd
probably call them policy groups) is not in one message, but goes into 5
different messages. I'd love to clean this up eventually, but it's quite an
effort :)

[pastarmovj, 2011-10-25 08:52:06]

LGTM! Sorry that I haven't spotted that review request earlier.

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011-10-25 14:14:32]

Had to fix a unit test, still good?

[pastarmovj, 2011-10-25 14:22:29]

yep still good! :) LGTM