Add browser version to device status reports.

Add browser version to device status reports.


patch from issue 7548001


BUG=22035
TEST=Confirm on the server side that the correct value is being received.


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=118280

[Patrick Dubroy, 2012-01-17 13:55:25]

Mattias, can you please review this?

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2012-01-18 13:54:01]

LGTM assuming the server side is treating the string as opaque.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9243007/diff/2001/chrome/browser/policy/device...
File chrome/browser/policy/device_status_collector.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9243007/diff/2001/chrome/browser/policy/device...
chrome/browser/policy/device_status_collector.cc:159:
request->set_browser_version(version_info.CreateVersionString());
That's cool as long as the string is not getting parsed into its components on
the server side. If they plan on doing that, we should rather send the
individual components of the full version string.

[Patrick Dubroy, 2012-01-18 14:58:08]

http://codereview.chromium.org/9243007/diff/2001/chrome/browser/policy/device...
File chrome/browser/policy/device_status_collector.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9243007/diff/2001/chrome/browser/policy/device...
chrome/browser/policy/device_status_collector.cc:159:
request->set_browser_version(version_info.CreateVersionString());
Good point -- I think we actually only want the version number.

On 2012/01/18 13:54:01, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> That's cool as long as the string is not getting parsed into its components on
> the server side. If they plan on doing that, we should rather send the
> individual components of the full version string.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-01-18 14:58:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dubroy@chromium.org/9243007/7001

[binzhao, 2012-01-18 18:03:11]

The server will treat it as a opaque string. I was thinking if the server
should just show the major version in the reporting, but Sumit pointed out
a minor version can mean a security patch. If we need different components
in the version, we will ask clients to parse them out.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:54 AM, <mnissler@chromium.org> wrote:

> LGTM assuming the server side is treating the string as opaque.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.**org/9243007/diff/2001/chrome/**
>
browser/policy/device_status_**collector.cc<http://codereview.chromium.org/9243007/diff/2001/chrome/browser/policy/device_status_collector.cc>
> File chrome/browser/policy/device_**status_collector.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.chromium.**org/9243007/diff/2001/chrome/**
>
browser/policy/device_status_**collector.cc#newcode159<http://codereview.chromium.org/9243007/diff/2001/chrome/browser/policy/device_status_collector.cc#newcode159>
> chrome/browser/policy/device_**status_collector.cc:159:
> request->set_browser_version(**version_info.**CreateVersionString());
> That's cool as long as the string is not getting parsed into its
> components on the server side. If they plan on doing that, we should
> rather send the individual components of the full version string.
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.**org/9243007/<http://codereview.chromium.org/9243...
>



-- 
regards,
Bin

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-01-19 09:11:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dubroy@chromium.org/9243007/7001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-01-19 10:26:15]

Change committed as 118280