Add flag to disable full PAN storage.

Add flag to disable full PAN storage.

currently this flag is not used, but we'll soon flip it to off for desktop linux.

BUG=468045
Committed: https://crrev.com/056211ede394beefca4b2baee05a8fe9574d5302
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#322510}

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-17 20:24:09]

estade@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rouslan@chromium.org

[please use gerrit instead, 2015-03-17 20:30:45]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1012223002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/autofill/...
File chrome/browser/ui/autofill/card_unmask_prompt_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1012223002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/autofill/...
chrome/browser/ui/autofill/card_unmask_prompt_controller_impl.cc:93: #if
defined(OS_LINUX)
I've seen code that checks for OS_LINUX && !OS_CHROMEOS. For example:

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/ui/views/views_del...

I think OS_LINUX is true on OS_CHROMEOS, so your change is also effective on
ChromeOS.

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-17 22:24:34]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1012223002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/autofill/...
File chrome/browser/ui/autofill/card_unmask_prompt_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1012223002/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/autofill/...
chrome/browser/ui/autofill/card_unmask_prompt_controller_impl.cc:93: #if
defined(OS_LINUX)
On 2015/03/17 20:30:45, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote:
> I've seen code that checks for OS_LINUX && !OS_CHROMEOS. For example:
> 
>
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/ui/views/views_del...
> 
> I think OS_LINUX is true on OS_CHROMEOS, so your change is also effective on
> ChromeOS.

good point. I've changed tactics though. I added a new build-time flag which
defaults one way on Linux and the other way elsewhere. This allows us more
flexibility to make changes (doesn't require a code change).

[please use gerrit instead, 2015-03-17 22:30:33]

lgtm

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-17 22:35:58]

estade@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ scottmg@chromium.org

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-17 22:35:58]

+scottmg for common.gypi

[scottmg, 2015-03-17 23:08:57]

lgtm

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-18 00:40:51]

On 2015/03/17 23:08:57, scottmg wrote:
> lgtm

thanks for review. FWIW we're going to hold off on landing this for a little
while, but I do plan to land this without any changes in a week or so.

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-26 02:10:19]

updated/rebased, ptal

[scottmg, 2015-03-26 02:13:31]

The description doesn't match common.gypi now. It's supposed to be always on
now? Probably better to simplify the gypi then?

[please use gerrit instead, 2015-03-26 15:30:44]

On 2015/03/26 02:13:31, scottmg wrote:
> The description doesn't match common.gypi now. It's supposed to be always on
> now? Probably better to simplify the gypi then?

"set to 0 for Linux before M43 branch" means we should keep it as 1 for now, but
change it to 0 later (only on Linux). It's a bit confusing comment, but it's
essentially correct.

[please use gerrit instead, 2015-03-26 15:31:04]

On 2015/03/26 02:10:19, Evan Stade wrote:
> updated/rebased, ptal

still lgtm.

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-26 15:33:26]

On 2015/03/26 02:13:31, scottmg wrote:
> The description doesn't match common.gypi now. It's supposed to be always on
> now? Probably better to simplify the gypi then?

It is not used in the sense that it's always the same value.

The point of the gypi change is to be as close as possible to what we'll want to
have on April 10th (branch date).

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-26 23:01:15]

On 2015/03/26 15:33:26, Evan Stade wrote:
> On 2015/03/26 02:13:31, scottmg wrote:
> > The description doesn't match common.gypi now. It's supposed to be always on
> > now? Probably better to simplify the gypi then?
> 
> It is not used in the sense that it's always the same value.
> 
> The point of the gypi change is to be as close as possible to what we'll want
to
> have on April 10th (branch date).

ping scottmg

[scottmg, 2015-03-26 23:01:55]

On 2015/03/26 23:01:15, Evan Stade wrote:
> On 2015/03/26 15:33:26, Evan Stade wrote:
> > On 2015/03/26 02:13:31, scottmg wrote:
> > > The description doesn't match common.gypi now. It's supposed to be always
on
> > > now? Probably better to simplify the gypi then?
> > 
> > It is not used in the sense that it's always the same value.
> > 
> > The point of the gypi change is to be as close as possible to what we'll
want
> to
> > have on April 10th (branch date).
> 
> ping scottmg

oh, sorry, yeah. go ahead. lgtm.

[Evan Stade, 2015-03-26 23:03:02]

The CQ bit was checked by estade@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-03-26 23:03:24]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1012223002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-03-27 00:37:19]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-03-27 00:38:01]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/056211ede394beefca4b2baee05a8fe9574d5302
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#322510}