favor DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON for better logs in components/ (part 2)

favor DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON for better logs in components/ (part 2)

BUG=466848
Committed: https://crrev.com/9125861b525058c9b2b03d697ae16fa58a334e07
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#326483}

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-03-30 23:00:25]

The CQ bit was checked by mostynb@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-03-30 23:00:31]

The CQ bit was unchecked by mostynb@opera.com

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-04-21 09:48:05]

mostynb@opera.com changed reviewers:
+ caitkp@chromium.org

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-04-21 09:48:06]

@caitkp: please take a look...

[Cait (Slow), 2015-04-23 00:02:37]

LGTM

nit: you use content::BrowserThread::FILE in some places and BrowserThread::FILE
in others. Might be good to stick with one or the other for consistency.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
File components/storage_monitor/image_capture_device.mm (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
components/storage_monitor/image_capture_device.mm:16:
DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::FILE);
content::BrowserThread::FILE?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
File components/storage_monitor/storage_monitor_chromeos.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
components/storage_monitor/storage_monitor_chromeos.cc:82:
DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::FILE);
content::BrowserThread::FILE?

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-04-23 07:43:16]

This should be consistent within each file now.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
File components/storage_monitor/image_capture_device.mm (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
components/storage_monitor/image_capture_device.mm:16:
DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::FILE);
On 2015/04/23 00:02:37, Cait wrote:
> content::BrowserThread::FILE?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
File components/storage_monitor/storage_monitor_chromeos.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
components/storage_monitor/storage_monitor_chromeos.cc:82:
DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::FILE);
On 2015/04/23 00:02:37, Cait wrote:
> content::BrowserThread::FILE?

The other DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON's in this file don't seem to need the content
namespace added here, so I think it's better to leave this one without it also. 
It's less to read, and I don't think it's dangerous or anything.

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-04-23 07:43:32]

The CQ bit was checked by mostynb@opera.com

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-04-23 07:43:32]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from caitkp@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/#ps80001
(title: "improve namespace consistency some more within each file")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-23 07:43:48]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1043013002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-23 08:04:54]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-23 08:04:55]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_gn_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-04-23 08:15:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
File components/storage_monitor/storage_monitor_chromeos.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/diff/40001/components/storage_moni...
components/storage_monitor/storage_monitor_chromeos.cc:82:
DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::FILE);
On 2015/04/23 07:43:16, Mostyn Bramley-Moore wrote:
> On 2015/04/23 00:02:37, Cait wrote:
> > content::BrowserThread::FILE?
> 
> The other DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON's in this file don't seem to need the content
> namespace added here, so I think it's better to leave this one without it
also. 
> It's less to read, and I don't think it's dangerous or anything.

Looks like it is needed after all- fixed in the latest patchset.

I will adjust my sed script to be more careful about this.

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-04-23 08:15:30]

The CQ bit was checked by mostynb@opera.com

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2015-04-23 08:15:30]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from caitkp@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1043013002/#ps100001
(title: "content namespace needed after all")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-23 08:15:47]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1043013002/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-23 09:26:34]

Committed patchset #6 (id:100001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-23 09:27:31]

Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/9125861b525058c9b2b03d697ae16fa58a334e07
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#326483}