Remove BooleanPrefMember usage from Data Reduction Proxy IO classes.

Remove BooleanPrefMember usage from Data Reduction Proxy IO classes.

The UI objects (specifically DataReductionProxySettings) already creates
a BooleanPrefMember for kDataReductionProxyEnabled and checks for changes
on it, then propagates this information to DataReductionProxyIOData via
DataReductionProxyIOData::SetProxyPrefs.

It also negates the need to pass a BooleanPrefMember to BypassStats when
ultimately all we care about is the boolean value.

BUG=472290
Committed: https://crrev.com/a0ad227fe2d8630e34c1bc7c752957b2666c01ff
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327138}

[jeremyim, 2015-04-22 23:19:20]

jeremyim@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ bengr@chromium.org

[jeremyim, 2015-04-22 23:19:25]

PTAL. =)

[jeremyim, 2015-04-23 00:05:01]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[bengr, 2015-04-27 16:00:07]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_io_data.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_io_data.cc:156:
enabled_ = enabled;
Can this be part of the constructor?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_network_delegate.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_network_delegate.cc:191:
*request, data_reduction_proxy_io_data_->IsEnabled(),
Ideally, DRPNetworkDelegate wouldn't have such upcalls, but I see it already
does.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_settings.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_settings.cc:114:
DataReductionProxyParams::ShouldForceEnableDataReductionProxy();
Is DRPParams now thread agnostic?

[jeremyim, 2015-04-27 16:27:02]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_io_data.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_io_data.cc:156:
enabled_ = enabled;
On 2015/04/27 16:00:07, bengr wrote:
> Can this be part of the constructor?

Probably; do we just set it to false for non-Chrome instances (since we call
this method in drp_chrome_io_data right after construction, we have the
"correct" value available to us)?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_network_delegate.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_network_delegate.cc:191:
*request, data_reduction_proxy_io_data_->IsEnabled(),
On 2015/04/27 16:00:07, bengr wrote:
> Ideally, DRPNetworkDelegate wouldn't have such upcalls, but I see it already
> does. 

Yeah... we could use a callback here, but we already have the io_data_ pointer.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_settings.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_settings.cc:114:
DataReductionProxyParams::ShouldForceEnableDataReductionProxy();
On 2015/04/27 16:00:07, bengr wrote:
> Is DRPParams now thread agnostic?

All the static methods are thread agnostic (they are command line/finch checks).

[bengr, 2015-04-27 16:28:22]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_io_data.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_io_data.cc:156:
enabled_ = enabled;
On 2015/04/27 16:27:02, jeremyim wrote:
> On 2015/04/27 16:00:07, bengr wrote:
> > Can this be part of the constructor?
> 
> Probably; do we just set it to false for non-Chrome instances (since we call
> this method in drp_chrome_io_data right after construction, we have the
> "correct" value available to us)?

I think so.

[jeremyim, 2015-04-27 20:00:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_io_data.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/20001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_io_data.cc:156:
enabled_ = enabled;
On 2015/04/27 16:28:21, bengr wrote:
> On 2015/04/27 16:27:02, jeremyim wrote:
> > On 2015/04/27 16:00:07, bengr wrote:
> > > Can this be part of the constructor?
> > 
> > Probably; do we just set it to false for non-Chrome instances (since we call
> > this method in drp_chrome_io_data right after construction, we have the
> > "correct" value available to us)?
> 
> I think so.

Done.

[bengr, 2015-04-27 20:04:50]

lgtm with nit

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/60001/components/data_reducti...
File
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_test_utils.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1057473003/diff/60001/components/data_reducti...
components/data_reduction_proxy/core/browser/data_reduction_proxy_test_utils.cc:196:
enabled_ = enabled;
Why not call enabled_'s constructor: enabled_(enabled)

[jeremyim, 2015-04-27 20:07:09]

jeremyim@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ sgurun@chromium.org

[jeremyim, 2015-04-27 20:07:10]

sgurun => Please review changes in aw_browser_context.cc

Thanks!

[sgurun-gerrit only, 2015-04-27 20:23:11]

On 2015/04/27 20:07:10, jeremyim wrote:
> sgurun => Please review changes in aw_browser_context.cc
> 
> Thanks!

lgtm

[jeremyim, 2015-04-27 20:44:32]

The CQ bit was checked by jeremyim@chromium.org

[jeremyim, 2015-04-27 20:44:39]

On 2015/04/27 20:23:11, sgurun wrote:
> On 2015/04/27 20:07:10, jeremyim wrote:
> > sgurun => Please review changes in aw_browser_context.cc
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> lgtm

Thank you both!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 20:44:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1057473003/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 21:38:34]

Committed patchset #3 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 21:39:43]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/a0ad227fe2d8630e34c1bc7c752957b2666c01ff
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327138}