New UMA settings fragment using Android prefs.

New UMA settings fragment using Android prefs.

Previous reverted CL is here (https://codereview.chromium.org/1080723002/) and the first patch set also corresponds to it.

The problem for revert was in profile_io_data.cc file because of initiating two preferences for Android. The kMetricsReportingEnabled was introduced for future consolidation of two preferences. I have removed the initialization for kMetricsReportingEnabled which shouldn't change the behavior as the metrics service is still using kCrashReportingEnabled and Android side updates both preferences.

Rest of the code is not changed and corresponds to the version that was LGTM-ed before.

BUG=455847
TBR=dfalcantara@chromium.org,nyquist@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/70b0d50a4b2f20457af64a2bffc56a3362b4b009
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327047}

[gayane -on leave until 09-2017, 2015-04-25 21:19:58]

Patchset #2 (id:20001) has been deleted

[gayane -on leave until 09-2017, 2015-04-25 22:41:20]

gayane@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ asvitkine@chromium.org

[gayane -on leave until 09-2017, 2015-04-25 22:41:21]

The problem for revert was in profile_io_data.cc file because of initiating two
preferences for Android. The kMetricsReportingEnabled was introduced for future
consolidation of two preferences. I have removed the initialization for
kMetricsReportingEnabled which shouldn't change the behavior as the metrics
service is still using kCrashReportingEnabled and Android side updates both
preferences.  

Rest of the code is not changed and corresponds to the version that was LGTM-ed
before.

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-04-26 13:45:30]

LGTM

Makes sense that we shouldn't be calling Init() twice with different prefs.
Wonder why this wasn't caught by the bots or local testing - as this should have
hit a DCHECK right?
(https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/base/prefs/pref_me...)

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-04-26 13:46:18]

(By the way, I think it's OK to TBR the other owners in this case who already
reviewed the rest of the change.)

[gayane -on leave until 09-2017, 2015-04-27 14:39:55]

On 2015/04/26 13:45:30, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> Makes sense that we shouldn't be calling Init() twice with different prefs.
> Wonder why this wasn't caught by the bots or local testing - as this should
have
> hit a DCHECK right?
>
(https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/base/prefs/pref_me...)

Well I am not sure about bots, but I was not consistent with my local testing :(

[gayane -on leave until 09-2017, 2015-04-27 14:40:06]

The CQ bit was checked by gayane@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 14:40:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1058433007/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 15:06:31]

Committed patchset #2 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 15:07:38]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/70b0d50a4b2f20457af64a2bffc56a3362b4b009
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327047}

[gayane -on leave until 09-2017, 2015-04-29 00:49:47]

Patchset #3 (id:60001) has been deleted