Add events for configuring and adding new providers to FSP API.

Add events for configuring and adding new providers to FSP API.

According to the newest mocks, the file systems will be managable from Files
app. In order to do that, both of the events are required.

TEST=None.
BUG=474146
R=benwells@chromium.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/3d79d9d3a86111d9047d5cc77d61db7978afc392

[mtomasz, 2015-04-14 10:18:31]

mtomasz@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ benwells@chromium.org

[mtomasz, 2015-04-14 10:18:32]

@benwells: PTAL. Thanks.

[benwells, 2015-04-15 01:13:43]

I'd prefer to see the IDL to come in at the same time as the implementation to
make it less theoretical.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/ap...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/ap...
chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl:653:
ConfigureRequestedOptions options,
Where is ConfigureRequestedOptions defined?

[mtomasz, 2015-04-15 03:34:27]

I added also basic wiring for the new events. More, I'll add in a separate CL,
as it would make this CL huge. PTAL, thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/ap...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/ap...
chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl:653:
ConfigureRequestedOptions options,
On 2015/04/15 01:13:42, benwells wrote:
> Where is ConfigureRequestedOptions defined?

Sorry, I uploaded an incorrect patch. Done.

[benwells, 2015-04-16 00:29:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
File chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure.cc:1: //
Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
Nit: 2015

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
File chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure.h
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure.h:1: //
Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
Nit: 2015

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
File
chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure_unittest.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure_unittest.cc:1:
// Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
Nit: 2015

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl:663: [maxListeners=1]
static void onConfigureRequested(
Should this be nodoc until the implementation is real?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl:673:
ProviderSuccessCallback successCallback,
What about options? I'd have thought providing options to this (e.g. url for a
web based file system) makes sense.

[mtomasz, 2015-04-16 01:07:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
File chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure.cc:1: //
Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2015/04/16 00:29:35, benwells wrote:
> Nit: 2015

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
File chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure.h
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure.h:1: //
Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2015/04/16 00:29:35, benwells wrote:
> Nit: 2015

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
File
chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure_unittest.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chromeos...
chrome/browser/chromeos/file_system_provider/operations/configure_unittest.cc:1:
// Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2015/04/16 00:29:35, benwells wrote:
> Nit: 2015

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl:663: [maxListeners=1]
static void onConfigureRequested(
On 2015/04/16 00:29:35, benwells wrote:
> Should this be nodoc until the implementation is real?

This is going to be shipped in M44. I can add [nodoc], but there is already
updated documentation in fileBrowserPrivate.html which refers to these methods.
I could revert that documentation changes and add [nodoc] if you prefer.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl:673:
ProviderSuccessCallback successCallback,
On 2015/04/16 00:29:36, benwells wrote:
> What about options? I'd have thought providing options to this (e.g. url for a
> web based file system) makes sense.

It's responsibility of the providing extension to ask user for details such as
urls, credentials, ports, captchas, etc. As the options are different for each
providing extension, we decided to put the responsibility to show the UI on
providing extensions, rather than to try to create some general purpose dialog
on the File System Provider API implementation side.

In most cases, for onMountRequest providing extensions will show a dialog for
credentials/urls and whatever is required to make a mount. onConfigureRequested
will show the same dialog but with prefilled fields for already mounted file
system.

[benwells, 2015-04-16 01:15:32]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl:663: [maxListeners=1]
static void onConfigureRequested(
On 2015/04/16 01:07:28, mtomasz wrote:
> On 2015/04/16 00:29:35, benwells wrote:
> > Should this be nodoc until the implementation is real?
> 
> This is going to be shipped in M44. I can add [nodoc], but there is already
> updated documentation in fileBrowserPrivate.html which refers to these
methods.
> I could revert that documentation changes and add [nodoc] if you prefer.

Having documentation for new things that work is fine, as the documentation
should make it clear that the new thing is only available in whatever release it
comes in. As these functions are currently unimplemented / half implemented
(that's my understanding) they shouldn't be documented anywhere. If they are,
some poor developer will think the API is ready on dev channel and try to use
it.

Does that make sense?

[mtomasz, 2015-04-16 01:24:16]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1088883002/diff/60001/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/api/file_system_provider.idl:663: [maxListeners=1]
static void onConfigureRequested(
On 2015/04/16 01:15:32, benwells wrote:
> On 2015/04/16 01:07:28, mtomasz wrote:
> > On 2015/04/16 00:29:35, benwells wrote:
> > > Should this be nodoc until the implementation is real?
> > 
> > This is going to be shipped in M44. I can add [nodoc], but there is already
> > updated documentation in fileBrowserPrivate.html which refers to these
> methods.
> > I could revert that documentation changes and add [nodoc] if you prefer.
> 
> Having documentation for new things that work is fine, as the documentation
> should make it clear that the new thing is only available in whatever release
it
> comes in. As these functions are currently unimplemented / half implemented
> (that's my understanding) they shouldn't be documented anywhere. If they are,
> some poor developer will think the API is ready on dev channel and try to use
> it.
> 
> Does that make sense?

Makes sense. I reverted the documentation and added nodoc.

[benwells, 2015-04-16 01:34:31]

lgtm

[mtomasz, 2015-04-16 01:38:45]

The CQ bit was checked by mtomasz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-16 01:39:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1088883002/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-16 02:28:50]

Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/3d79d9d3a86111d9047d5cc77d61db7978afc392
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#325379}

[mtomasz, 2015-04-16 02:29:14]

Committed patchset #6 (id:100001) manually as
3d79d9d3a86111d9047d5cc77d61db7978afc392 (presubmit successful).