Rename methods and members and const variables to alternative service.

Rename methods and members and const variables to alternative service.

Rename methods and members and const variables from "alternate protocol" to
"alternative service":

* alternate_protocol_probability_threshold_ to
  alternative_service_probability_threshold_ in HttpServerPropertiesImpl,
* switches::kAlternateProtocolProbabilityThreshold to
  switches::kAlternativeServiceProbabilityThreshold,
* test names in IOThreadTest,
* SetAlternateProtocolProbabilityThreshold() to
  SetAlternativeServiceProbabilityThreshold(),
* GetAlternateProtocolProbabilityThreshold() to
  GetAlternativeServiceProbabilityThreshold(),
* remove obsolete force-alt-protocols from comments in io_thread.cc,
* "Alternate Protocol" to "Alternative Service" in NetInternals user facing
  QUIC page,
* alternate_protocol_probability_threshold to
  alternative_service_probability_threshold in IOThread::Globals and
  HttpNetworkSession::Params.

BUG=392575
Committed: https://crrev.com/62891a5fe6637cb5d07b2ecc137d145969de6db6
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327038}

[Bence, 2015-04-23 18:44:43]

bnc@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rch@chromium.org

[Bence, 2015-04-23 18:44:43]

Ryan, PTAL.  Thanks.

[eroman, 2015-04-23 20:04:11]

eroman@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ eroman@chromium.org

[eroman, 2015-04-23 20:04:11]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/ne...
File chrome/browser/resources/net_internals/quic_view.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/ne...
chrome/browser/resources/net_internals/quic_view.html:4: <li>Alternative Service
Probability Threshold: <span
jscontent="alternative_service_probability_threshold"></span></li>
This is going to affect loading of older log files in the newer UI.

Can you use a solution similar to what you did for alternate_protocol:

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/00e45adb7d8edc7685a5f7e3...

In other words, check for both the old and new property, and add a comment
indicating when it is safe to drop support for the old property.

[Bence, 2015-04-24 14:24:59]

bnc@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ pauljensen@chromium.org

[Bence, 2015-04-24 14:24:59]

Eric: good catch.  PTAL at
chrome/browser/resources/net_internals/quic_view.html.
Paul: PTAL at components/cronet/andoid/*
Ryan: PTAL at everything else.

Thank you all.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/ne...
File chrome/browser/resources/net_internals/quic_view.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/ne...
chrome/browser/resources/net_internals/quic_view.html:4: <li>Alternative Service
Probability Threshold: <span
jscontent="alternative_service_probability_threshold"></span></li>
On 2015/04/23 20:04:11, eroman wrote:
> This is going to affect loading of older log files in the newer UI.
> 
> Can you use a solution similar to what you did for alternate_protocol:
> 
>
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/00e45adb7d8edc7685a5f7e3...
> 
> In other words, check for both the old and new property, and add a comment
> indicating when it is safe to drop support for the old property.

Done.

[Ryan Hamilton, 2015-04-24 14:35:59]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
File chrome/browser/io_thread.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
chrome/browser/io_thread.cc:1466: "alternative_service_probability_threshold"),
This change will break our existing finch configurations. Please revert (or at
least add fallback to the old key).

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
File chrome/browser/io_thread_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
chrome/browser/io_thread_unittest.cc:425:
command_line_.AppendSwitchASCII("alternate-protocol-probability-threshold",
I'm surprised you're keeping the command line flag. Did you intend to change it?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
chrome/browser/io_thread_unittest.cc:445:
field_trial_params_["alternative_service_probability_threshold"] = ".5";
The old version of this test needs to continue to pass after this change. Feel
free to add a new one for the new behavior.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/common/chrome_sw...
File chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/common/chrome_sw...
chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc:71: "alternate-protocol-probability-threshold";
Should we change the flag too? It's confusing that the name of the flag does not
match the actual flag.

[pauljensen, 2015-04-24 14:37:59]

components/cronet/android/ lgtm

[eroman, 2015-04-24 18:19:58]

chrome/browser/resources/net_internals/quic_view.html LGTM

[Bence, 2015-04-24 21:36:02]

Ryan, PTAL.  Thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
File chrome/browser/io_thread.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
chrome/browser/io_thread.cc:1466: "alternative_service_probability_threshold"),
On 2015/04/24 14:35:59, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> This change will break our existing finch configurations. Please revert (or at
> least add fallback to the old key).

Good catch.  Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
File chrome/browser/io_thread_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
chrome/browser/io_thread_unittest.cc:425:
command_line_.AppendSwitchASCII("alternate-protocol-probability-threshold",
On 2015/04/24 14:35:59, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> I'm surprised you're keeping the command line flag. Did you intend to change
it?

See reply to comment in chrome_flags.cc.  I did not intend to change it, but I
can if you think it's a good idea.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/browser/io_threa...
chrome/browser/io_thread_unittest.cc:445:
field_trial_params_["alternative_service_probability_threshold"] = ".5";
On 2015/04/24 14:35:59, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> The old version of this test needs to continue to pass after this change. Feel
> free to add a new one for the new behavior.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/common/chrome_sw...
File chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/common/chrome_sw...
chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc:71: "alternate-protocol-probability-threshold";
On 2015/04/24 14:35:59, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> Should we change the flag too? It's confusing that the name of the flag does
not
> match the actual flag.

I was thinking that since command line flags are meant to be temporary, but they
might be saved by developers in scripts, shortcut properties, and shell history,
it is generally not worth changing them.  Indeed some of them have semantics
unrelated to their name.  Before asking if we should change it, maybe we should
first ask if we can remove it.

If you think this flag will need to stay around for a while, I would be happy to
rename it.

[Bence, 2015-04-24 21:36:03]

Ryan, PTAL.  Thanks.

[Ryan Hamilton, 2015-04-24 21:54:00]

LGTM, modulo changing either the flag or the kConstant. (I recommend just
changing the flag, but either way.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/common/chrome_sw...
File chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/common/chrome_sw...
chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc:71: "alternate-protocol-probability-threshold";
On 2015/04/24 21:36:02, Bence wrote:
> On 2015/04/24 14:35:59, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> > Should we change the flag too? It's confusing that the name of the flag does
> not
> > match the actual flag.
> 
> I was thinking that since command line flags are meant to be temporary, but
they
> might be saved by developers in scripts, shortcut properties, and shell
history,
> it is generally not worth changing them.  Indeed some of them have semantics
> unrelated to their name.  Before asking if we should change it, maybe we
should
> first ask if we can remove it.
> 
> If you think this flag will need to stay around for a while, I would be happy
to
> rename it.

Personally, I would just change it. If you decide to not change the flag, I
would not change the kAltConstant.

[Bence, 2015-04-27 13:15:17]

Thank you both.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/common/chrome_sw...
File chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/diff/20001/chrome/common/chrome_sw...
chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc:71: "alternate-protocol-probability-threshold";
On 2015/04/24 21:54:00, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> On 2015/04/24 21:36:02, Bence wrote:
> > On 2015/04/24 14:35:59, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> > > Should we change the flag too? It's confusing that the name of the flag
does
> > not
> > > match the actual flag.
> > 
> > I was thinking that since command line flags are meant to be temporary, but
> they
> > might be saved by developers in scripts, shortcut properties, and shell
> history,
> > it is generally not worth changing them.  Indeed some of them have semantics
> > unrelated to their name.  Before asking if we should change it, maybe we
> should
> > first ask if we can remove it.
> > 
> > If you think this flag will need to stay around for a while, I would be
happy
> to
> > rename it.
> 
> Personally, I would just change it. If you decide to not change the flag, I
> would not change the kAltConstant.

Thank you for your recommendation.  Done.

[Bence, 2015-04-27 13:15:38]

The CQ bit was checked by bnc@chromium.org

[Bence, 2015-04-27 13:15:39]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
pauljensen@chromium.org, eroman@chromium.org, rch@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1091283007/#ps60001
(title: "Change command line flag.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 13:16:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1091283007/60001

[Bence, 2015-04-27 13:21:13]

On 2015/04/27 13:15:17, Bence wrote:
> Thank you both.
> 

Sorry, I meant to say thank you all three of you.  My apologies.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 14:14:21]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-27 14:15:15]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/62891a5fe6637cb5d07b2ecc137d145969de6db6
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327038}