Ensure that by default PDFs are opened in Chrome.

Ensure that by default PDFs are opened in Chrome.

This regressed after switching the PDF plugin to be a BrowserPlugin. It is safe
to open files that load in BrowserPlugin plugins because they are all sandboxed.

BUG=479049
Committed: https://crrev.com/1badbade73d7cb800b90322d073916fe6ac09b0f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#326715}

[raymes, 2015-04-21 03:55:32]

raymes@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ sammc@chromium.org

[Sam McNally, 2015-04-21 03:59:18]

lgtm

[raymes, 2015-04-21 04:48:20]

raymes@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thestig@chromium.org

[raymes, 2015-04-21 04:48:21]

+thestig

[asanka, 2015-04-21 17:01:42]

asanka@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ cpalmer@chromium.org

[asanka, 2015-04-21 17:12:13]

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

[asanka, 2015-04-21 17:12:13]

Adding Palmer FHI.

The barrier for entry here is whether the handler is sufficiently sandboxed. It
looks like browser plugins fit the bill (cpalmer?).

This change assumes that all future browser plugins are safe handlers. Is this a
valid claim?

[raymes, 2015-04-22 04:02:31]

On 2015/04/21 17:12:13, asanka wrote:
> Adding Palmer FHI.
> 
> The barrier for entry here is whether the handler is sufficiently sandboxed.
It
> looks like browser plugins fit the bill (cpalmer?).
> 
> This change assumes that all future browser plugins are safe handlers. Is this
a
> valid claim?

Good point, you're right. It is a valid claim - a BrowserPlugin is basically an
out of process iframe.

[asanka, 2015-04-22 17:03:24]

On 2015/04/22 at 04:02:31, raymes wrote:
> On 2015/04/21 17:12:13, asanka wrote:
> > Adding Palmer FHI.
> > 
> > The barrier for entry here is whether the handler is sufficiently sandboxed.
It
> > looks like browser plugins fit the bill (cpalmer?).
> > 
> > This change assumes that all future browser plugins are safe handlers. Is
this a
> > valid claim?
> 
> Good point, you're right. It is a valid claim - a BrowserPlugin is basically
an out of process iframe.

Ok. Can you add a test to download_target_determiner_unittest.cc for the browser
plugin case? The tests in question are using the
DownloadTargetDeterminerTestWithPlugin fixture.

[raymes, 2015-04-23 00:43:43]

On 2015/04/22 17:03:24, asanka wrote:
> On 2015/04/22 at 04:02:31, raymes wrote:
> > On 2015/04/21 17:12:13, asanka wrote:
> > > Adding Palmer FHI.
> > > 
> > > The barrier for entry here is whether the handler is sufficiently
sandboxed.
> It
> > > looks like browser plugins fit the bill (cpalmer?).
> > > 
> > > This change assumes that all future browser plugins are safe handlers. Is
> this a
> > > valid claim?
> > 
> > Good point, you're right. It is a valid claim - a BrowserPlugin is basically
> an out of process iframe.
> 
> Ok. Can you add a test to download_target_determiner_unittest.cc for the
browser
> plugin case? The tests in question are using the
> DownloadTargetDeterminerTestWithPlugin fixture.

Done, thanks for the pointer! I copied the PPAPI version of the test.

[asanka, 2015-04-23 23:55:23]

lgtm

[raymes, 2015-04-24 00:02:14]

raymes@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ palmer@chromium.org

[raymes, 2015-04-24 00:02:15]

palmer: is this ok with you?

[palmer, 2015-04-24 00:25:48]

LGTM. Thanks!

[raymes, 2015-04-24 00:26:34]

The CQ bit was checked by raymes@chromium.org

[raymes, 2015-04-24 00:26:35]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from sammc@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1095083003/#ps40001
(title: " ")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-24 00:26:45]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1095083003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-24 01:33:02]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-24 01:33:59]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/1badbade73d7cb800b90322d073916fe6ac09b0f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#326715}