Remove support for "name" parameter from Content-Disposition.

Remove support for "name" parameter from Content-Disposition.

All other UAs don't treat the name value as a synonym. Drop support
from Chrome.

UMA metrics indicate 0.00% actually only contain the "name" attribute.
0.01% of requests had with a name attribute; but had higher preference
values as well. This feature isn't clearly used anymore.

BUG=162815
TEST=net_unittests

Committed: https://crrev.com/122d485f173d2b4ca7ed36b64e9d4bd57197299f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327708}

[dtapuska, 2015-04-27 15:04:01]

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

[asanka, 2015-04-28 00:33:44]

Can you also update histograms.xml as well? The DownloadContentDisposition enum
value descriptions should be updated to note that they are deprecated. That way
it's clear that the reason they come out as 0 is because we are not measuring
the corresponding metric.

Other than that, the code LGTM.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/1/content/browser/download/do...
File content/browser/download/download_stats.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/1/content/browser/download/do...
content/browser/download/download_stats.cc:44: CONTENT_DISPOSITION_HAS_NAME,
It looks like the comment applies to all the enum values below this one. Maybe
move the comment to be in-line with the enum value?

[dtapuska, 2015-04-28 13:18:01]

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

[dtapuska, 2015-04-28 13:18:26]

On 2015/04/28 00:33:44, asanka wrote:
> Can you also update histograms.xml as well? The DownloadContentDisposition
enum
> value descriptions should be updated to note that they are deprecated. That
way
> it's clear that the reason they come out as 0 is because we are not measuring
> the corresponding metric.
> 
> Other than that, the code LGTM.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/1/content/browser/download/do...
> File content/browser/download/download_stats.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/1/content/browser/download/do...
> content/browser/download/download_stats.cc:44: CONTENT_DISPOSITION_HAS_NAME,
> It looks like the comment applies to all the enum values below this one. Maybe
> move the comment to be in-line with the enum value?

Both comments done...

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-04-28 14:26:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/20001/net/http/http_content_d...
File net/http/http_content_disposition.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/20001/net/http/http_content_d...
net/http/http_content_disposition.h:22: // Properties of the Content-Disposition
header. Used for UMA.
If this is used for UMA, then you shouldn't renumber the values.

[dtapuska, 2015-04-28 14:29:16]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/20001/net/http/http_content_d...
File net/http/http_content_disposition.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/20001/net/http/http_content_d...
net/http/http_content_disposition.h:22: // Properties of the Content-Disposition
header. Used for UMA.
On 2015/04/28 14:26:56, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> If this is used for UMA, then you shouldn't renumber the values.

These values aren't used for UMA directly... they are mapped into another struct
that is an UMA enum. The comment "Used for UMA" doesn't imply this struct is
used as an uma enum...

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-04-28 14:41:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/20001/net/http/http_content_d...
File net/http/http_content_disposition.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/20001/net/http/http_content_d...
net/http/http_content_disposition.h:22: // Properties of the Content-Disposition
header. Used for UMA.
On 2015/04/28 14:29:15, Dave Tapuska wrote:
> On 2015/04/28 14:26:56, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> > If this is used for UMA, then you shouldn't renumber the values.
> 
> These values aren't used for UMA directly... they are mapped into another
struct
> that is an UMA enum. The comment "Used for UMA" doesn't imply this struct is
> used as an uma enum...

I see - I think the comment as-is is misleading then - can you expand it with
the above explanation?

[dtapuska, 2015-04-29 16:22:12]

On 2015/04/28 14:41:19, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/20001/net/http/http_content_d...
> File net/http/http_content_disposition.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/diff/20001/net/http/http_content_d...
> net/http/http_content_disposition.h:22: // Properties of the
Content-Disposition
> header. Used for UMA.
> On 2015/04/28 14:29:15, Dave Tapuska wrote:
> > On 2015/04/28 14:26:56, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> > > If this is used for UMA, then you shouldn't renumber the values.
> > 
> > These values aren't used for UMA directly... they are mapped into another
> struct
> > that is an UMA enum. The comment "Used for UMA" doesn't imply this struct is
> > used as an uma enum...
> 
> I see - I think the comment as-is is misleading then - can you expand it with
> the above explanation?

Done; PTAL.

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-04-29 21:53:24]

lgtm, sorry for the delay

[dtapuska, 2015-04-30 13:03:42]

The CQ bit was checked by dtapuska@chromium.org

[dtapuska, 2015-04-30 13:03:43]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from asanka@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1107913003/#ps40001
(title: "Adjust comment for clarity")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-30 13:04:10]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1107913003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-30 14:12:16]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-30 14:13:11]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/122d485f173d2b4ca7ed36b64e9d4bd57197299f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327708}