Introduce browser-side plumbing for sending the lock icon status to DevTools.

chrome/browser/ssl/connection_security_helper.h

Index: chrome/browser/ssl/connection_security_helper.h
diff --git a/chrome/browser/ssl/connection_security_helper.h b/chrome/browser/ssl/connection_security_helper.h
index 3a34b567b977705b2b60567125bca354fa46b8d3..71a65f16d118283a4573f5d7909af7a73d081a44 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/ssl/connection_security_helper.h
+++ b/chrome/browser/ssl/connection_security_helper.h
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 #define CHROME_BROWSER_SSL_CONNECTION_SECURITY_HELPER_H_
 
 #include "base/macros.h"
+#include "content/public/common/security_style.h"
 
 namespace content {
 class WebContents;
@@ -52,6 +53,12 @@ class ConnectionSecurityHelper {
   static SecurityLevel GetSecurityLevelForWebContents(
       const content::WebContents* web_contents);
 
+  // Returns the security level from GetSecurityLevelForWebContents(),
+  // translated to a SecurityStyle so that lower layers can use it. In most
+  // cases, you should use GetSecurityLevelForWebContents() directly instead.

[Ryan Sleevi, 2015/06/03 23:43:52]

nit: "pronouns in comments considered harmful" (see discussion at
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-dev/NH-S6KCkr2M/yv0z3...
)

This comment can be reworded to be more explicit and direct.

Also, from a Style Guide, this runs somewhat afoul of the "Don't say how" rule
from
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.html#Function_Comm...

// Returns the content::SecurityStyle for the given |web_contents|.
// Note: This is a lossy operation; that is, not all of the policies
// that can be expressed by a SecurityLevel (a //chrome concept) can
// be expressed by a content::SecurityStyle.
// In general, code in //chrome should prefer to use
// GetSecurityLevelForWebContents() to determine security policy, and
// only use this function when policy needs to be supplied back to
// layers in //content.


The reword has several goals:
1) For phrases like "in most cases" and "in general", it helps to enumerate some
of the exceptions, or if there are only a few, all of them. I tried to do that
with the "and only use"

2) The "you" is ambiguous (see above pronouns), and so I tried to make it clear
the subject ("code in //chrome") being discussed

3) Don't describe how ("from GetSecurityLevelForWebContents()"), describe the
what.

The remaining part "translated to a SecurityStyle so that lower layers can use
it" is sort of a borderline comment. It's somewhat good (in the "how to use"
sense from the style guide), but it borderlines on describing "how it is used"
(which is bad, because code changes, and comments aren't always kept in sync;
further, they can sometimes be layering violation if lower code describes how
higher code uses it)

I'm not saying you have to take my wording - I no English good - but wanted to
describe the broader issues w/ the comment and what I was trying to accomplish
with the reword.

[lgarron, 2015/06/04 00:26:34]

I admit that I don't have practice writing this kind of comment; thanks for the
details (and reference). I think your version is pretty good, so I've taken it
pretty much verbatim in the latest patch.

+  static content::SecurityStyle GetSecurityStyleForWebContents(
+      const content::WebContents* web_contents);
+
  private:
   DISALLOW_IMPLICIT_CONSTRUCTORS(ConnectionSecurityHelper);
 };