Remove ExtensionPrefs::SetDidExtensionEscalatePermissions

Remove ExtensionPrefs::SetDidExtensionEscalatePermissions.

The "DidExtensionEscalatePermissions" flag is basically equivalent to HasDisableReason(DISABLE_PERMISSIONS_INCREASE | DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL), so check that instead of storing a separate pref.

BUG=493610
Committed: https://crrev.com/aac30ecbd611a0929c42347011549dcb0a7d9c41
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#333706}

[Marc Treib, 2015-06-03 12:17:46]

treib@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kalman@chromium.org

[Marc Treib, 2015-06-03 12:17:47]

As discussed in crrev.com/1144953004

I'm not 100% sure that this CL doesn't change any behavior: ExtensionService did
always keep the DidExtensionEscalatePermissions flag and the disable reasons
consistent, but there might be other places that change disable reasons/grant
permissions without setting the flag.
At least it doesn't seem to break any tests, for whatever that's worth :)

[not at google - send to devlin, 2015-06-03 15:24:58]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1164603003/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensions/e...
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_service.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1164603003/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensions/e...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_service.cc:1686: if (disable_reasons ==
Extension::DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL) {
You should be able to remove this check/branch entirely?

[Marc Treib, 2015-06-09 12:21:51]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1164603003/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensions/e...
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_service.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1164603003/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensions/e...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_service.cc:1686: if (disable_reasons ==
Extension::DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL) {
On 2015/06/03 15:24:58, kalman wrote:
> You should be able to remove this check/branch entirely?

I've removed the empty branch (durr), but kept the check so we'll keep the
current behavior of NOT adding DISABLE_PERMISSIONS_INCREASE in addition to
DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL. I don't know what the reasoning for that is though, so
maybe the check should just be removed completely?

[not at google - send to devlin, 2015-06-09 20:15:39]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1164603003/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensions/e...
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_service.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1164603003/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensions/e...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_service.cc:1686: if (disable_reasons ==
Extension::DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL) {
On 2015/06/09 12:21:50, Marc Treib wrote:
> On 2015/06/03 15:24:58, kalman wrote:
> > You should be able to remove this check/branch entirely?
> 
> I've removed the empty branch (durr), but kept the check so we'll keep the
> current behavior of NOT adding DISABLE_PERMISSIONS_INCREASE in addition to
> DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL. I don't know what the reasoning for that is though, so
> maybe the check should just be removed completely?

Yeah tough call. It both is, and isn't, a permissions increase. I'd go with...
leave it out, so maintain the current behavior.

Btw should this be using bitmask logic, rather than !=? Like (disable_reasons &
Extension::DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL) == 0 or whatever?

[Marc Treib, 2015-06-10 08:34:16]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1164603003/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensions/e...
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_service.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1164603003/diff/1/chrome/browser/extensions/e...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_service.cc:1686: if (disable_reasons ==
Extension::DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL) {
On 2015/06/09 20:15:39, kalman wrote:
> On 2015/06/09 12:21:50, Marc Treib wrote:
> > On 2015/06/03 15:24:58, kalman wrote:
> > > You should be able to remove this check/branch entirely?
> > 
> > I've removed the empty branch (durr), but kept the check so we'll keep the
> > current behavior of NOT adding DISABLE_PERMISSIONS_INCREASE in addition to
> > DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL. I don't know what the reasoning for that is though,
so
> > maybe the check should just be removed completely?
> 
> Yeah tough call. It both is, and isn't, a permissions increase. I'd go with...
> leave it out, so maintain the current behavior.
> 
> Btw should this be using bitmask logic, rather than !=? Like (disable_reasons
&
> Extension::DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL) == 0 or whatever?

I'm not sure, so I've opted to keep the current behavior. I think in practice it
won't matter much, since an extension with DISABLE_REMOTE_INSTALL usually won't
have additional disable reasons anyway.

[Marc Treib, 2015-06-10 08:34:20]

The CQ bit was checked by treib@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-10 08:34:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1164603003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-10 09:18:19]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-10 09:19:09]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/aac30ecbd611a0929c42347011549dcb0a7d9c41
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#333706}