[Android] Filter the unknown type in function GetDeviceSupportedFormats

[Android] Filter the unknown type in function GetDeviceSupportedFormats

Previously, default value is set to unknown type but finally it is put
into the valid list without any processing. Since enum PIXEL_FORMAT_MAX
is merged to PIXEL_FORMAT_UNKNOWN, it's better to filter unknown type.

BUG=506520
Committed: https://crrev.com/cd131d403bc15f9a7aca116b14d08268a3c6aded
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#338247}

[legend, 2015-07-03 02:40:33]

guanxian.li@intel.com changed reviewers:
+ dcheng@chromium.org, johnme@chromium.org, tommi@chromium.org

[legend, 2015-07-03 03:09:50]

PTAL. Thanks!

[legend, 2015-07-03 03:21:46]

We also found VideoCaptureDeviceTest.GetDeviceSupportedFormats failing in our
unit tests on IA device.
I guess PIXEL_FORMAT_MAX is used to filter PIXEL_FORMAT_UNKNOWN generating from
different factories for such a test.
But now these two types are merged in CL
https://codereview.chromium.org/1211273005.
So it needs to filter PIXEL_FORMAT_UNKNOWN at first to let this test case make
sense.

[tommi (sloooow) - chröme, 2015-07-03 08:52:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1215443003/diff/1/media/video/capture/android...
File media/video/capture/android/video_capture_device_factory_android.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1215443003/diff/1/media/video/capture/android...
media/video/capture/android/video_capture_device_factory_android.cc:119: if
(pixel_format == media::PIXEL_FORMAT_UNKNOWN)
could we continue on the default label of the switch()?

[legend, 2015-07-03 09:14:34]

On 2015/07/03 08:52:41, tommi wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1215443003/diff/1/media/video/capture/android...
> File media/video/capture/android/video_capture_device_factory_android.cc
> (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1215443003/diff/1/media/video/capture/android...
> media/video/capture/android/video_capture_device_factory_android.cc:119: if
> (pixel_format == media::PIXEL_FORMAT_UNKNOWN)
> could we continue on the default label of the switch()?

Yes, it's better. I have modified it.

[legend, 2015-07-07 02:15:00]

tommi@, dcheng@ could you please review again? And what do you think about
recovering the test case in this patch or reverting johnme@s disabling patch?
Thank you!

[dcheng, 2015-07-07 17:02:20]

I don't think I'm familiar enough with this part of the code to review, sorry.

[legend, 2015-07-09 03:16:10]

guanxian.li@intel.com changed reviewers:
+ mcasas@chromium.org, perkj@google.com
- dcheng@chromium.org, johnme@chromium.org

[legend, 2015-07-09 03:16:42]

guanxian.li@intel.com changed reviewers:
- perkj@google.com

[legend, 2015-07-09 03:17:32]

tommi@, mcasas@, could you please review this? Thanks!

[tommi (sloooow) - chröme, 2015-07-09 14:24:45]

lgtm

[mcasas, 2015-07-09 19:22:31]

lgtm

[legend, 2015-07-10 05:16:10]

The CQ bit was checked by guanxian.li@intel.com

[legend, 2015-07-10 05:16:11]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from mcasas@chromium.org,
tommi@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1215443003/#ps40001
(title: "Re-enable failing test")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-10 05:16:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1215443003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-10 07:39:42]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-10 07:40:54]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/cd131d403bc15f9a7aca116b14d08268a3c6aded
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#338247}