New Task Manager - Phase 1.3.5: Implement Extension Task Providing

chrome/browser/task_management/providers/web_contents/renderer_task.h

Index: chrome/browser/task_management/providers/web_contents/renderer_task.h
diff --git a/chrome/browser/task_management/providers/web_contents/renderer_task.h b/chrome/browser/task_management/providers/web_contents/renderer_task.h
index 27ad11deeaad784bc200170e2026ff7420f869d0..d7cb6f75b0ee85906b75adfeb461cc77fb10d374 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/task_management/providers/web_contents/renderer_task.h
+++ b/chrome/browser/task_management/providers/web_contents/renderer_task.h
@@ -59,11 +59,12 @@ class RendererTask : public Task {
       content::WebContents* web_contents);
 
   // Prefixes the given renderer |title| with the appropriate string based on
-  // whether it's an app, an extension, or incognito.
+  // whether it's an app, an extension, incognito or a background.

[Devlin, 2015/08/04 16:05:07]

"a background"?  We should probably be more clear about what that means.

[afakhry, 2015/08/04 18:31:08]

background here means either view type of BACKGROUND_CONTENTS or
BACKGROUND_PAGE.

   static const base::string16 PrefixRendererTitle(const base::string16& title,
                                                   bool is_app,

[Devlin, 2015/08/04 16:05:07]

the fact that we have is_app and is_extension is weird to me.  If you're up for
a change (possibly in a follow-up), this would probably be a lot cleaner if we
passed in an enum.  But, not directly related to this change.

[afakhry, 2015/08/04 18:31:08]

I'm not sure I totally get your suggestion here. However, I will defer
commenting on this to Nick, because this is how the old task manager used to do
the prefix. I remember Nick telling me about the desire to have the WebContents'
app-ness take precedence over its extension-ness and tab-ness.

[ncarter (slow), 2015/08/04 18:55:19]

I think devlin means that "app && !extension" ought to be nonsensical, and
replacing the pair of bools with a a tri-state enum would eliminate that case.
Which I agree with. But given how the code flows, I this function might actually
be a tad easier to call with two bools -- unless there's an existing tri-state
enum that we leverage. Note that is_background also implies is_extension, so
there are other nonsensical ways to call this function, but that's probably
okay; we return something reasonable in those cases too.

[afakhry, 2015/08/04 19:02:25]

I got it. We can definitely defer this to a later change.

                                                   bool is_extension,
-                                                  bool is_incognito);
+                                                  bool is_incognito,
+                                                  bool is_background);
 
   content::WebContents* web_contents() const { return web_contents_; }