When a pending contents is created but deleted before it is shown, remove it from the list of pendi…

content/browser/web_contents/web_contents_impl.cc

Index: content/browser/web_contents/web_contents_impl.cc
diff --git a/content/browser/web_contents/web_contents_impl.cc b/content/browser/web_contents/web_contents_impl.cc
index f7bee53452acc678511175979851aa1a5d09b18d..7efde236d8ee01081812a2244626b6e83298fafa 100644
--- a/content/browser/web_contents/web_contents_impl.cc
+++ b/content/browser/web_contents/web_contents_impl.cc
@@ -1226,6 +1226,18 @@ void WebContentsImpl::OnWebContentsDestroyed(WebContents* web_contents) {
                       Source<WebContents>(opener_));
     opener_ = NULL;
   }
+  // Clear a pending contents that has been closed before being shown.
+  for (PendingContents::iterator iter = pending_contents_.begin();
+       iter != pending_contents_.end();
+       ++iter) {
+    if (iter->second != web_contents)
+      continue;
+    pending_contents_.erase(iter);
+    registrar_.Remove(this, NOTIFICATION_WEB_CONTENTS_DESTROYED,
+                      Source<WebContents>(web_contents));
+    return;
+  }
+  NOTREACHED();

[Charlie Reis, 2013/03/07 18:20:00]

Why is this here?  It's failing in all the tests, because we usually get here
when a non-pending contents is deleted.

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2013/03/07 19:45:10]

Ah, because I forgot to add a return in the if() block above.

Since we only listen for the destruction of a pending web contents and the
opener, we shouldn't get here for other cases.

 }
 
 void WebContentsImpl::AddObserver(WebContentsObserver* observer) {
@@ -1407,6 +1419,8 @@ void WebContentsImpl::CreateNewWindow(
     // later.
     DCHECK_NE(MSG_ROUTING_NONE, route_id);
     pending_contents_[route_id] = new_contents;
+    registrar_.Add(this, NOTIFICATION_WEB_CONTENTS_DESTROYED,
+                   Source<WebContents>(new_contents));
   }
 
   if (delegate_) {