Switch to id-based affiliation determination

chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/affiliated_invalidation_service_provider_impl.cc

Index: chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/affiliated_invalidation_service_provider_impl.cc
diff --git a/chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/affiliated_invalidation_service_provider_impl.cc b/chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/affiliated_invalidation_service_provider_impl.cc
index 1c81969b4b46eeefd88f8d6bd55352e283ea68b5..672a6deaaf69687922ab97f10cc7fa7356b50dbe 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/affiliated_invalidation_service_provider_impl.cc
+++ b/chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/affiliated_invalidation_service_provider_impl.cc
@@ -156,11 +156,9 @@ void AffiliatedInvalidationServiceProviderImpl::Observe(
   }
   const user_manager::User* user =
       chromeos::ProfileHelper::Get()->GetUserByProfile(profile);
-  if (!user ||
-      g_browser_process->platform_part()->browser_policy_connector_chromeos()->
-          GetUserAffiliation(user->email()) != USER_AFFILIATION_MANAGED) {
-    // If the Profile belongs to a user who is not affiliated with the device's
-    // enrollment domain, ignore it.
+  if (!user || !user->is_affiliated()) {
+    // If the Profile belongs to a user who is not affiliated on the device,

[Andrew T Wilson (Slow), 2015/09/16 15:02:05]

nit: this is OK, but I think the old comment was more correct so consider
restoring it.

[peletskyi, 2015/09/21 14:17:24]

I would say that the phrase "enrollment domain" in the old comment may confuse
because now we don't care about enrollment domain when determine affiliation.

+    // ignore it.
     return;
   }