Cast: Refactor Audio Receiver to Clang format

Cast: Refactor Audio Receiver to Clang format

This cl is pure style-targeted refactoring.
No functional changes were made.

BUG=339176
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=247908

[mikhal1, 2014-01-29 19:34:35]

Please review, 
-Mikhal

[hubbe, 2014-01-29 20:07:38]

LGTM

Lots of improvements. There are a few places where I would keep the original or
do things differently, but all the comments are minor and optional.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
File media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_decoder_unittest.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_decoder_unittest.cc:85:
EXPECT_FALSE(audio_decoder_->GetRawAudioFrame(
Hmm, this isn't actually easier to read IMHO.
Does the tool really complain about the way it was indented before?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
File media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_receiver.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_receiver.cc:25: : number_of_10ms_blocks(0),
desired_frequency(0), callback() {}
Same here; I think it was easier to read before.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_receiver.cc:483: ? rtp_timestamp_in_ticks +
time_offset_ + target_delay_delta_
Can we just write this as a regular if statement instead?

[mikhal1, 2014-01-29 21:02:38]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
File media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_decoder_unittest.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_decoder_unittest.cc:85:
EXPECT_FALSE(audio_decoder_->GetRawAudioFrame(
Apparently the tool prefers everything in one line when possible. Would rather
stick with the tool for future ease of use. Once we decide on a format, I think
we need to stick with it.
On 2014/01/29 20:07:39, hubbe wrote:
> Hmm, this isn't actually easier to read IMHO.
> Does the tool really complain about the way it was indented before?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
File media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_receiver.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_receiver.cc:25: : number_of_10ms_blocks(0),
desired_frequency(0), callback() {}
Same reply.
On 2014/01/29 20:07:39, hubbe wrote:
> Same here; I think it was easier to read before.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/149703002/diff/1/media/cast/audio_rece...
media/cast/audio_receiver/audio_receiver.cc:483: ? rtp_timestamp_in_ticks +
time_offset_ + target_delay_delta_
On 2014/01/29 20:07:39, hubbe wrote:
> Can we just write this as a regular if statement instead?

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-29 21:06:18]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mikhal@chromium.org/149703002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-29 22:58:50]

Retried try job too often on win_rel for step(s) browser_tests
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-29 23:04:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mikhal@chromium.org/149703002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-30 09:04:12]

Change committed as 247908