Move 'ContentSecurityPolicy::RedirectStatus' into 'ResourceRequest'

Move 'ContentSecurityPolicy::RedirectStatus' into 'ResourceRequest'

For patches like https://codereview.chromium.org/2002943002, we actually
need to start passing the redirect status around through bits and pieces
of the system outside of 'ContentSecurityPolicy'. Since we originally grab
the status from 'ResourceRequest', it makes sense to centralize the enum
there as well.

This patch should have no web-visible effect; it's just internal
refactoring to make the next patch simpler.

R=foolip@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/8cc4f6cb03fb736271e6c27385b7534087591947
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#396717}

[Mike West, 2016-05-30 09:14:23]

Would you mind taking a look at this? It's a fairly mechanical refactoring of
`ContentSecurityPolicy::RedirectStatus::{DidRedirect,DidNotRedirect}` into
`ResourceRequest::RedirectStatus::{FollowedRedirect,NoRedirect}` (I renamed them
slightly so that they didn't both start with "Did", which I found ever so
slightly confusing).

WDYT?

[foolip, 2016-05-30 10:10:23]

Nice cleanup, lgtm % nits!

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPSource.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPSource.cpp:9: 
Intentional?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPSource.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPSource.h:28: bool matches(const
KURL&, RedirectStatus = ResourceRequest::RedirectStatus::NoRedirect) const;
I suppose the alias in ContentSecurityPolicy.h is why this works, but using the
same form twice here would leave no room for confusion. (Is there more than one
type, I asked myself.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/SourceListDirective.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/SourceListDirective.h:10: #include
"core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.h"
Is this include still needed? ContentSecurityPolicy is forward declared.

[Mike West, 2016-05-30 10:58:37]

The CQ bit was checked by mkwst@chromium.org

[Mike West, 2016-05-30 10:58:38]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from foolip@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/#ps20001
(title: "foolip@")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-30 10:58:46]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2025633002/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2025633002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-30 12:52:26]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-30 12:53:41]

Description was changed from

==========
Move 'ContentSecurityPolicy::RedirectStatus' into 'ResourceRequest'

For patches like https://codereview.chromium.org/2002943002, we actually
need to start passing the redirect status around through bits and pieces
of the system outside of 'ContentSecurityPolicy'. Since we originally grab
the status from 'ResourceRequest', it makes sense to centralize the enum
there as well.

This patch should have no web-visible effect; it's just internal
refactoring to make the next patch simpler.

R=foolip@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Move 'ContentSecurityPolicy::RedirectStatus' into 'ResourceRequest'

For patches like https://codereview.chromium.org/2002943002, we actually
need to start passing the redirect status around through bits and pieces
of the system outside of 'ContentSecurityPolicy'. Since we originally grab
the status from 'ResourceRequest', it makes sense to centralize the enum
there as well.

This patch should have no web-visible effect; it's just internal
refactoring to make the next patch simpler.

R=foolip@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/8cc4f6cb03fb736271e6c27385b7534087591947
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#396717}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-30 12:53:43]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/8cc4f6cb03fb736271e6c27385b7534087591947
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#396717}

[Mike West, 2016-05-30 14:59:31]

Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPSource.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPSource.cpp:9: 
On 2016/05/30 at 10:10:23, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> Intentional?

Not at all! Thanks. :)

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPSource.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/CSPSource.h:28: bool matches(const
KURL&, RedirectStatus = ResourceRequest::RedirectStatus::NoRedirect) const;
On 2016/05/30 at 10:10:23, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> I suppose the alias in ContentSecurityPolicy.h is why this works, but using
the same form twice here would leave no room for confusion. (Is there more than
one type, I asked myself.)

Yeah, this was a typo; I moved the enum from outside `ResourceRequest` into
`ResourceRequest` at some point while writing this and apparently did a bad job
updating the usage. :/

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/SourceListDirective.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2025633002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/csp/SourceListDirective.h:10: #include
"core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.h"
On 2016/05/30 at 10:10:23, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> Is this include still needed? ContentSecurityPolicy is forward declared.

You're right. Weird. Dropped.