Enable public key pinning of local trust anchors

components/cronet/android/api/src/org/chromium/net/CronetEngine.java

Index: components/cronet/android/api/src/org/chromium/net/CronetEngine.java
diff --git a/components/cronet/android/api/src/org/chromium/net/CronetEngine.java b/components/cronet/android/api/src/org/chromium/net/CronetEngine.java
index f30991ac3c7ae2223aaaeabfa683902ab575467f..52f89e4711b761441498c2b5ec6a606cab6dc681 100644
--- a/components/cronet/android/api/src/org/chromium/net/CronetEngine.java
+++ b/components/cronet/android/api/src/org/chromium/net/CronetEngine.java
@@ -101,7 +101,8 @@ public abstract class CronetEngine {
         // See setters below for verbose descriptions.
         private final Context mContext;
         private final List<QuicHint> mQuicHints = new LinkedList<QuicHint>();
-        private final List<Pkp> mPkps = new LinkedList<Pkp>();
+        private final List<Pkp> mPkps = new LinkedList<>();
+        private boolean mPinLocalTrustAnchors = false;

[Ryan Sleevi, 2016/06/13 17:03:11]

STYLE suggestion: Keep this variable named consistently with the public API

[kapishnikov, 2016/06/15 00:56:20]

Done, following the existing pattern.

         private String mUserAgent;
         private String mStoragePath;
         private boolean mLegacyModeEnabled;
@@ -541,6 +542,21 @@ public abstract class CronetEngine {
         }
 
         /**
+         * Enables or disables pinning of the local (user-level) trust anchors.
+         *
+         * @param value {@code true} to enable pinning, {@code false} to disable.
+         * @return the builder to facilitate chaining.
+         */
+        public Builder enableLocalTrustAnchorPinning(boolean value) {
+            mPinLocalTrustAnchors = value;
+            return this;
+        }
+
+        boolean localTrustAnchorsPinningEnabled() {

[Ryan Sleevi, 2016/06/13 17:03:11]

naming: I'm not sufficiently read on Java style, but is it common to have
asymmetric methods like this?

Wouldn't it be
enableLocalTrustAnchorPinning
localTrustAnchorPinningEnabled

?

That still feels asymmetric w/r/t how enable/Enabled fit, perhaps

setLocalTrustAnchorPinningEnabled
localTrustAnchorPinningEnabled

Which would match the C++ style.

[kapishnikov, 2016/06/15 00:56:20]

Point taken. I have followed the pattern how the other methods are named,
enableHTTP2/http2Enabled, enableQUIC/quicEnabled, etc. The getter methods are
not exposed to the client. I would like to keep it consistent. 

+            return mPinLocalTrustAnchors;
+        }
+
+        /**
          * Checks whether a given string represents a valid host name for PKP and converts it
          * to ASCII Compatible Encoding representation according to RFC 1122, RFC 1123 and
          * RFC 3490. This method is more restrictive than required by RFC 7469. Thus, a host