Chromium Code Reviews| OLD | NEW |
|---|---|
| 1 // Copyright (c) 2016 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved. | 1 // Copyright (c) 2016 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved. |
| 2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be | 2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be |
| 3 // found in the LICENSE file. | 3 // found in the LICENSE file. |
| 4 | 4 |
| 5 #include "blimp/engine/feature/geolocation/blimp_location_provider.h" | 5 #include "blimp/engine/feature/geolocation/blimp_location_provider.h" |
| 6 | 6 |
| 7 #include "base/bind.h" | |
| 8 #include "base/bind_helpers.h" | |
| 9 #include "base/memory/weak_ptr.h" | |
| 7 #include "content/public/common/geoposition.h" | 10 #include "content/public/common/geoposition.h" |
| 8 | 11 |
| 9 namespace blimp { | 12 namespace blimp { |
| 10 namespace engine { | 13 namespace engine { |
| 11 | 14 |
| 12 BlimpLocationProvider::BlimpLocationProvider() {} | 15 BlimpLocationProvider::BlimpLocationProvider( |
| 16 base::WeakPtr<BlimpLocationProvider::Delegate> delegate) { | |
| 17 DCHECK(delegate); | |
| 18 | |
| 19 delegate_ = delegate; | |
| 20 } | |
| 13 | 21 |
| 14 BlimpLocationProvider::~BlimpLocationProvider() { | 22 BlimpLocationProvider::~BlimpLocationProvider() { |
| 15 StopProvider(); | 23 StopProvider(); |
|
Wez
2016/07/18 23:55:21
What's the rationale for removing this call? Don't
CJ
2016/07/19 20:04:17
Due to my misunderstanding on how EXPECT_CALL work
| |
| 16 } | 24 } |
| 17 | 25 |
| 18 bool BlimpLocationProvider::StartProvider(bool high_accuracy) { | 26 bool BlimpLocationProvider::StartProvider(bool high_accuracy) { |
| 19 NOTIMPLEMENTED(); | 27 if (delegate_) { |
| 20 return true; | 28 if (high_accuracy) { |
| 29 delegate_->RequestAccuracy( | |
| 30 GeolocationSetInterestLevelMessage::HIGH_ACCURACY); | |
| 31 } else { | |
| 32 delegate_->RequestAccuracy( | |
| 33 GeolocationSetInterestLevelMessage::LOW_ACCURACY); | |
| 34 } | |
| 35 return true; | |
| 36 } | |
| 37 return false; | |
| 21 } | 38 } |
| 22 | 39 |
| 23 void BlimpLocationProvider::StopProvider() { | 40 void BlimpLocationProvider::StopProvider() { |
| 41 if (delegate_) { | |
| 42 delegate_->RequestAccuracy(GeolocationSetInterestLevelMessage::NO_INTEREST); | |
| 43 } | |
| 24 } | 44 } |
| 25 | 45 |
| 26 void BlimpLocationProvider::GetPosition(content::Geoposition* position) { | 46 void BlimpLocationProvider::GetPosition(content::Geoposition* position) { |
| 27 DCHECK(position); | 47 DCHECK(position); |
|
Wez
2016/07/15 01:46:17
nit: No need for this, since *position = foo will
CJ
2016/07/18 21:11:56
Done.
| |
| 28 | 48 |
| 29 *position = position_; | 49 *position = position_; |
| 30 } | 50 } |
| 31 | 51 |
| 32 void BlimpLocationProvider::RequestRefresh() { | 52 void BlimpLocationProvider::RequestRefresh() { |
| 33 NOTIMPLEMENTED(); | 53 if (delegate_) { |
| 54 delegate_->RequestRefresh(); | |
| 55 } | |
| 34 } | 56 } |
| 35 | 57 |
| 36 void BlimpLocationProvider::OnPermissionGranted() { | 58 void BlimpLocationProvider::OnPermissionGranted() { |
| 37 RequestRefresh(); | 59 RequestRefresh(); |
| 38 NOTIMPLEMENTED(); | |
| 39 } | |
| 40 | |
| 41 void BlimpLocationProvider::NotifyCallback( | |
| 42 const content::Geoposition& position) { | |
| 43 DCHECK(!callback_.is_null()); | |
| 44 | |
| 45 callback_.Run(this, position); | |
| 46 } | |
| 47 | |
| 48 void BlimpLocationProvider::OnLocationResponse( | |
| 49 const content::Geoposition& position) { | |
| 50 NotifyCallback(position); | |
| 51 NOTIMPLEMENTED(); | |
| 52 } | 60 } |
| 53 | 61 |
| 54 void BlimpLocationProvider::SetUpdateCallback( | 62 void BlimpLocationProvider::SetUpdateCallback( |
| 55 const LocationProviderUpdateCallback& callback) { | 63 const LocationProviderUpdateCallback& callback) { |
| 56 DCHECK(!callback.is_null()); | 64 delegate_->SetUpdateCallback(base::Bind(callback, base::Unretained(this))); |
|
Wez
2016/07/15 01:46:17
So we are able to assume that the caller will call
CJ
2016/07/18 21:11:56
There shouldn't be any lag between two SetUpdateCa
Wez
2016/07/18 23:55:21
That's what I'm getting at - are we able to assume
CJ
2016/07/19 20:04:17
It seems pretty sequential, but a check was added
| |
| 57 | |
| 58 callback_ = callback; | |
| 59 } | 65 } |
| 60 | 66 |
| 61 } // namespace engine | 67 } // namespace engine |
| 62 } // namespace blimp | 68 } // namespace blimp |
| OLD | NEW |