Extension API enterprise.platformKeys.

chrome/common/extensions/permissions/permission_set_unittest.cc

Index: chrome/common/extensions/permissions/permission_set_unittest.cc
diff --git a/chrome/common/extensions/permissions/permission_set_unittest.cc b/chrome/common/extensions/permissions/permission_set_unittest.cc
index 9a027a8e86523a110c669210ad11d2237a590cf9..60dc5bae742b53c5b007c6b18828b5297c659f14 100644
--- a/chrome/common/extensions/permissions/permission_set_unittest.cc
+++ b/chrome/common/extensions/permissions/permission_set_unittest.cc
@@ -675,6 +675,10 @@ TEST(PermissionsTest, PermissionMessages) {
   skip.insert(APIPermission::kWebView);
   skip.insert(APIPermission::kWindowShape);
 
+  // These permissions are restricted to extensions force-installed by policy

[pneubeck (no reviews), 2014/05/22 17:59:37]

@Benjamin, is this OK?

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014/05/22 18:03:01]

is what ok?

[pneubeck (no reviews), 2014/05/22 18:06:27]

this change to this test.
Maybe we could change it in a follow up to skip all permissions with
location:policy.

[not at google - send to devlin, 2014/05/22 18:09:09]

as in, is it ok that the platform keys API doesn't have a permission string? I
think yes.

+  // and don't require a prompt, i.e. they're restricted to location 'policy'.
+  skip.insert(APIPermission::kEnterprisePlatformKeys);
+
   // TODO(erikkay) add a string for this permission.
   skip.insert(APIPermission::kBackground);