Supplimentary identifier for passwords specific

components/sync/core/write_node.cc

Index: components/sync/core/write_node.cc
diff --git a/components/sync/core/write_node.cc b/components/sync/core/write_node.cc
index 0977234702cbce013978ddd190d8df1375a17d00..db818f2e172e4dfd7291d4e663a73e2b65bffd07 100644
--- a/components/sync/core/write_node.cc
+++ b/components/sync/core/write_node.cc
@@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ void WriteNode::SetNigoriSpecifics(const sync_pb::NigoriSpecifics& new_value) {
   SetEntitySpecifics(entity_specifics);
 }
 
-void WriteNode::SetPasswordSpecifics(
-    const sync_pb::PasswordSpecificsData& data) {
+void WriteNode::SetPasswordSpecifics(const sync_pb::PasswordSpecificsData& data,
+                                     PassphraseType passphrase_type) {
   DCHECK_EQ(GetModelType(), PASSWORDS);
 
   Cryptographer* cryptographer = GetTransaction()->GetCryptographer();
@@ -143,10 +143,15 @@ void WriteNode::SetPasswordSpecifics(
                << "corruption";
     return;
   }
-  SetEntitySpecifics(entity_specifics);
+  SetEntitySpecifics(entity_specifics, passphrase_type);
 }
 
 void WriteNode::SetEntitySpecifics(const sync_pb::EntitySpecifics& new_value) {
+  SetEntitySpecifics(new_value, PassphraseType::UNDEFINED);
+}
+
+void WriteNode::SetEntitySpecifics(const sync_pb::EntitySpecifics& new_value,
+                                   PassphraseType passphrase_type) {
   ModelType new_specifics_type = GetModelTypeFromSpecifics(new_value);
   CHECK(!new_value.password().has_client_only_encrypted_data());
   DCHECK_NE(new_specifics_type, UNSPECIFIED);
@@ -163,7 +168,7 @@ void WriteNode::SetEntitySpecifics(const sync_pb::EntitySpecifics& new_value) {
 
   // Will update the entry if encryption was necessary.
   if (!UpdateEntryWithEncryption(GetTransaction()->GetWrappedTrans(),

[Nicolas Zea, 2016/08/26 18:28:30]

Given you have access to the transaction now, I don't think you need to plumb
the passphrase in anymore?

I think that might imply you don't need UNDEFINED as a value either

[melandory, 2016/08/26 23:16:59]

Oh, definitelly!

Fixed and updated CL https://codereview.chromium.org/2279753003/

-                                 new_specifics, entry_)) {
+                                 new_specifics, entry_, passphrase_type)) {
     return;
   }
   if (entry_->GetSpecifics().has_encrypted()) {