Remove remaining dependencies of infobars on content/.

Remove remaining dependencies of infobars on content/.

BUG=354379
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=263880

[droger, 2014-04-09 16:09:05]

This CL depends on both:
https://codereview.chromium.org/228293004
https://codereview.chromium.org/230453004

[droger, 2014-04-09 16:10:52]

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
File chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_delegate.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_delegate.cc:92: entry_id =
infobar()->owner()->GetActiveEntryID();
We could maybe rename StoreActiveEntryUniqueID() and GetActiveEntryID() to
something that is less tied to WebContents.
Something like PageUniqueID maybe?

[Peter Kasting, 2014-04-10 00:17:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
File chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_delegate.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_delegate.cc:92: entry_id =
infobar()->owner()->GetActiveEntryID();
On 2014/04/09 16:10:52, droger wrote:
> We could maybe rename StoreActiveEntryUniqueID() and GetActiveEntryID() to
> something that is less tied to WebContents.
> Something like PageUniqueID maybe?

I don't have an opinion.

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_delegate.cc:93: contents_unique_id_ = entry_id;
Nit: Shorter:

  contents_unique_id_ = (infobar() && infobar()->owner()) ?
      infobar()->owner()->GetActiveEntryID() : 0;

But given the old code, it seems like this conditional should always be true,
otherwise the old DCHECK would have failed, wouldn't it?

I'd rather not make something conditional that can't actually fail.

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
File chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_service.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_service.cc:59: if (!web_contents())
Again, I don't think this conditional is supposed to ever fail.

[droger, 2014-04-10 17:18:06]

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
File chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_delegate.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_delegate.cc:93: contents_unique_id_ = entry_id;
On 2014/04/10 00:17:20, Peter Kasting wrote:
> Nit: Shorter:
> 
>   contents_unique_id_ = (infobar() && infobar()->owner()) ?
>       infobar()->owner()->GetActiveEntryID() : 0;
> 
> But given the old code, it seems like this conditional should always be true,
> otherwise the old DCHECK would have failed, wouldn't it?
> 
> I'd rather not make something conditional that can't actually fail.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
File chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_service.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/230853002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/infobars/...
chrome/browser/infobars/infobar_service.cc:59: if (!web_contents())
On 2014/04/10 00:17:20, Peter Kasting wrote:
> Again, I don't think this conditional is supposed to ever fail.

Done.

[blundell, 2014-04-11 07:53:54]

LGTM

[Peter Kasting, 2014-04-14 21:54:27]

LGTM

[droger, 2014-04-15 07:39:30]

The CQ bit was checked by droger@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-15 07:40:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/droger@chromium.org/230853002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-15 16:46:42]

Change committed as 263880