Implement FakeAuthPolicyClient::RefreshDevicePolicy()

chromeos/dbus/fake_auth_policy_client.h

Index: chromeos/dbus/fake_auth_policy_client.h
diff --git a/chromeos/dbus/fake_auth_policy_client.h b/chromeos/dbus/fake_auth_policy_client.h
index 55da46fc5df900290bf1dff08ba538988288b59c..3e8de16fb35a7fcd29d5acec80fb59a6687655c6 100644
--- a/chromeos/dbus/fake_auth_policy_client.h
+++ b/chromeos/dbus/fake_auth_policy_client.h
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 #include <string>
 
 #include "base/macros.h"
+#include "base/memory/weak_ptr.h"
 
 #include "chromeos/dbus/auth_policy_client.h"
 
@@ -25,11 +26,17 @@ class CHROMEOS_EXPORT FakeAuthPolicyClient : public AuthPolicyClient {
                     const std::string& user,
                     int password_fd,
                     const JoinCallback& callback) override;
-  void RefreshDevicePolicy(const RefreshPolicyCallback& calllback) override;
+  void RefreshDevicePolicy(const RefreshPolicyCallback& callback) override;
   void RefreshUserPolicy(const std::string& account_id,
-                         const RefreshPolicyCallback& calllback) override;
+                         const RefreshPolicyCallback& callback) override;
 
  private:
+  static int WriteDevicePolicyFile();

[achuithb, 2016/11/30 19:23:34]

We prefer functions in the anonymous namespace in the cc file to private static
fns, as this reduces the linker burden.

[Thiemo Nagel, 2016/11/30 20:06:36]

Done.

+  void OnDevicePolicyFileWritten(const RefreshPolicyCallback& callback,
+                                 int bytes_written);

[achuithb, 2016/11/30 19:23:34]

Let's add a function comment.

[Thiemo Nagel, 2016/11/30 20:06:36]

Done.

+
+  base::WeakPtrFactory<FakeAuthPolicyClient> weak_factory_{this};

[achuithb, 2016/11/30 19:23:34]

Is this allowed by the c++11 guidelines? Have you seen this elsewhere in the
codebase?

I haven't seen it, and I'd rather not have this be the first place. I think it's
kinda cool though.

[Thiemo Nagel, 2016/11/30 20:06:36]

We allow Uniform Initialization Syntax and Non-Static Class Member Initializers.
 All I'm doing is combining the two, afaics.

https://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/
No.
Removed it.  Generally speaking, some place needs to be the first.  What about
starting a thread on chromium-dev?

[achuithb, 2016/11/30 20:22:49]

Personally, I really like this, and would love to see it adopted more widely,
especially for WeakPtrFactory, but I think a thread on chromium-dev should be a
starting point so the persnickety can spend hours debating it. Since this is
your innovation, I think you should propose this?

+
   DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(FakeAuthPolicyClient);
 };