sync: don't require a MessageLoopProxy in AttachmentServiceProxyForTest

sync: don't require a MessageLoopProxy in AttachmentServiceProxyForTest
BUG=none
R=maniscalco@chromium.org, pavely@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=266898

[tim (not reviewing), 2014-04-25 03:51:08]

Hey Nick, what are your thoughts on something like this?  It prevents
blindsiding tests with the need for a MessageLoop (as happened to me in
https://codereview.chromium.org/258753002/).  At the same time it could be
percieved as subtle, but the whole point of ASPFT was for people who "don't
care" to have it easy.  LMK what you think.

[maniscalco, 2014-04-28 16:05:12]

Good idea!  LGTM with a couple comments.

https://codereview.chromium.org/254713003/diff/1/sync/api/attachments/attachm...
File sync/api/attachments/attachment_service_proxy_for_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/254713003/diff/1/sync/api/attachments/attachm...
sync/api/attachments/attachment_service_proxy_for_test.cc:45: DLOG(WARNING) <<
"Creating dummy MessageLoop for AttachmentServiceProxy.";
I'm not real familiar with logging conventions in chrome, but would this be
better as info or some "low severity" log level since it's OK for a test to not
have a MessageLoop?

https://codereview.chromium.org/254713003/diff/1/sync/api/attachments/attachm...
sync/api/attachments/attachment_service_proxy_for_test.cc:46: base::MessageLoop
loop;
Can you update the ASPFT class comment now that it no longer assumes a ML
already exists.

[tim (not reviewing), 2014-04-28 18:41:29]

done, will commit. thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/254713003/diff/1/sync/api/attachments/attachm...
File sync/api/attachments/attachment_service_proxy_for_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/254713003/diff/1/sync/api/attachments/attachm...
sync/api/attachments/attachment_service_proxy_for_test.cc:45: DLOG(WARNING) <<
"Creating dummy MessageLoop for AttachmentServiceProxy.";
On 2014/04/28 16:05:12, maniscalco wrote:
> I'm not real familiar with logging conventions in chrome, but would this be
> better as info or some "low severity" log level since it's OK for a test to
not
> have a MessageLoop?

Hmm, I'll make it a DVLOG(1).  I was worried that silently dealing with this
case might trip people up and wanted to shout about it.. but it's probably OK to
expect someone to turn on sync vlogging if things aren't working as expected, so
they'll see DVLOG(1).

https://codereview.chromium.org/254713003/diff/1/sync/api/attachments/attachm...
sync/api/attachments/attachment_service_proxy_for_test.cc:46: base::MessageLoop
loop;
On 2014/04/28 16:05:12, maniscalco wrote:
> Can you update the ASPFT class comment now that it no longer assumes a ML
> already exists.

Done.

[tim (not reviewing), 2014-04-28 18:41:32]

The CQ bit was checked by tim@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-28 18:42:16]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tim@chromium.org/254713003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-28 18:42:17]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-28 18:42:17]

No LGTM from a valid reviewer yet. Only full committers are accepted.
Even if an LGTM may have been provided, it was from a non-committer or
a lowly provisional committer, _not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[tim (not reviewing), 2014-04-28 19:58:35]

+Pavel for OWNER lgtm

[pavely, 2014-04-28 21:10:15]

lgtm

[tim (not reviewing), 2014-04-28 21:12:53]

The CQ bit was checked by tim@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-28 21:13:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tim@chromium.org/254713003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-28 22:07:53]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-28 22:07:54]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  tryserver.chromium on chromium_presubmit

[tim (not reviewing), 2014-04-28 22:22:41]

The CQ bit was checked by tim@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-28 22:25:40]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/tim@chromium.org/254713003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-29 00:18:15]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-29 00:18:15]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  tryserver.chromium on mac_chromium_rel

[tim (not reviewing), 2014-04-29 16:44:15]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r266898 (presubmit successful).