Makes SocketStreamDispatcherHost::CanGetCookies pass frame_id

Makes SocketStreamDispatcherHost::CanGetCookies pass frame_id

BUG=369496
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=270056

[hjd_google, 2014-05-06 11:06:16]

ptal
I'm trying to land this as prerequisite for per webview third party cookie
policies (we have to get the right frame_id).

I based the change on the OnSSLCertificateError method but I don't really
understand the context, do I need to handle kNoSocketId in this case?

[hjd_google, 2014-05-06 11:06:16]

ptal
I'm trying to land this as prerequisite for per webview third party cookie
policies (we have to get the right frame_id).

I based the change on the OnSSLCertificateError method but I don't really
understand the context, do I need to handle kNoSocketId in this case?

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2014-05-07 04:33:42]

On 2014/05/06 11:06:16, hjd wrote:
> ptal
> I'm trying to land this as prerequisite for per webview third party cookie
> policies (we have to get the right frame_id).
> 
> I based the change on the OnSSLCertificateError method but I don't really
> understand the context, do I need to handle kNoSocketId in this case?

Yes, please.

[hjd_google, 2014-05-09 13:18:38]

On 2014/05/07 04:33:42, tyoshino wrote:
> On 2014/05/06 11:06:16, hjd wrote:
> > ptal
> > I'm trying to land this as prerequisite for per webview third party cookie
> > policies (we have to get the right frame_id).
> > 
> > I based the change on the OnSSLCertificateError method but I don't really
> > understand the context, do I need to handle kNoSocketId in this case?
> 
> Yes, please.

ptal, it looks like we only get kNoSocketId if we're in the middle
of shutting down so I've defaulted to just denying the requests.

Let me know your thoughts, thanks!

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2014-05-12 11:58:03]

On 2014/05/09 13:18:38, hjd wrote:
> On 2014/05/07 04:33:42, tyoshino wrote:
> > On 2014/05/06 11:06:16, hjd wrote:
> > > ptal
> > > I'm trying to land this as prerequisite for per webview third party cookie
> > > policies (we have to get the right frame_id).
> > > 
> > > I based the change on the OnSSLCertificateError method but I don't really
> > > understand the context, do I need to handle kNoSocketId in this case?
> > 
> > Yes, please.
> 
> ptal, it looks like we only get kNoSocketId if we're in the middle
> of shutting down so I've defaulted to just denying the requests.
> 
> Let me know your thoughts, thanks!

Yes, sounds fine.

lgtm

please add an owner.

[hjd_google, 2014-05-12 17:04:47]

On 2014/05/12 11:58:03, tyoshino wrote:
> On 2014/05/09 13:18:38, hjd wrote:
> > On 2014/05/07 04:33:42, tyoshino wrote:
> > > On 2014/05/06 11:06:16, hjd wrote:
> > > > ptal
> > > > I'm trying to land this as prerequisite for per webview third party
cookie
> > > > policies (we have to get the right frame_id).
> > > > 
> > > > I based the change on the OnSSLCertificateError method but I don't
really
> > > > understand the context, do I need to handle kNoSocketId in this case?
> > > 
> > > Yes, please.
> > 
> > ptal, it looks like we only get kNoSocketId if we're in the middle
> > of shutting down so I've defaulted to just denying the requests.
> > 
> > Let me know your thoughts, thanks!
> 
> Yes, sounds fine.
> 
> lgtm
> 
> please add an owner.

Did you have anybody in mind? You are listed as an owner
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/content/browser/re...

of the websocket files and none of the other entries seem particularly relevant.

[Adam Rice, 2014-05-12 17:46:01]

lgtm

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2014-05-12 18:20:15]

On 2014/05/12 17:04:47, hjd wrote:
> On 2014/05/12 11:58:03, tyoshino wrote:
> > On 2014/05/09 13:18:38, hjd wrote:
> > > On 2014/05/07 04:33:42, tyoshino wrote:
> > > > On 2014/05/06 11:06:16, hjd wrote:
> > > > > ptal
> > > > > I'm trying to land this as prerequisite for per webview third party
> cookie
> > > > > policies (we have to get the right frame_id).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I based the change on the OnSSLCertificateError method but I don't
> really
> > > > > understand the context, do I need to handle kNoSocketId in this case?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, please.
> > > 
> > > ptal, it looks like we only get kNoSocketId if we're in the middle
> > > of shutting down so I've defaulted to just denying the requests.
> > > 
> > > Let me know your thoughts, thanks!
> > 
> > Yes, sounds fine.
> > 
> > lgtm
> > 
> > please add an owner.
> 
> Did you have anybody in mind? You are listed as an owner
>
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/content/browser/re...
> 
> of the websocket files and none of the other entries seem particularly
relevant.

Oh, OK. Please pick someone from the OWNERS for content/ dir. We usually ask
jam@.
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/content/OWNERS&sq=...

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2014-05-12 18:21:29]

jam@, please take a look at this for OWNERS review.

[jam, 2014-05-12 22:32:51]

lgtm

[hjd_google, 2014-05-13 08:39:08]

The CQ bit was checked by hjd@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-13 08:39:21]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/hjd@google.com/261883006/10001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-13 09:14:10]

Change committed as 270056