Cronet: a framework for providing alternative Cronet implementations

components/cronet/android/cronet_impl_common_proguard.cfg

Index: components/cronet/android/cronet_impl_common_proguard.cfg
diff --git a/components/cronet/android/cronet_impl_common_proguard.cfg b/components/cronet/android/cronet_impl_common_proguard.cfg
index a4ecdcd3f588518b21c9fd9c8c443ab8f9e89042..905eabe820676bb940a463841fd27f5bd5eefe71 100644
--- a/components/cronet/android/cronet_impl_common_proguard.cfg
+++ b/components/cronet/android/cronet_impl_common_proguard.cfg
@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@
 # Proguard config for apps that depend on cronet_impl_common_java.jar.
 
-# This constructor is called using the reflection from Cronet API (cronet_api.jar).
--keep class org.chromium.net.impl.CronetEngineBuilderImpl {
-    public <init>(android.content.Context);
-}
-
 # This class should be explicitly kept to avoid failure if
 # class/merging/horizontal proguard optimization is enabled.
--keep class org.chromium.net.impl.ImplVersion
+-keep class org.chromium.net.impl.ImplVersion
+
+# Do not obfuscate this class for testing since some of the tests check the class
+# name in order to check that an instantiated engine is the Java one.
+-keep class org.chromium.net.impl.JavaCronetEngine

[pauljensen, 2017/01/18 17:03:04]

Our production proguard files shouldn't have testing references if possible. 
Can we change our tests to simply use "instanceof JavaCronetEngine"?

[kapishnikov, 2017/01/19 01:25:24]

Agree. I actually wanted to add it to the test proguard. One concern is that the
test will not check whether removing this "keep" will break anything in
production.