Remove ScopedVector in components/spellcheck

components/spellcheck/renderer/spellcheck_provider_test.cc

 // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 // found in the LICENSE file.
 
 #include "components/spellcheck/renderer/spellcheck_provider_test.h"
 
+#include "base/memory/ptr_util.h"
 #include "base/stl_util.h"
 #include "components/spellcheck/common/spellcheck_marker.h"
 #include "components/spellcheck/common/spellcheck_messages.h"
 #include "components/spellcheck/renderer/spellcheck.h"
 #include "components/spellcheck/spellcheck_build_features.h"
 #include "ipc/ipc_message_macros.h"
 
 class MockSpellcheck: public SpellCheck {
 };
 
@@ skipping 38 matching lines @@
                         OnCallSpellingService)
     IPC_MESSAGE_UNHANDLED(handled = false)
   IPC_END_MESSAGE_MAP()
 
   if (handled) {
     delete message;
     return true;
   }
 #endif
 
-  messages_.push_back(message);
+  messages_.push_back(base::WrapUnique<IPC::Message>(message));

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2017/01/26 17:40:47]

This makes me queasy, because the use of unique_ptr implies strict ownership
management. And in that world, the API implies that message is owned outside
this function.

I know you can't fix it in this CL, but are you aware of any efforts to fix the
IPC API?

[ke.he, 2017/01/27 03:15:40]

In this testing class, the Send() function doesn't send message to browser side,
it only "emulate" as if it receives the response from browser side. If the
message is handled(by itself), it deletes the message, else, it pushes the
message into scopedVector for later destruct. So, Although the
TestingSpellCheckProvider::Send() overrides from SpellCheckProvider, It seems we
don't need to change the IPC API. what do you think?  Thanks:)

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2017/02/02 16:05:44]

AIUI, the Send() function always takes ownership - see comment in ipc_sender.h:
"The implementor takes ownership of the given Message regardless of whether or
not this method succeeds"

So it _should_ take a unique_ptr. In a world where we have 100% correct APIs :) 

[ke.he, 2017/02/03 00:58:57]

Thanks:)
My understanding is: "the send() function takes ownership" doesn't mean that it
must take a unique_ptr as parameter. the ownership means that the send()
function should take the responsibility of deleting the msg. Now in send()
function, the msg is either deleted directly or push_backed to "messages_"
vector for later deleting. So I guess it is ok for send() to take a commmon ptr
as parameter?

Anyway, I will merge this CL first. do you think it is ok?

   return true;
 }
 
 void TestingSpellCheckProvider::OnCallSpellingService(int route_id,
                            int identifier,
                            const base::string16& text,
                            const std::vector<SpellCheckMarker>& markers) {
 #if BUILDFLAG(USE_BROWSER_SPELLCHECKER)
   NOTREACHED();
 #else
@@ skipping 29 matching lines @@
 
 bool TestingSpellCheckProvider::SatisfyRequestFromCache(
     const base::string16& text,
     blink::WebTextCheckingCompletion* completion) {
   return SpellCheckProvider::SatisfyRequestFromCache(text, completion);
 }
 
 SpellCheckProviderTest::SpellCheckProviderTest() {}
 SpellCheckProviderTest::~SpellCheckProviderTest() {}