tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml

Index: tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml
diff --git a/tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml b/tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml
index 6c89c0a9380ff3b2fc00705b4a0a6b48ca42e2df..99d270196b6ff90fb813ecb2316770d19b6287bb 100644
--- a/tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml
+++ b/tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml
@@ -52679,6 +52679,14 @@ http://cs/file:chrome/histograms.xml - but prefer this file for new entries.
   </summary>
 </histogram>
 
+<histogram name="Process.Sandbox.JobAvoidedCorrectly" enum="Boolean">

[jwd, 2017/03/01 20:09:31]

Can you add a more descriptive enum for this? 

[pastarmovj, 2017/03/02 06:28:30]

What do you think would better fit here? I thought that provided the name of the
histogram a True/False enum fits perfectly.

[jwd, 2017/03/02 19:58:14]

I actually find the name, summary, and use of this histogram a bit confusing.
From the name alone I interpret the values as:
True: The job was avoided correctly.
False: The job was not avoided, or was avoided incorrectly. (it would be good to
clarify if this is the case)

From the code:
True: Whatever happened with avoiding the job, it was correct.
False: The job was avoided based on the flag, but it shouldn't have been because
the flag was used in a non-remote session.

From the summary:
One of the values, not sure which means: The job was avoided; for some reason it
would have been applied (not avoided?) but it wasn't.
The other value is not used.

[pastarmovj, 2017/03/02 20:21:21]

I tried to document the histogram better. What do you think about this wording?

+  <owner>pastarmovj@chromium.org</owner>
+  <summary>
+    Measures how often the job object would have been applied to a process that
+    was supposed to be allowed to run without it.
+  </summary>
+</histogram>
+
 <histogram name="Process.Sandbox.Launch.Error" enum="WinGetLastError">
   <owner>shrikant@chromium.org</owner>
   <summary>