[Offline Pages] Pick correct request when resuming.

components/offline_pages/core/background/request_coordinator.cc

Index: components/offline_pages/core/background/request_coordinator.cc
diff --git a/components/offline_pages/core/background/request_coordinator.cc b/components/offline_pages/core/background/request_coordinator.cc
index 5a363c0a8b056e1a7edc003e0180e37577d5891b..7890914641a7f9b093a94e8deb5fde97619b5e51 100644
--- a/components/offline_pages/core/background/request_coordinator.cc
+++ b/components/offline_pages/core/background/request_coordinator.cc
@@ -425,6 +425,8 @@ void RequestCoordinator::PauseRequests(
 
 void RequestCoordinator::ResumeRequests(
     const std::vector<int64_t>& request_ids) {
+  std::copy(request_ids.begin(), request_ids.end(),
+            std::back_inserter(priortized_requests_));

[Pete Williamson, 2017/03/06 18:30:57]

After thinking about it a bit, I think the user will expect whatever they hit
resume on last to have the highest priority.

If the user resumes 5 web pages in one go (within a few seconds), their intent
may be for them to go in the order they get resumed in.  However, if they choose
one, wait a few seconds and then choose another, presuming that we haven't
already started on the first one, we should probably prioritize their most
recent choice.

Since we aren't going to be smart about checking to see if the resume requests
were close in time, it is probably better to just consistently prefer the most
recent, which means using a front inserter here.

[romax, 2017/03/07 18:40:44]

Done.

   queue_->ChangeRequestsState(
       request_ids, SavePageRequest::RequestState::AVAILABLE,
       base::Bind(&RequestCoordinator::UpdateMultipleRequestsCallback,
@@ -685,16 +687,17 @@ void RequestCoordinator::TryNextRequest(bool is_start_of_processing) {
     return;
   }
 
-  // Ask request queue to make a new PickRequestTask object, then put it on the
-  // task queue.
+  // Ask request queue to make a new PickRequestTask object, then put it on
+  // the task queue.
   queue_->PickNextRequest(
-      policy_.get(), base::Bind(&RequestCoordinator::RequestPicked,
-                                weak_ptr_factory_.GetWeakPtr()),
+      policy_.get(),
+      base::Bind(&RequestCoordinator::RequestPicked,
+                 weak_ptr_factory_.GetWeakPtr()),
       base::Bind(&RequestCoordinator::RequestNotPicked,
                  weak_ptr_factory_.GetWeakPtr()),
       base::Bind(&RequestCoordinator::RequestCounts,
                  weak_ptr_factory_.GetWeakPtr(), is_start_of_processing),
-      *current_conditions_.get(), disabled_requests_);
+      *current_conditions_.get(), disabled_requests_, priortized_requests_);
   // TODO(petewil): Verify current_conditions has a good value on all calling
   // paths.  It is really more of a "last known conditions" than "current
   // conditions".  Consider having a call to Java to check the current