Implementation of a full screen app list and re-alphabetized switches

ui/app_list/app_list_switches.cc

Index: ui/app_list/app_list_switches.cc
diff --git a/ui/app_list/app_list_switches.cc b/ui/app_list/app_list_switches.cc
index c583832888b98b9b0fdb8fb5893c7dc800f2dd4e..03f7d562713a23f442bec89217b75b550e04fa4d 100644
--- a/ui/app_list/app_list_switches.cc
+++ b/ui/app_list/app_list_switches.cc
@@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ const char kDisableAppListDismissOnBlur[] = "disable-app-list-dismiss-on-blur";
 // If set, the app list will be enabled as if enabled from CWS.
 const char kEnableAppList[] = "enable-app-list";
 
+// Enables the fullscreen app list.
+extern const char kEnableFullscreenAppList[] = "enable-fullscreen-app-list";
+
 // Enable/disable syncing of the app list independent of extensions.
 const char kEnableSyncAppList[] = "enable-sync-app-list";
 const char kDisableSyncAppList[] = "disable-sync-app-list";
@@ -87,5 +90,15 @@ bool IsAnswerCardEnabled() {
   return !AnswerServerUrl().empty();
 }
 
+void SetFullscreenAppListSwitch() {

[sky, 2017/04/21 21:02:38]

Is there a reason you have this here rather than in the test, which is the only
place that uses it?

[newcomer, 2017/04/21 22:44:15]

My reason is that usually setters/getters are near each other. However I see why
it could also live in the unit test. Which one do you prefer? This function
won't be around for very long regardless.

[sky, 2017/04/21 23:05:40]

As this code should only be used in tests, not production, putting it in the
test is the way to go.

[newcomer, 2017/04/25 00:16:00]

Done.

+  base::CommandLine::ForCurrentProcess()->AppendSwitch(
+      kEnableFullscreenAppList);
+}
+
+bool IsFullscreenAppListEnabled() {
+  return base::CommandLine::ForCurrentProcess()->HasSwitch(
+      kEnableFullscreenAppList);
+}
+
 }  // namespace switches
 }  // namespace app_list