|
|
Created:
3 years, 6 months ago by Thiemo Nagel Modified:
3 years, 6 months ago Reviewers:
emaxx CC:
chromium-reviews Target Ref:
refs/heads/master Project:
chromium Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionAdd to ComponentCloudPolicyService comment
BUG=none
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2933113002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#478955}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/9aa0274f471d0bc845edae1d1c2a7db67770a82f
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 2
Patch Set 2 : Improved comment #Messages
Total messages: 18 (10 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by tnagel@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
tnagel@chromium.org changed reviewers: + emaxx@chromium.org
Hi Maksim, may I ask you to take a look at this small doc update? Thank you! Thiemo
https://codereview.chromium.org/2933113002/diff/1/components/policy/core/comm... File components/policy/core/common/cloud/component_cloud_policy_service.h (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2933113002/diff/1/components/policy/core/comm... components/policy/core/common/cloud/component_cloud_policy_service.h:39: // Manages cloud policy for components (a.k.a. policy for extensions). Actually this may not be correct. It seems to be used for device local account policy as well.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2933113002/diff/1/components/policy/core/comm... File components/policy/core/common/cloud/component_cloud_policy_service.h (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2933113002/diff/1/components/policy/core/comm... components/policy/core/common/cloud/component_cloud_policy_service.h:39: // Manages cloud policy for components (a.k.a. policy for extensions). On 2017/06/12 15:52:47, Thiemo Nagel wrote: > Actually this may not be correct. It seems to be used for device local account > policy as well. Yes, but I feel like it'd be still good to provide the reference to policy for extensions as one of the examples. FWIW: I was always wondering whether we could have some common README file at least for this piece... It could be referenced from all related files. But, of course, writing one would take some time, so definitely not asking this from you.
The CQ bit was checked by tnagel@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
Thank you! > Yes, but I feel like it'd be still good to provide the reference to policy for > extensions as one of the examples. I've updated the comment. PTAL. > FWIW: I was always wondering whether we could have some common README file at > least for this piece... It could be referenced from all related files. > But, of course, writing one would take some time, so definitely not asking this > from you. I must admit that I also lack the understanding. I'm only starting to look into it right now.
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
The CQ bit was checked by emaxx@chromium.org
lgtm
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
CQ is committing da patch. Bot data: {"patchset_id": 20001, "attempt_start_ts": 1497348570115260, "parent_rev": "c6c1d15d250e1c51893cf2abc8a242a8bcf801ea", "commit_rev": "9aa0274f471d0bc845edae1d1c2a7db67770a82f"}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Add to ComponentCloudPolicyService comment BUG=none ========== to ========== Add to ComponentCloudPolicyService comment BUG=none Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2933113002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#478955} Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/9aa0274f471d0bc845edae1d1c2a... ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/9aa0274f471d0bc845edae1d1c2a...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2017/06/13 10:09:30, emaxx wrote: > lgtm Thank you! |