Determine prevalence of cache-control: no-store in main frame resources.

Determine prevalence of cache-control: no-store in main frame resources.

BUG=383394
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=276651

[jkarlin, 2014-06-11 16:18:50]

davidben: Please review content/
isherman: Please review histograms.xml

[jkarlin, 2014-06-11 16:19:37]

davidben: Please review content/
isherman: Please review histograms.xml

[davidben, 2014-06-11 16:28:01]

I wonder if this is better tracked in HttpNetworkTransaction or
HttpCache::Transaction or something for redirects and whatnot. (Apparently
LOAD_MAIN_FRAME exists as a load flag which... okay. May be worth in the future
exporting some extra hooks on URLRequest so consumers outside net, like
DevTools, can better observe HttpTransaction-level events without having to
sniff the net log. *shrug*)

Anyway, doing it this way LGTM. I'll defer to you whether you think doing it at
the transaction level is better.

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/1/content/browser/loader/resou...
File content/browser/loader/resource_dispatcher_host_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/1/content/browser/loader/resou...
content/browser/loader/resource_dispatcher_host_impl.cc:787: :
CACHE_STORABLE_STORE;
This could also just be a boolean with UMA_HISTOGRAM_BOOLEAN. The enum thing
with 0 or 1 will still work I believe.

[jkarlin, 2014-06-11 16:50:06]

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/1/content/browser/loader/resou...
File content/browser/loader/resource_dispatcher_host_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/1/content/browser/loader/resou...
content/browser/loader/resource_dispatcher_host_impl.cc:787: :
CACHE_STORABLE_STORE;
On 2014/06/11 16:28:01, David Benjamin wrote:
> This could also just be a boolean with UMA_HISTOGRAM_BOOLEAN. The enum thing
> with 0 or 1 will still work I believe.

True, that's simpler.  Went with BOOLEAN.

[jkarlin, 2014-06-11 17:14:09]

On 2014/06/11 16:28:01, David Benjamin wrote:
> I wonder if this is better tracked in HttpNetworkTransaction or
> HttpCache::Transaction or something for redirects and whatnot. (Apparently
> LOAD_MAIN_FRAME exists as a load flag which... okay. May be worth in the
future
> exporting some extra hooks on URLRequest so consumers outside net, like
> DevTools, can better observe HttpTransaction-level events without having to
> sniff the net log. *shrug*)
> 
> Anyway, doing it this way LGTM. I'll defer to you whether you think doing it
at
> the transaction level is better.

Hmm, yes, net is better for redirects. Done. PTAL.

[tburkard, 2014-06-11 17:58:15]

lgtm

[Ilya Sherman, 2014-06-11 20:26:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/60001/tools/metrics/histograms...
File tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/60001/tools/metrics/histograms...
tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml:13524: +    incremented.
Please use an enum to label the buckets, and make the <summary> more about what
the histogram is measuring as a whole.  A good way to write a histogram
<summary> is to answer two questions: "What question does this metric try to
answer?" and "When is this metric recorded, and what sorts of bias might that
lead to?".

[davidben, 2014-06-11 20:37:29]

net/ LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/60001/tools/metrics/histograms...
File tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/60001/tools/metrics/histograms...
tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml:13524: +    incremented.
On 2014/06/11 20:26:20, Ilya Sherman wrote:
> Please use an enum to label the buckets, and make the <summary> more about
what
> the histogram is measuring as a whole.  A good way to write a histogram
> <summary> is to answer two questions: "What question does this metric try to
> answer?" and "When is this metric recorded, and what sorts of bias might that
> lead to?".

(Oh yeah, sorry, when I suggested to use a boolean, I meant only in the metrics
gathering code, not histograms.xml. histograms.xml can still have labelled
buckets with a UMA_HISTOGRAM_BOOLEAN.)

[jkarlin, 2014-06-11 20:55:13]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/60001/tools/metrics/histograms...
File tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/60001/tools/metrics/histograms...
tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml:13524: +    incremented.
On 2014/06/11 20:26:20, Ilya Sherman wrote:
> Please use an enum to label the buckets, and make the <summary> more about
what
> the histogram is measuring as a whole.  A good way to write a histogram
> <summary> is to answer two questions: "What question does this metric try to
> answer?" and "When is this metric recorded, and what sorts of bias might that
> lead to?".

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/329723006/diff/60001/tools/metrics/histograms...
tools/metrics/histograms/histograms.xml:13524: +    incremented.
On 2014/06/11 20:37:29, David Benjamin wrote:
> On 2014/06/11 20:26:20, Ilya Sherman wrote:
> > Please use an enum to label the buckets, and make the <summary> more about
> what
> > the histogram is measuring as a whole.  A good way to write a histogram
> > <summary> is to answer two questions: "What question does this metric try to
> > answer?" and "When is this metric recorded, and what sorts of bias might
that
> > lead to?".
> 
> (Oh yeah, sorry, when I suggested to use a boolean, I meant only in the
metrics
> gathering code, not histograms.xml. histograms.xml can still have labelled
> buckets with a UMA_HISTOGRAM_BOOLEAN.)

Done.

[Ilya Sherman, 2014-06-11 21:42:11]

LGTM -- thanks!

[jkarlin, 2014-06-11 21:53:35]

The CQ bit was checked by jkarlin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 21:56:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jkarlin@chromium.org/329723006/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 22:49:08]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_compile_...)
  win_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_compile_...)
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_x64_rel/...)
  mac_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/mac_gpu/builds/15696)
  win_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/win_gpu/builds/18829)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 22:51:04]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 22:51:06]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_compile_...)
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  mac_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/mac_gpu/builds/15744)
  win_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/win_gpu/builds/18876)

[jkarlin, 2014-06-11 23:35:57]

The CQ bit was checked by jkarlin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 23:37:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jkarlin@chromium.org/329723006/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 00:54:20]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_compile_...)
  win_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_compile_...)
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_x64_rel/...)
  mac_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/mac_gpu/builds/15777)
  win_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/win_gpu/builds/18909)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 01:07:13]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 01:07:14]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_compile_...)
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/win_gpu/builds/18967)

[jkarlin, 2014-06-12 09:11:33]

The CQ bit was checked by jkarlin@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 09:13:08]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jkarlin@chromium.org/329723006/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 13:07:17]

Change committed as 276651