Remove implicit conversions from scoped_refptr to T* in net/websockets/

Remove implicit conversions from scoped_refptr to T* in net/websockets/

This patch was generated by running the rewrite_scoped_refptr clang tool
on a Linux build.

BUG=110610
Committed: https://crrev.com/b206dc41dad7f97d6fe6fad6b4a4cbcc65ab0672
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#291970}

[dcheng, 2014-08-25 21:29:09]

dcheng@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ wtc@chromium.org

[dcheng, 2014-08-25 21:29:53]

Unfortunately, we can't make scoped_refptr testable until the conversion
operator has been removed. While it would be possible to disable the conversion
operator and make it testable in the same patch, the automated tool tries to
skip rewriting code where manual cleanups would be useful. This includes things
like:

// What if ReturnsScopedRefPtr() creates a new object internally?
if (ReturnsScopedRefPtr())

Foo* Bar() {
  const scoped_refptr<Foo>& f = ReturnsScopedRefPtr();
  return f;  // Does the return type need to be rewritten? Or is .get() safe?
}

Doing this in one patch would make catching some of these instances (in
particular, a boolean test on a temporary scoped_refptr) more difficult. As a
result, the work is being split into several steps:
Step 1: Rewrite all implicit conversions to be explicit (or rewrite the receiver
type to scoped_refptr<T>, if the tool believes the conversion to be unsafe).
Step 2: Once a platform compiles cleanly without the conversion operator, #ifdef
the conversion operator out.
Step 3: Make scoped_refptr testable on that platform.
Step 4: Remove unnecessary calls to .get().

[wtc, 2014-08-26 18:22:10]

Patch set 1 LGTM. I assume the reformatting was done by "git cl format"?

[dcheng, 2014-08-26 18:22:46]

On 2014/08/26 at 18:22:10, wtc wrote:
> Patch set 1 LGTM. I assume the reformatting was done by "git cl format"?

Yea. Did it do something objectionable?

[wtc, 2014-08-26 18:27:58]

On 2014/08/26 18:22:46, dcheng (OOO) wrote:
> On 2014/08/26 at 18:22:10, wtc wrote:
> > Patch set 1 LGTM. I assume the reformatting was done by "git cl format"?
> 
> Yea. Did it do something objectionable?

No. It did a fine job.

https://codereview.chromium.org/474973004/diff/1/net/websockets/websocket_cha...
File net/websockets/websocket_channel.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/474973004/diff/1/net/websockets/websocket_cha...
net/websockets/websocket_channel.cc:434: front.data().get() ?
front.data()->data() + front.offset() : NULL;

I was curious about this reformatting because we could simply add ".get()" to
the original code without exceeding the 80 chars limit.

[dcheng, 2014-08-26 18:34:14]

https://codereview.chromium.org/474973004/diff/1/net/websockets/websocket_cha...
File net/websockets/websocket_channel.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/474973004/diff/1/net/websockets/websocket_cha...
net/websockets/websocket_channel.cc:434: front.data().get() ?
front.data()->data() + front.offset() : NULL;
On 2014/08/26 18:27:58, wtc wrote:
> 
> I was curious about this reformatting because we could simply add ".get()" to
> the original code without exceeding the 80 chars limit.

Yeah I'm not sure either. I think it has some heuristics to try to keep certain
blocks together on one line, etc.

[dcheng, 2014-08-26 18:34:21]

The CQ bit was checked by dcheng@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-26 18:36:41]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dcheng@chromium.org/474973004/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-26 19:46:41]

Committed patchset #1 (1) as c795614bb39fb311deb0589651cd91ebf89236f7

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-10 02:45:14]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b206dc41dad7f97d6fe6fad6b4a4cbcc65ab0672
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#291970}