SW: Move TRACE_EVENT_ASYNC_END to avoid early return and fix typo

SW: Move TRACE_EVENT_ASYNC_END to avoid early return and fix typo

BUG=N/A
TEST=N/A

Committed: https://crrev.com/61e346d59eee12502b2f93c5ddfc224589ff2252
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#296863}

[shimazu, 2014-09-25 05:29:00]

shimazu@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ nhiroki@chromium.org

[shimazu, 2014-09-25 05:29:01]

Please review :)

[nhiroki, 2014-09-25 05:51:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/603863002/diff/1/content/child/service_worker...
File content/child/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/603863002/diff/1/content/child/service_worker...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher.cc:112: "Pattern",
pattern.spec(),
"Pattern" is no longer used in the spec, so can you rename it to "Scope"? (you
don't have to rename the variable in this CL)

https://codereview.chromium.org/603863002/diff/1/content/child/service_worker...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher.cc:137: "Pattern",
pattern.spec());
ditto.

https://codereview.chromium.org/603863002/diff/1/content/child/service_worker...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher.cc:353: request_id);
nit: OnUnregistered calls functions as follows:

  STEP_INTO() -> ASYNC_END() -> Lookup()

But other functions (for example, OnUnregistered) call them in the following
order:

  Lookup() -> STEP_INTO() -> ASYNC_END()

For readability, how about making consistent among them?

[shimazu, 2014-09-25 07:02:47]

Could you review again?

https://codereview.chromium.org/603863002/diff/1/content/child/service_worker...
File content/child/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/603863002/diff/1/content/child/service_worker...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher.cc:112: "Pattern",
pattern.spec(),
On 2014/09/25 05:51:42, nhiroki wrote:
> "Pattern" is no longer used in the spec, so can you rename it to "Scope"? (you
> don't have to rename the variable in this CL)

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/603863002/diff/1/content/child/service_worker...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher.cc:137: "Pattern",
pattern.spec());
On 2014/09/25 05:51:42, nhiroki wrote:
> ditto.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/603863002/diff/1/content/child/service_worker...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher.cc:353: request_id);
On 2014/09/25 05:51:42, nhiroki wrote:
> nit: OnUnregistered calls functions as follows:
> 
>   STEP_INTO() -> ASYNC_END() -> Lookup()
> 
> But other functions (for example, OnUnregistered) call them in the following
> order:
> 
>   Lookup() -> STEP_INTO() -> ASYNC_END()
> 
> For readability, how about making consistent among them?

Done.

[nhiroki, 2014-09-25 08:49:57]

lgtm!

[shimazu, 2014-09-26 00:26:33]

The CQ bit was checked by shimazu@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-26 00:27:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/603863002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-26 02:26:53]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as c7658b9d244bc85e405f47c3896ee392739a9487

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-26 02:28:12]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/61e346d59eee12502b2f93c5ddfc224589ff2252
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#296863}