Use uint16 for port numbers, extensions/ edition

Use uint16 for port numbers, extensions/ edition

This is a piece of a larger CL, split up to avoid overwhelming reviewers. The
entire CL can be viewed at https://codereview.chromium.org/655063002/ .
The intent is to get each piece reviewed separately, then finally land the large
CL after all parts have been approved.

BUG=81439
TEST=none

[Peter Kasting, 2014-11-12 23:50:28]

pkasting@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jyasskin@chromium.org

[Peter Kasting, 2014-11-12 23:54:26]

This is not an independent CL; please see the description for a link to the full
context including brief rationale.

To minimize the chance of problems, after getting green try runs on the large
change, I manually reviewed each smaller CL and added comments where helpful.

https://codereview.chromium.org/717263003/diff/20001/extensions/browser/api/c...
File extensions/browser/api/cast_channel/cast_channel_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/717263003/diff/20001/extensions/browser/api/c...
extensions/browser/api/cast_channel/cast_channel_api.cc:308:
static_cast<uint16>(connect_info.port));
This is guaranteed to be safe due to having previously checked
IsValidConnectInfoPort().

https://codereview.chromium.org/717263003/diff/20001/extensions/browser/api/s...
File extensions/browser/api/socket/socket_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/717263003/diff/20001/extensions/browser/api/s...
extensions/browser/api/socket/socket_api.cc:197: args_->GetInteger(2, &port) &&
port >= 0 && port <= 65535);
Maybe we should have had these checks already?

[Jeffrey Yasskin, 2014-11-17 07:00:34]

lgtm, but +relevant people for the APIs just in case.

https://codereview.chromium.org/717263003/diff/20001/extensions/browser/api/s...
File extensions/browser/api/socket/socket_api.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/717263003/diff/20001/extensions/browser/api/s...
extensions/browser/api/socket/socket_api.cc:197: args_->GetInteger(2, &port) &&
port >= 0 && port <= 65535);
On 2014/11/12 23:54:26, Peter Kasting wrote:
> Maybe we should have had these checks already?

Yes.