Use uint16 for port numbers, misc edition

Use uint16 for port numbers, misc 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 23:48:49]

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

[Peter Kasting, 2014-11-12 23:53:56]

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 initially getting green try runs on
the large change, I manually reviewed each smaller CL and added comments where
helpful.

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/media/cast/test/sender.cc
File media/cast/test/sender.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/media/cast/test/sender.c...
media/cast/test/sender.cc:279: remote_port < 0 || remote_port > 65535) {
These conditions could have been violated before as well; we probably should
have had such conditionals already.

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/media/cast/test/utility/...
File media/cast/test/utility/udp_proxy_main.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/media/cast/test/utility/...
media/cast/test/utility/udp_proxy_main.cc:148: remote_port > 65535) {
Again, we probably should have done this already.

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/remoting/host/win/rdp_cl...
File remoting/host/win/rdp_client.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/remoting/host/win/rdp_cl...
remoting/host/win/rdp_client.cc:140: server_port > 65535) {
Another case where the old code could have just silently done something bad.

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/remoting/protocol/chromi...
File remoting/protocol/chromium_socket_factory.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/remoting/protocol/chromi...
remoting/protocol/chromium_socket_factory.cc:125: for (uint32 port = min_port;
port <= max_port; ++port) {
The old code was unsafe if a caller passed 65535 for |max_port|.

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/attach...
File sync/internal_api/attachments/attachment_uploader_impl_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/attach...
sync/internal_api/attachments/attachment_uploader_impl_unittest.cc:278: GURL
url(base::StringPrintf("http://localhost:%u/", server_.port()));
I don't think the distinction here actually matters, given that a uint16 is
smaller than an int, but this feels more technically correct.

[gunsch, 2014-11-13 01:14:19]

gunsch@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ gunsch@chromium.org

[gunsch, 2014-11-13 01:14:20]

chromecast/ lgtm

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2014-11-14 18:37:06]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/attach...
File sync/internal_api/attachments/attachment_uploader_impl_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/attach...
sync/internal_api/attachments/attachment_uploader_impl_unittest.cc:278: GURL
url(base::StringPrintf("http://localhost:%u/", server_.port()));
On 2014/11/12 23:53:55, Peter Kasting wrote:
> I don't think the distinction here actually matters, given that a uint16 is
> smaller than an int, but this feels more technically correct.

I imagine printf'ing is not the best practice here. There must be some url
builder helper somewhere I hope.

[Peter Kasting, 2014-11-14 20:36:45]

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/attach...
File sync/internal_api/attachments/attachment_uploader_impl_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/722503002/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/attach...
sync/internal_api/attachments/attachment_uploader_impl_unittest.cc:278: GURL
url(base::StringPrintf("http://localhost:%u/", server_.port()));
On 2014/11/14 18:37:06, cpu wrote:
> On 2014/11/12 23:53:55, Peter Kasting wrote:
> > I don't think the distinction here actually matters, given that a uint16 is
> > smaller than an int, but this feels more technically correct.
> 
> I imagine printf'ing is not the best practice here. There must be some url
> builder helper somewhere I hope.

I think we could construct "http://localhost/" and then do a replacement to
insert the port, but honestly I'm not bugged by this route -- it's short, clear,
and guaranteed to work correctly.