Update {virtual,override,final} for components/ to follow C++11 style.

Update {virtual,override,final} for components/ to follow C++11 style.

This patch was automatically generated using a variation of
https://codereview.chromium.org/598073004

BUG=417463
Committed: https://crrev.com/9b9a41b134861abacf9b59113476cc4ccb000048
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#311288}

[dcheng, 2015-01-08 23:55:27]

dcheng@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ gbillock@chromium.org, mnissler@chromium.org

[dcheng, 2015-01-08 23:55:27]

+mnissler for components/policy, +gbillock for components/storage*

[dcheng, 2015-01-09 18:25:04]

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

[dcheng, 2015-01-09 18:25:05]

+erikwright, mind reviewing this so it can land before the weekend?

[erikwright (departed), 2015-01-09 21:06:51]

Please restore the destructor declaration (inline is fine as before).

LGTM otherwise.

https://codereview.chromium.org/826213004/diff/1/components/policy/core/commo...
File components/policy/core/common/policy_loader_mac_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/826213004/diff/1/components/policy/core/commo...
components/policy/core/common/policy_loader_mac_unittest.cc:140: virtual
~PolicyLoaderMacTest() {}
Chromium guidelines encourage consistent declaration of destructors for all
non-POD objects, even when declared in a .cc file.

http://www.chromium.org/developers/coding-style/cpp-dos-and-donts#TOC-When-yo....

[dcheng, 2015-01-09 22:09:32]

https://codereview.chromium.org/826213004/diff/1/components/policy/core/commo...
File components/policy/core/common/policy_loader_mac_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/826213004/diff/1/components/policy/core/commo...
components/policy/core/common/policy_loader_mac_unittest.cc:140: virtual
~PolicyLoaderMacTest() {}
On 2015/01/09 21:06:51, erikwright wrote:
> Chromium guidelines encourage consistent declaration of destructors for all
> non-POD objects, even when declared in a .cc file.
> 
>
http://www.chromium.org/developers/coding-style/cpp-dos-and-donts#TOC-When-yo....

The reason we declare them is so we can define them out-of-line, to potentially
avoid destructor bloat. This declaration is inline as it is, so there is no
difference between explicitly declaring it and letting the compiler emit an
implicit one.

[dcheng, 2015-01-13 00:33:31]

Ping. Any thoughts on my reply? Otherwise, I'm going to land as-is.

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2015-01-13 10:03:13]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/826213004/diff/1/components/policy/core/commo...
File components/policy/core/common/policy_loader_mac_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/826213004/diff/1/components/policy/core/commo...
components/policy/core/common/policy_loader_mac_unittest.cc:140: virtual
~PolicyLoaderMacTest() {}
On 2015/01/09 22:09:32, dcheng wrote:
> On 2015/01/09 21:06:51, erikwright wrote:
> > Chromium guidelines encourage consistent declaration of destructors for all
> > non-POD objects, even when declared in a .cc file.
> > 
> >
>
http://www.chromium.org/developers/coding-style/cpp-dos-and-donts#TOC-When-yo....
> 
> The reason we declare them is so we can define them out-of-line, to
potentially
> avoid destructor bloat. This declaration is inline as it is, so there is no
> difference between explicitly declaring it and letting the compiler emit an
> implicit one.

The reason this dtor is here is actually because the rule is all classes with
virtual functions should have a virtual dtor. We often waive that rule for
tests. I don't feel strong on this.

[erikwright (departed), 2015-01-13 12:03:27]

LGTM.

https://codereview.chromium.org/826213004/diff/1/components/policy/core/commo...
File components/policy/core/common/policy_loader_mac_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/826213004/diff/1/components/policy/core/commo...
components/policy/core/common/policy_loader_mac_unittest.cc:140: virtual
~PolicyLoaderMacTest() {}
On 2015/01/13 10:03:13, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> On 2015/01/09 22:09:32, dcheng wrote:
> > On 2015/01/09 21:06:51, erikwright wrote:
> > > Chromium guidelines encourage consistent declaration of destructors for
all
> > > non-POD objects, even when declared in a .cc file.
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
http://www.chromium.org/developers/coding-style/cpp-dos-and-donts#TOC-When-yo....
> > 
> > The reason we declare them is so we can define them out-of-line, to
> potentially
> > avoid destructor bloat. This declaration is inline as it is, so there is no
> > difference between explicitly declaring it and letting the compiler emit an
> > implicit one.
> 
> The reason this dtor is here is actually because the rule is all classes with
> virtual functions should have a virtual dtor. We often waive that rule for
> tests. I don't feel strong on this.

I re-read C++ Dos and Don'ts, "What about code outside of headers?":

"it's still wise to follow the above guidelines... Being in a consistent habit
everywhere reduces the risk of making mistakes, and results in more consistent
code... "

Which is what I had based my earlier comment on. But then I kept reading:

"For testing code, most of these factors are reduced or eliminated ...
Ultimately, test file inlining should be a readability-focused judgment call on
the part of the test author and reviewer."

Which seems to apply to this case.

[dcheng, 2015-01-13 16:54:33]

The CQ bit was checked by dcheng@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-01-13 16:55:52]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/826213004/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-01-13 17:58:31]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-01-13 17:59:22]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/9b9a41b134861abacf9b59113476cc4ccb000048
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#311288}