Fail gracefully when starting Chrome with an invalid kProfileDirectory.

Fail gracefully when starting Chrome with an invalid kProfileDirectory.

Thi would happen if you had an old Chrome/app shortcut. We shouldn't default
to a different profile, since that might leave the user browsing under
an incorrect profile (and thus accidentally leak private data), so we
should show the User Manager instead (since this is what it's there for)

BUG=460006

[noms (inactive), 2015-03-31 19:53:33]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[noms (inactive), 2015-03-31 19:53:38]

Patchset #1 (id:20001) has been deleted

[noms (inactive), 2015-03-31 19:56:35]

[email protected] changed reviewers:
+ [email protected]

[noms (inactive), 2015-03-31 19:56:35]

PTAL. Thanks!

[Mike Lerman, 2015-03-31 20:48:30]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
File chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:356: ProfileInfoCache& cache =
nit: Can this be a const ProfileInfoCache&?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:369: if (profile_index ==
std::string::npos)
We need to make sure that those folks who have disabled NewAvatarMenu can't end
up trying to load guest when they're not supposed to; either add a
!switches::IsNewAvatarMenu() check, or just move this code up above line 360.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:382: if (profile_index !=
std::string::npos &&
We can remove the profile_index != std::string::npos condition here. We've
ensured we can never get to this.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/profiles...
File chrome/browser/profiles/profiles_state.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/profiles...
chrome/browser/profiles/profiles_state.cc:197:
!cache.ProfileIsSigninRequiredAtIndex(index))
nit: 2 line condition means the if needs braces, please

[noms (inactive), 2015-03-31 21:01:33]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
File chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:356: ProfileInfoCache& cache =
On 2015/03/31 20:48:30, Mike Lerman wrote:
> nit: Can this be a const ProfileInfoCache&?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:369: if (profile_index ==
std::string::npos)
On 2015/03/31 20:48:30, Mike Lerman wrote:
> We need to make sure that those folks who have disabled NewAvatarMenu can't
end
> up trying to load guest when they're not supposed to; either add a
> !switches::IsNewAvatarMenu() check, or just move this code up above line 360.

Ughhhhh that's a weird result now, though (but you are correct, they shouldn't
have a User Manager). I can't wait till this gets deleted.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:382: if (profile_index !=
std::string::npos &&
On 2015/03/31 20:48:30, Mike Lerman wrote:
> We can remove the profile_index != std::string::npos condition here. We've
> ensured we can never get to this.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/profiles...
File chrome/browser/profiles/profiles_state.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/diff/60001/chrome/browser/profiles...
chrome/browser/profiles/profiles_state.cc:197:
!cache.ProfileIsSigninRequiredAtIndex(index))
On 2015/03/31 20:48:30, Mike Lerman wrote:
> nit: 2 line condition means the if needs braces, please

Done.

[Mike Lerman, 2015-04-01 13:18:54]

lgtm

[noms, 2015-04-01 13:38:16]

[email protected] changed reviewers:
+ [email protected], [email protected]

[noms, 2015-04-01 13:38:17]

+ scott for owners stamp extravaganza on chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc
:)

[sky, 2015-04-01 16:12:39]

Can you write tests for this?

[noms (inactive), 2015-04-07 14:14:19]

Scott: Added a test! I'm going to rebase and see why the bots are so grumpy, but
would you mind taking another look in the meantime? Thanks!

[sky, 2015-04-08 19:44:17]

LGTM

[Mike Lerman, 2015-04-22 15:06:26]

The CQ bit was checked by [email protected] to run a CQ dry run

[Mike Lerman, 2015-04-22 15:06:26]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from [email protected]
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1042923003/#ps140001
(title: "rebase")

[Mike Lerman, 2015-04-22 15:06:54]

The CQ bit was unchecked by [email protected]