RTCCertificate::Expires() and ::HasExpired() implemented

webrtc/base/rtccertificate.cc

Index: webrtc/base/rtccertificate.cc
diff --git a/webrtc/base/rtccertificate.cc b/webrtc/base/rtccertificate.cc
index a176d9080b2cc02dacced71778f453d88b81a414..b4ad65a097e2c476c55af60b9f1de4a7659ce203 100644
--- a/webrtc/base/rtccertificate.cc
+++ b/webrtc/base/rtccertificate.cc
@@ -28,13 +28,16 @@ RTCCertificate::RTCCertificate(SSLIdentity* identity)
 RTCCertificate::~RTCCertificate() {
 }
 
-uint64_t RTCCertificate::expires_timestamp_ns() const {
-  // TODO(hbos): Update once SSLIdentity/SSLCertificate supports expires field.
+uint64_t RTCCertificate::Expires() const {
+  int64_t expires = ssl_certificate().CertificateExpirationTime();
+  if (expires != -1)
+    return static_cast<uint64_t>(expires * 1000);  // s -> ms

[torbjorng (webrtc), 2015/12/03 13:05:18]

nit: if uint64_t vs int64_t typing different really matters, then it seems
cleaner to do
   (expired) * 1000
instead.

[hbos, 2015/12/03 16:03:48]

Done. (It would work implicitly anyway just wanted to be extra clear about the
fact that one is signed and the other is unsigned)

+  // If the expiration time could not be retrieved return an expired timestamp.

[torbjorng (webrtc), 2015/12/03 13:05:18]

Might add why 0 is expired (i.e., say that this is 1970-01-01.

[hbos, 2015/12/03 16:03:48]

Done.

   return 0;
 }
 
 bool RTCCertificate::HasExpired() const {
-  return expires_timestamp_ns() <= TimeNanos();
+  return Expires() <= TimeMicros();

[torbjorng (webrtc), 2015/12/03 13:05:18]

Isn't Expires in ms and TimeMicros in ms/1000?

[hbos, 2015/12/03 16:03:48]

Yes, oops, clumsy.

 }
 
 const SSLCertificate& RTCCertificate::ssl_certificate() const {