Let ViEEncoder express resolution requests as Sinkwants

webrtc/test/frame_generator.cc

Index: webrtc/test/frame_generator.cc
diff --git a/webrtc/test/frame_generator.cc b/webrtc/test/frame_generator.cc
index 302eafc0a48ea6c2aa43b0147f5f815ac0bb27c1..3b1a15194721334378a8730b9d62df8719c4084e 100644
--- a/webrtc/test/frame_generator.cc
+++ b/webrtc/test/frame_generator.cc
@@ -256,6 +256,7 @@ void FrameForwarder::AddOrUpdateSink(rtc::VideoSinkInterface<VideoFrame>* sink,
   rtc::CritScope lock(&crit_);
   RTC_DCHECK(!sink_ || sink_ == sink);
   sink_ = sink;
+  current_sink_wants_ = wants;
 }
 
 void FrameForwarder::RemoveSink(rtc::VideoSinkInterface<VideoFrame>* sink) {
@@ -264,6 +265,16 @@ void FrameForwarder::RemoveSink(rtc::VideoSinkInterface<VideoFrame>* sink) {
   sink_ = nullptr;
 }
 
+rtc::VideoSinkWants FrameForwarder::current_sink_wants() const {
+  rtc::CritScope lock(&crit_);
+  return current_sink_wants_;
+}
+
+size_t FrameForwarder::number_of_sinks() const {

[åsapersson, 2016/10/24 07:54:05]

maybe bool has_sink()

[perkj_webrtc, 2016/10/26 16:40:16]

A source should support multiple sinks.. Currently though, no unit test need
that and thus this implementation only support one. 
But I guess current_sink_wants does not necessarily make sense if there are
multiple sinks so ok, lets rename this for now and we will see in the future. 

+  rtc::CritScope lock(&crit_);
+  return sink_ ? 1u : 0u;
+}
+
 FrameGenerator* FrameGenerator::CreateChromaGenerator(size_t width,
                                                       size_t height) {
   return new ChromaGenerator(width, height);