Let receiving() and SignalReceivingState be part of rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

Writable() and the related signal are already part of rtc::PacketTransportInterface. Sense of code symmetry aesthetics dictates that receiving() and the related signal should be declared in the same place.

BUG=webrtc:6531
Committed: https://crrev.com/15ca8f6aebccc1737ed32820accb3d413f211386
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#14865}

[johan, 2016-10-24 14:26:27]

The CQ bit was checked by johan@webrtc.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 14:26:39]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.webrtc.org/...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 14:30:32]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 14:30:33]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  presubmit on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.webrtc/builders/presubmit/builds/9483)

[johan, 2016-10-25 14:12:12]

Description was changed from

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.


BUG=
==========

to

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.


BUG=
==========

[johan, 2016-10-25 15:17:53]

Description was changed from

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.


BUG=
==========

to

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

BUG=webrtc:6531
==========

[johan, 2016-10-31 08:58:30]

Description was changed from

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

BUG=webrtc:6531
==========

to

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

Writable() and the related signal are already part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface. Sense of code symmetry aesthetics dictates that
receiving() and the related signal should be declared in the same place.

BUG=webrtc:6531
==========

[johan, 2016-10-31 15:08:43]

johan@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ deadbeef@webrtc.org, pthatcher@webrtc.org

[pthatcher1, 2016-10-31 18:27:30]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2444793003/diff/40001/webrtc/p2p/base/packettra...
File webrtc/p2p/base/packettransportinterface.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2444793003/diff/40001/webrtc/p2p/base/packettra...
webrtc/p2p/base/packettransportinterface.h:39: // The transport has received at
least one packet.
That's not what receiving() means.  It means that the transport has received a
packet in the last X milliseconds, where X is typically settable.  But I'm OK
with this CL without it being settable.  Perhaps update the comment to be "The
transport has received a packet in the last X milliseconds, here X is configured
by each implementation."

[johan, 2016-10-31 19:03:31]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2444793003/diff/40001/webrtc/p2p/base/packettra...
File webrtc/p2p/base/packettransportinterface.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2444793003/diff/40001/webrtc/p2p/base/packettra...
webrtc/p2p/base/packettransportinterface.h:39: // The transport has received at
least one packet.
On 2016/10/31 18:27:30, pthatcher1 wrote:
> That's not what receiving() means.  It means that the transport has received a
> packet in the last X milliseconds, where X is typically settable.  But I'm OK
> with this CL without it being settable.  Perhaps update the comment to be "The
> transport has received a packet in the last X milliseconds, here X is
configured
> by each implementation."

Ok, I missed the periodic check in Connection::UpdateState /
Connection::UpdateReceiving.
Comment updated.

[pthatcher1, 2016-10-31 19:22:55]

lgtm

[Taylor Brandstetter, 2016-11-01 01:08:41]

lgtm

[johan, 2016-11-01 08:26:03]

The CQ bit was checked by johan@webrtc.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-01 08:26:08]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.webrtc.org/...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-01 08:47:43]

Description was changed from

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

Writable() and the related signal are already part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface. Sense of code symmetry aesthetics dictates that
receiving() and the related signal should be declared in the same place.

BUG=webrtc:6531
==========

to

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

Writable() and the related signal are already part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface. Sense of code symmetry aesthetics dictates that
receiving() and the related signal should be declared in the same place.

BUG=webrtc:6531
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-01 08:47:44]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-01 08:47:50]

Description was changed from

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

Writable() and the related signal are already part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface. Sense of code symmetry aesthetics dictates that
receiving() and the related signal should be declared in the same place.

BUG=webrtc:6531
==========

to

==========
Let receiving() and SignalRecevingState be part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface.

Writable() and the related signal are already part of
rtc::PacketTransportInterface. Sense of code symmetry aesthetics dictates that
receiving() and the related signal should be declared in the same place.

BUG=webrtc:6531

Committed: https://crrev.com/15ca8f6aebccc1737ed32820accb3d413f211386
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#14865}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-01 08:47:52]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/15ca8f6aebccc1737ed32820accb3d413f211386
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#14865}