Issue 8084: Decrease P3A upload interval.

[iefremov]

Resolves brave/brave-browser#8084

Submitter Checklist:

• Submitted a ticket for my issue if one did not already exist.
• Used Github auto-closing keywords in the commit message.
• Added/updated tests for this change (for new code or code which already has tests).
• Verified that these changes build without errors on
  • Android
  • iOS
  • Linux
  • macOS
  • Windows
• Verified that these changes pass automated tests (unit, browser, security tests) on
  • iOS
  • Linux
  • macOS
  • Windows
• Verified that all lint errors/warnings are resolved (npm run lint)
• Ran git rebase master (if needed).
• Ran git rebase -i to squash commits (if needed).
• Tagged reviewers and labelled the pull request as needed.
• Request a security/privacy review as needed.
• Add appropriate QA labels (QA/Yes or QA/No) to include the closed issue in milestone
• Public documentation has been updated as necessary. For instance:
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove)
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Proxy-redirected-URLs
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Fingerprinting-Protection-Mode
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Brave%E2%80%99s-Use-of-Referral-Codes
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Custom-Headers
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Web-compatibility-issues-with-tracking-protection
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/QA-Guide

Test Plan:

Reviewer Checklist:

• New files have MPL-2.0 license header.
• Request a security/privacy review as needed.
• Adequate test coverage exists to prevent regressions
• Verify test plan is specified in PR before merging to source

After-merge Checklist:

• The associated issue milestone is set to the smallest version that the
  changes has landed on.
• All relevant documentation has been updated.

[NejcZdovc]

nit: maybe we could do 1 * base::Time::kSecondsPerMinute so that it's clearer

[riastradh-brave]

We should transition all of the randomized delays from integral numbers of seconds to base::TimeDelta -- that's a more general issue that we should fix across the board.

[iefremov]

@riastradh-brave probably, base::TimeDelta, not base::Time? Is there an issue for this?

[riastradh-brave]

(Sorry, wires crossed -- base::time::kSecondsPerMinute is an integer number of seconds; using base::TimeDelta itself is a different issue. Don't mind me!)

[riastradh-brave]

LGTM

[iefremov]

With the help of @linhkikuchi manually verified that CI is ok - only one unrelated build failure on mac