Android: enable sandbox_linux_unittests by default.

Android: enable sandbox_linux_unittests by default.

Move sandbox_linux_unittests away from the FYI bots and enable them
by default.

BUG=166704
NOTRY=true

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=175695

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2013-01-09 01:10:57]

It has been stable on the FYI bots for a few weeks, let's make
sandbox_linux_unittests a default Android test!

[Isaac (away), 2013-01-09 01:46:04]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/11828008/diff/2004/build/android/buildbot/bui...
File build/android/buildbot/buildbot_functions.sh (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11828008/diff/2004/build/android/buildbot/bui...
build/android/buildbot/buildbot_functions.sh:280: :
change this line to "echo" (no quotes)

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2013-01-09 02:34:41]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/11828008/diff/2004/build/android/build...
File build/android/buildbot/buildbot_functions.sh (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/11828008/diff/2004/build/android/build...
build/android/buildbot/buildbot_functions.sh:280: :
On 2013/01/09 01:46:04, Isaac wrote:
> change this line to "echo" (no quotes)

Done. Markus convinced me to use ":" and he's technically right since echo has a
side effect.

However I agree with you that it's more readable with echo.

[Markus (顧孟勤), 2013-01-09 02:38:25]

That is incorrect. Don't do that! You don't want to introduce side-effects.

If you want to, you can call "true" instead of ":". You could also call "printf"
or "echo -n" (but that's not portable). Neither one is particularly readable,
though.

"true" is exactly the same command as ":", but uses an external program rather
than a shell built-in.

":" is the idiomatically correct way of writing this in shell scripts, and it is
specified by POSIX for this very reason. Think of it as "pass" in Python. But
"true" is acceptable, although using an external program is slightly less
efficient and (just slightly) more fragile. It also looks a little arcane.

"echo" is always the wrong thing to do.

Sorry for being so adamant about this. I am trying to improve the code quality
of our shell scripts, and it's an uphill battle. Since we don't have an official
style-guide for shell scripts, code quality tends to be low, and I've had to fix
a lot of subtle bugs over the years.

On 2013/01/09 01:46:04, Isaac wrote:
> lgtm
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/11828008/diff/2004/build/android/buildbot/bui...
> File build/android/buildbot/buildbot_functions.sh (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/11828008/diff/2004/build/android/buildbot/bui...
> build/android/buildbot/buildbot_functions.sh:280: :
> change this line to "echo" (no quotes)

[Isaac (away), 2013-01-09 03:12:42]

Honestly it doesn't matter.  I'm deleting this code in a commit that's landing
right now.  Maybe you should wait for that change and rebase.

[Isaac (away), 2013-01-09 03:13:05]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/11666023/

[Isaac (away), 2013-01-09 03:14:37]

But thanks for the info about bash, markus, I never knew all of that.  Difficult
of bash correctness is one reason I am migrating this code to python.

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2013-01-09 03:28:13]

On 2013/01/09 03:14:37, Isaac wrote:
> But thanks for the info about bash, markus, I never knew all of that. 
Difficult
> of bash correctness is one reason I am migrating this code to python.

I'll just land this right now and let you delete it then, if you don't mind :)
I don't sleep well when things are not automatically tested.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-01-09 03:29:48]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jln@chromium.org/11828008/6002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-01-09 03:40:28]

Change committed as 175695

[Markus (顧孟勤), 2013-01-09 05:31:50]

On 2013/01/09 03:14:37, Isaac wrote:
> But thanks for the info about bash, markus, I never knew all of that. 
Difficult
> of bash correctness is one reason I am migrating this code to python.

That's probably generally a good idea. And thanks for doing that.

Bourne shell scripts are amazingly versatile, but they are also very difficult
to get right. And we don't have enough expertise to do that. We do have a lot
more people who are familiar with Python, though.

There are still some situations where shell scripts are more appropriate (e.g.
for wrapper scripts that can't make assumptions about the presence of a Python
run-time). But that's the exception rather than the rule.