Fix proguard enabled condition in dexing step. By definition proguard_enabled flag should use "true…

Fix proguard enabled condition in dexing step. By definition proguard_enabled flag should use "true" and "false" value instead of 1. Also dexing step should take into account "obfuscating" step which is turned on Release mode only.


BUG=


Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=191362

[Jungshik Jang, 2013-03-28 11:29:00]

Hi Reviewers. 
Could you take a look at it?
Currently proguard feature is broken release build. 
It will fix the issue. It's a bit temporal. So if you have any better solution
please let me know. 

Thanks.

[cjhopman, 2013-03-28 15:10:55]

On 2013/03/28 11:29:00, jayjang1 wrote:
> Hi Reviewers. 
> Could you take a look at it?
> Currently proguard feature is broken release build. 
> It will fix the issue. It's a bit temporal. So if you have any better solution
> please let me know. 
> 
> Thanks.

I'm not sure if you can actually use CONFIGURATION_NAME in a condition like this
(it's a magic variable and we don't use it elsewhere). If it works, though,
great. I prefer having the configuration like this be in gyp, rather than in the
scripts called from gyp (like apk-obfuscate currently is passed the
CONFIGURATION_NAME and enables/disables proguard itself).

If this condition works though, it lgtm.

[Jungshik Jang, 2013-03-29 02:10:59]

On 2013/03/28 15:10:55, cjhopman wrote:
> On 2013/03/28 11:29:00, jayjang1 wrote:
> > Hi Reviewers. 
> > Could you take a look at it?
> > Currently proguard feature is broken release build. 
> > It will fix the issue. It's a bit temporal. So if you have any better
solution
> > please let me know. 
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> I'm not sure if you can actually use CONFIGURATION_NAME in a condition like
this
> (it's a magic variable and we don't use it elsewhere). If it works, though,
> great. I prefer having the configuration like this be in gyp, rather than in
the
> scripts called from gyp (like apk-obfuscate currently is passed the
> CONFIGURATION_NAME and enables/disables proguard itself).
> 
> If this condition works though, it lgtm.

Hi Chris. 
Thanks for your comment. 
I also prefer your way of suggestion 
Problem of this part is that 
if a build target like chrome android sets proguard_enabled="true" with debug
build
configuration it ignores obfuscation. But in dexing step if we use only
proguard_enabled to select proper input files it will assumes obfuscated.jar
which is not generated in ofuscating step because it's ignored. eventually it
will fail. 

Anyway let me double check this again and commit it once I confirm it.
Thanks.

[Jungshik Jang, 2013-03-29 05:26:46]

On 2013/03/29 02:10:59, jayjang1 wrote:
> On 2013/03/28 15:10:55, cjhopman wrote:
> > On 2013/03/28 11:29:00, jayjang1 wrote:
> > > Hi Reviewers. 
> > > Could you take a look at it?
> > > Currently proguard feature is broken release build. 
> > > It will fix the issue. It's a bit temporal. So if you have any better
> solution
> > > please let me know. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if you can actually use CONFIGURATION_NAME in a condition like
> this
> > (it's a magic variable and we don't use it elsewhere). If it works, though,
> > great. I prefer having the configuration like this be in gyp, rather than in
> the
> > scripts called from gyp (like apk-obfuscate currently is passed the
> > CONFIGURATION_NAME and enables/disables proguard itself).
> > 
> > If this condition works though, it lgtm.
> 
> Hi Chris. 
> Thanks for your comment. 
> I also prefer your way of suggestion 
> Problem of this part is that 
> if a build target like chrome android sets proguard_enabled="true" with debug
> build
> configuration it ignores obfuscation. But in dexing step if we use only
> proguard_enabled to select proper input files it will assumes obfuscated.jar
> which is not generated in ofuscating step because it's ignored. eventually it
> will fail. 
> 
> Anyway let me double check this again and commit it once I confirm it.
> Thanks.

I verified both Debug and Release mode.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-03-29 05:27:52]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jayjang@chromium.org/13145006/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-03-29 13:19:50]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/jayjang@chromium.org/13145006/18002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-03-29 16:12:43]

Change committed as 191362