Rework ExtensionApiUnittest to run in extensions_unittests, removing its Chrome dependencies.

Rework ExtensionApiUnittest to run in extensions_unittests, removing its Chrome dependencies.

Move SocketsTcpUnitTest as the first test to use it.

BUG=397164
Committed: https://crrev.com/b6272ef2f62c82478c53f93eb42f2cabed2a21d0
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#292296}

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-13 01:54:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/40001/chrome/browser/extension...
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_api_unittest.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/40001/chrome/browser/extension...
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_api_unittest.h:40: class
ExtensionApiUnittest : public BrowserWithTestWindowTest {
Unfortunately, this is still named extensions::ExtensionApiUnittest, which I
think will cause issues on the Windows linker. I'll probably have to rename one
of them to ExtensionApiUnittestBase or something equally hideous. Thoughts?

[James Cook, 2014-08-13 16:11:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/api/s...
File extensions/browser/api/sockets_tcp/sockets_tcp_api_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/api/s...
extensions/browser/api/sockets_tcp/sockets_tcp_api_unittest.cc:6: #include
"content/public/test/test_browser_context.h"
Not for this CL: I wonder if ExtensionsTest should expose test_browser_context()
to return it as a TestBrowserContext* vs. browser_context() as a
BrowserContext*.  Do you have an opinion?

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/api_t...
File extensions/browser/api_test_utils.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/api_t...
extensions/browser/api_test_utils.cc:135: std::string
RunFunctionAndReturnError(UIThreadExtensionFunction* function,
What's the plan for the copy of this code in
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_function_test_utils.cc?  Can that copy be
refactored to call this copy?

If not, can you leave a comment there pointing out that there is similar code
here?  Can the copy in Chrome be marked deprecated and new test authors
encouraged to use this one?

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
File extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.cc:1: // Copyright 2014 The Chromium
Authors. All rights reserved.
Note there are *two* other files in the chrome codebase named
"extension_api_unittest.cc". I think one of the other two should also be
renamed, maybe the one in c/b/e/api/

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.cc:49: extension_ = ExtensionBuilder()
I like ExtensionBuilder.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
File extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.h:15: #include
"extensions/common/extension.h"
Do you need this include?  (Maybe, for set_extension?)

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.h:16: #include
"testing/gtest/include/gtest/gtest.h"
Do you need this include?

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.h:39: class ExtensionApiUnittest :
public ExtensionsTest {
Thoughts on naming:

This one could be named extensions::ApiUnitTest or extensions::ApiUnitTestBase.
This one could become extensions::Extension*s*ApiUnittest. (yuck)
The Chrome one could come out of the extensions:: namespace (yuck yuck).

Or we could go with extensions::ExtensionApiUnitTestBase, which is long but OK.

(Unit*T*estBase is more common than Unit*t*estBase in chrome code, and I think I
prefer the former despite the _unittest_base.cc filename.  I don't feel
strongly, if you have a preference.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/extensions.gyp
File extensions/extensions.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/extensions.gy...
extensions/extensions.gyp:822: '../base/base.gyp:base_prefs_test_support',
Does extensions/BUILD.gn need to be modified?

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/test/extensio...
File extensions/test/extensions_unittests_main.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/test/extensio...
extensions/test/extensions_unittests_main.cc:73:
gfx::GLSurface::InitializeOneOffForTests();
We need a GL surface for this test?  Why?

In theory most of these tests should not need graphics of any sort. If this has
to exist I think it should be moved into individual tests or a base class for
tests.

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-13 22:53:43]

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/api/s...
File extensions/browser/api/sockets_tcp/sockets_tcp_api_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/api/s...
extensions/browser/api/sockets_tcp/sockets_tcp_api_unittest.cc:6: #include
"content/public/test/test_browser_context.h"
On 2014/08/13 16:11:35, James Cook wrote:
> Not for this CL: I wonder if ExtensionsTest should expose
test_browser_context()
> to return it as a TestBrowserContext* vs. browser_context() as a
> BrowserContext*.  Do you have an opinion?

TestBrowserContext doesn't have any notable special methods on it, so I think we
don't even need a TestBrowserContext*-returner.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/api_t...
File extensions/browser/api_test_utils.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/api_t...
extensions/browser/api_test_utils.cc:135: std::string
RunFunctionAndReturnError(UIThreadExtensionFunction* function,
On 2014/08/13 16:11:36, James Cook wrote:
> What's the plan for the copy of this code in
> chrome/browser/extensions/extension_function_test_utils.cc?  Can that copy be
> refactored to call this copy?
> 
> If not, can you leave a comment there pointing out that there is similar code
> here?  Can the copy in Chrome be marked deprecated and new test authors
> encouraged to use this one?

I'd rather not spend time on refactoring it when the goal is to eliminate it;
I'll add a deprecation comment.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
File extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.cc:1: // Copyright 2014 The Chromium
Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2014/08/13 16:11:36, James Cook wrote:
> Note there are *two* other files in the chrome codebase named
> "extension_api_unittest.cc". I think one of the other two should also be
> renamed, maybe the one in c/b/e/api/

The one in c/c/e/api is actually, as far as I can tell, a unittest for a class
called ExtensionAPI. I'm going to hold off on renaming it. Maybe once we
eliminate the extension_api_unittest in c/b/e, we can settle this.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
File extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.h:15: #include
"extensions/common/extension.h"
On 2014/08/13 16:11:36, James Cook wrote:
> Do you need this include?  (Maybe, for set_extension?)

No.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.h:16: #include
"testing/gtest/include/gtest/gtest.h"
On 2014/08/13 16:11:36, James Cook wrote:
> Do you need this include?

No.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/browser/exten...
extensions/browser/extension_api_unittest.h:39: class ExtensionApiUnittest :
public ExtensionsTest {
On 2014/08/13 16:11:36, James Cook wrote:
> Thoughts on naming:
> 
> This one could be named extensions::ApiUnitTest or
extensions::ApiUnitTestBase.
> This one could become extensions::Extension*s*ApiUnittest. (yuck)
> The Chrome one could come out of the extensions:: namespace (yuck yuck).
> 
> Or we could go with extensions::ExtensionApiUnitTestBase, which is long but
OK.
> 
> (Unit*T*estBase is more common than Unit*t*estBase in chrome code, and I think
I
> prefer the former despite the _unittest_base.cc filename.  I don't feel
> strongly, if you have a preference.)

I like the idea of extensions::ApiUnitTest, in keeping with api_test_utils and
such.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/extensions.gyp
File extensions/extensions.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/extensions.gy...
extensions/extensions.gyp:822: '../base/base.gyp:base_prefs_test_support',
On 2014/08/13 16:11:36, James Cook wrote:
> Does extensions/BUILD.gn need to be modified?

I looked at this briefly; uncommenting extensions:unittests there, it doesn't
build for unrelated reasons already, so I'm not ready to touch it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/test/extensio...
File extensions/test/extensions_unittests_main.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/60001/extensions/test/extensio...
extensions/test/extensions_unittests_main.cc:73:
gfx::GLSurface::InitializeOneOffForTests();
On 2014/08/13 16:11:36, James Cook wrote:
> We need a GL surface for this test?  Why?
> 
> In theory most of these tests should not need graphics of any sort. If this
has
> to exist I think it should be moved into individual tests or a base class for
> tests.

It turns out I don't need it after all. I recall that there was some issue with
startup ordering that led me to put it here.

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-13 23:11:30]

+gab for DEPS (adding a dependency on components/user_prefs to
extensions/browser)

[James Cook, 2014-08-13 23:14:56]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/api_u...
File extensions/browser/api_unittest.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/api_u...
extensions/browser/api_unittest.h:37: class ApiUnitTest : public ExtensionsTest
{
Yeah, I like ApiUnitTest.

[gab, 2014-08-14 13:37:02]

+Bernhard for his opinion on the DEPS addition.

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/DEPS
File extensions/browser/DEPS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/DEPS#...
extensions/browser/DEPS:4: "+components/user_prefs",
It only makes sense in tests, how about a specific include rule block below,
e.g.

specific_include_rules = {
  ".*_unittest.cc": [
    "+components/user_prefs",
  ]
}

?

[James Cook, 2014-08-14 14:51:53]

On 2014/08/14 13:37:02, gab wrote:
> +Bernhard for his opinion on the DEPS addition.
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/DEPS
> File extensions/browser/DEPS (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/DEPS#...
> extensions/browser/DEPS:4: "+components/user_prefs",
> It only makes sense in tests, how about a specific include rule block below,
> e.g.
> 
> specific_include_rules = {
>   ".*_unittest.cc": [
>     "+components/user_prefs",
>   ]
> }
> 
> ?

Note that extensions/shell/browser already depends on components/user_prefs.

yoz, do you think situations like this argue for us consolidating all our DEPS
in src/extensions/DEPS?  It seems increasingly awkward to me to maintain
separate ones -- I've hit a bunch of cases where an existing DEP needed to be
copied from browser/ to common/ or vice versa.

[gab, 2014-08-14 15:22:45]

On 2014/08/14 14:51:53, James Cook wrote:
> On 2014/08/14 13:37:02, gab wrote:
> > +Bernhard for his opinion on the DEPS addition.
> > 
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/DEPS
> > File extensions/browser/DEPS (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/DEPS#...
> > extensions/browser/DEPS:4: "+components/user_prefs",
> > It only makes sense in tests, how about a specific include rule block below,
> > e.g.
> > 
> > specific_include_rules = {
> >   ".*_unittest.cc": [
> >     "+components/user_prefs",
> >   ]
> > }
> > 
> > ?
> 
> Note that extensions/shell/browser already depends on components/user_prefs.

I'm not sure what the extensions shell is, but there it probably makes sense to
do user_prefs::UserPrefs::Set() because it's a standalone program or something??
Typically otherwise only the profile code in chrome/browser should be doing this
(hence why I prefered adding the dependency only for tests here). WDYT?

> 
> yoz, do you think situations like this argue for us consolidating all our DEPS
> in src/extensions/DEPS?  It seems increasingly awkward to me to maintain
> separate ones -- I've hit a bunch of cases where an existing DEP needed to be
> copied from browser/ to common/ or vice versa.

[James Cook, 2014-08-14 15:29:49]

On 2014/08/14 15:22:45, gab wrote:
> On 2014/08/14 14:51:53, James Cook wrote:
> > On 2014/08/14 13:37:02, gab wrote:
> > > +Bernhard for his opinion on the DEPS addition.
> > > 
> > >
https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/DEPS
> > > File extensions/browser/DEPS (right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/80001/extensions/browser/DEPS#...
> > > extensions/browser/DEPS:4: "+components/user_prefs",
> > > It only makes sense in tests, how about a specific include rule block
below,
> > > e.g.
> > > 
> > > specific_include_rules = {
> > >   ".*_unittest.cc": [
> > >     "+components/user_prefs",
> > >   ]
> > > }
> > > 
> > > ?
> > 
> > Note that extensions/shell/browser already depends on components/user_prefs.
> 
> I'm not sure what the extensions shell is, but there it probably makes sense
to
> do user_prefs::UserPrefs::Set() because it's a standalone program or
something??
> Typically otherwise only the profile code in chrome/browser should be doing
this
> (hence why I prefered adding the dependency only for tests here). WDYT?
> 
> > 
> > yoz, do you think situations like this argue for us consolidating all our
DEPS
> > in src/extensions/DEPS?  It seems increasingly awkward to me to maintain
> > separate ones -- I've hit a bunch of cases where an existing DEP needed to
be
> > copied from browser/ to common/ or vice versa.

extensions/shell (nee app_shell, go/appshell) is an executable that sits on top
of src/content and src/extensions and can run a single Chrome app.  It uses
BrowserContext instead of Profile.  It calls user_prefs::UserPrefs::Set().

All that said, I'm fine with a test-only dependency if yoz@ is.  That was more
of a drive-by comment.  :-)

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-14 19:55:15]

I don't mind making it a test-only DEP.

James: I've run across problems before where files from something/browser get
included in extensions/common, so I'd prefer to at least have separate DEPS for
that.

[James Cook, 2014-08-14 20:02:04]

On 2014/08/14 19:55:15, Yoyo Zhou wrote:
> I don't mind making it a test-only DEP.
> 
> James: I've run across problems before where files from something/browser get
> included in extensions/common, so I'd prefer to at least have separate DEPS
for
> that.

OK, SGTM

[gab, 2014-08-15 14:28:36]

DEPS addition lgtm w/ suggestion

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/100001/extensions/browser/DEPS
File extensions/browser/DEPS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/100001/extensions/browser/DEPS...
extensions/browser/DEPS:16: ".*test\.(cc|h)$": [
I think only .cc files should only ever need this.

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-15 18:30:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/100001/extensions/browser/DEPS
File extensions/browser/DEPS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/461273003/diff/100001/extensions/browser/DEPS...
extensions/browser/DEPS:16: ".*test\.(cc|h)$": [
On 2014/08/15 14:28:36, gab wrote:
> I think only .cc files should only ever need this.

Done.

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-15 18:31:00]

The CQ bit was checked by yoz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-15 18:32:26]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yoz@chromium.org/461273003/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-15 20:17:42]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_comp...)
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_rel...)
  win_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_comp...)
  win_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-15 20:19:55]

The CQ bit was unchecked by yoz@chromium.org

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-15 21:12:48]

The CQ bit was checked by yoz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-15 21:15:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yoz@chromium.org/461273003/140001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-15 22:58:15]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_rel...)
  win_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-15 23:21:17]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-15 23:21:18]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_rel...)

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-17 08:29:05]

The CQ bit was checked by yoz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-17 08:29:24]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yoz@chromium.org/461273003/140001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-17 08:33:34]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_rel...)
  win_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-17 08:36:20]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-17 08:36:21]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_rel...)

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-26 23:49:54]

Adding content_app_both to extensions_unittests DEPS per jam's advice.

If that doesn't work, I'll look at whether content_main_runner.cc needs some
more ifdefs, as in https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/489153003/ (which ran
into similar Windows link issues).

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-26 23:50:16]

The CQ bit was checked by yoz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-26 23:52:28]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yoz@chromium.org/461273003/180001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 00:04:03]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/linux_gpu/builds/...)
  mac_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/mac_gpu/builds/46668)
  win_gpu on tryserver.chromium.gpu
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.gpu/builders/win_gpu/builds/52037)
  android_aosp on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_aosp/bu...)
  android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_chromiu...)
  android_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_clang_d...)
  android_dbg_tests_recipe on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_dbg_tes...)
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  ios_dbg_simulator on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_dbg_simulator...)
  ios_rel_device on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_rel_device/bu...)
  ios_rel_device_ninja on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_rel_device_ni...)
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_comp...)
  mac_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_rel_...)
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_rel...)
  win_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_comp...)
  win_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 00:05:22]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 00:05:23]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  ios_dbg_simulator on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_dbg_simulator...)
  mac_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.mac
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_rel_...)

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-27 00:23:35]

The CQ bit was checked by yoz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 00:25:04]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yoz@chromium.org/461273003/200001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 01:27:06]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_rel...)
  win_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 01:38:46]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 01:38:47]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_x64_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-27 20:08:36]

The CQ bit was checked by yoz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 20:09:46]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yoz@chromium.org/461273003/220001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 21:12:18]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win8_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_rel...)
  win_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 21:21:43]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 21:21:44]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_x64_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-27 23:27:33]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/461273003/diff/240001/content/content_...
File content/content_tests.gypi (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/461273003/diff/240001/content/content_...
content/content_tests.gypi:268: 'content.gyp:content_plugin',
jam: FYI, I think adding this fixes the link errors with PluginMain in
content_app_both. (Because of the strange way content_main_runner is built, I
think it can't be added to content_app*'s dependencies.)

[Yoyo Zhou, 2014-08-27 23:27:56]

The CQ bit was checked by yoz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-27 23:29:28]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yoz@chromium.org/461273003/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-28 01:41:11]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  linux_chromium_rel_swarming on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-28 02:23:21]

Committed patchset #12 (id:240001) as 4fb70dbcf3456b9f27a733c4130b8abcc533166d

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-10 02:56:37]

Patchset 12 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b6272ef2f62c82478c53f93eb42f2cabed2a21d0
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#292296}