Revert 120005 - Enabled pressing TAB to traverse through the Omnibox results, removed moving the ...

Revert 120005 - Enabled pressing TAB to traverse through the Omnibox results, removed moving the caret to the end of the line with TAB, and filtered out redundant URLs.

This adds the ability to move through Omnibox result matches using TAB in addition to the arrow keys. To enable this, pressing TAB to move the caret to the end of the line was removed and the keyword hint/shortcut logic has been modified.

The Omnibox popup now shows keyword markers on the right side of matches that have associated keywords (represented by a right arrow). When this kind of match is selected, and the keyword is accepted, the match changes appearance by animating in the associated keyword match from the right to display the "Search X for <>" message. 

If multiple matches have the same keyword then only the most relevant match will display the keyword marker and hint. Pressing TAB while a keyword hint is shown will enter keyword mode in place; the results will no longer change when keyword mode is entered. Additionally, substituting keyword provider matches will only be shown if a keyword substitution
is available.  

Finally, results with redundant destination URLs (e.g., "foo.com", "www.foo.com") will have the less relevant URLs filtered out.

This also addresses some GTK omnibox browsertest flakiness; see bug 112041.

Contributed by aaron.randolph@gmail.com

BUG=57748, 76278, 77662, 80934, 84420
TEST=Press TAB to move the selection down the list of results, SHIFT+TAB to move up.

Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/6731036

TBR=aaron.randolph@gmail.com
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=120018

[kinuko, 2012-02-01 03:06:31]

On 2012/02/01 03:02:39, kinuko wrote:

Aaron, I'm reverting this as we're suspecting it might have broken the Mac
browser tests.
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac10.5%20Tests%20%283%29/build...

[Peter Kasting, 2012-02-02 06:33:20]

On 2012/02/01 03:06:31, kinuko wrote:
> On 2012/02/01 03:02:39, kinuko wrote:
> 
> Aaron, I'm reverting this as we're suspecting it might have broken the Mac
> browser tests.

So did it?  We saw these sorts of failures occasionally in tryruns but they
seemed to be flaky and unrelated to this patch.

If this revert did not definitively fix the problem, please re-land it.  This is
an important patch that's taken too long to get in.

If it DID fix the problem, then please say so clearly so we can try and
investigate.

Please don't revert and then not follow up with clarity on what the revert
accomplished.

[kinuko, 2012-02-02 07:00:03]

Sorry not to follow up, my changes sometimes get reverted with simple comments
like that but I probably followed a bad example.

Here's what happened: we got browser_tests crashes on *multiple* mac bots at the
same time, we suspected this one as this was included in all the blamelists, so
I reverted it.  And the problem was gone. It's hard to tell this was exactly
caused the problem but it seems to have worked.

Before the revert (all crashing in the same way):
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac10.5%20Tests%20%283%29/build...
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac10.5%20Tests%20%283%29/build...
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac%2010.5%20Tests%20%28dbg%29%...

After the revert:
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac10.5%20Tests%20%283%29/build...
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac%2010.5%20Tests%20%28dbg%29%...

(PS: I usually reland changes if revert didn't help, I bet)

On 2012/02/02 06:33:20, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On 2012/02/01 03:06:31, kinuko wrote:
> > On 2012/02/01 03:02:39, kinuko wrote:
> > 
> > Aaron, I'm reverting this as we're suspecting it might have broken the Mac
> > browser tests.
> 
> So did it?  We saw these sorts of failures occasionally in tryruns but they
> seemed to be flaky and unrelated to this patch.
> 
> If this revert did not definitively fix the problem, please re-land it.  This
is
> an important patch that's taken too long to get in.
> 
> If it DID fix the problem, then please say so clearly so we can try and
> investigate.
> 
> Please don't revert and then not follow up with clarity on what the revert
> accomplished.

[kinuko, 2012-02-02 07:05:22]

(+pkasting)

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:00 PM, <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote:

> Sorry not to follow up, my changes sometimes get reverted with simple
> comments
> like that but I probably followed a bad example.
>
> Here's what happened: we got browser_tests crashes on *multiple* mac bots
> at the
> same time, we suspected this one as this was included in all the
> blamelists, so
> I reverted it.  And the problem was gone. It's hard to tell this was
> exactly
> caused the problem but it seems to have worked.
>
> Before the revert (all crashing in the same way):
> http://build.chromium.org/p/**chromium/builders/Mac10.5%**
>
20Tests%20%283%29/builds/8819<http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac10.5%20Tests%20%283%29/builds/8819>
> http://build.chromium.org/p/**chromium/builders/Mac10.5%**
>
20Tests%20%283%29/builds/8820<http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac10.5%20Tests%20%283%29/builds/8820>
> http://build.chromium.org/p/**chromium/builders/Mac%2010.5%**
>
20Tests%20%28dbg%29%284%29/**builds/6315<http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac%2010.5%20Tests%20%28dbg%29%284%29/builds/6315>
>
> After the revert:
> http://build.chromium.org/p/**chromium/builders/Mac10.5%**
>
20Tests%20%283%29/builds/8821<http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac10.5%20Tests%20%283%29/builds/8821>
> http://build.chromium.org/p/**chromium/builders/Mac%2010.5%**
>
20Tests%20%28dbg%29%284%29/**builds/6316<http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium/builders/Mac%2010.5%20Tests%20%28dbg%29%284%29/builds/6316>
>
> (PS: I usually reland changes if revert didn't help, I bet)
>
>
> On 2012/02/02 06:33:20, Peter Kasting wrote:
>
>> On 2012/02/01 03:06:31, kinuko wrote:
>> > On 2012/02/01 03:02:39, kinuko wrote:
>> >
>> > Aaron, I'm reverting this as we're suspecting it might have broken the
>> Mac
>> > browser tests.
>>
>
>  So did it?  We saw these sorts of failures occasionally in tryruns but
>> they
>> seemed to be flaky and unrelated to this patch.
>>
>
>  If this revert did not definitively fix the problem, please re-land it.
>>  This
>>
> is
>
>> an important patch that's taken too long to get in.
>>
>
>  If it DID fix the problem, then please say so clearly so we can try and
>> investigate.
>>
>
>  Please don't revert and then not follow up with clarity on what the revert
>> accomplished.
>>
>
>
>
>
https://chromiumcodereview.**appspot.com/9310017/<https://chromiumcodereview....
>

[Peter Kasting, 2012-02-02 07:08:19]

Thanks, that's the info I was looking for.

[aaron.randolph, 2012-02-02 11:36:27]

I've been trying to replicate this, but haven't had any luck.  

I notice all the failures look to be on 10.5.  Did the other versions pass? 
I've only been testing on 10.7, so maybe I need to get 10.5 into a VM and try
that.

The build links are giving me a 404.  Are they only accessible for a limited
time?

[kinuko, 2012-02-02 20:57:45]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:36 AM, <aaron.randolph@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been trying to replicate this, but haven't had any luck.
>
> I notice all the failures look to be on 10.5.  Did the other versions pass?
> I've only been testing on 10.7, so maybe I need to get 10.5 into a VM and
> try
> that.
>

I think there were also similar errors on 10.6... (looking) yes, they were
failing both on 10.5 and 10.6.
(Please find the link below)


> The build links are giving me a 404.  Are they only accessible for a
> limited
> time?
>

The links seem to be messed up with escaping on the review site (I could
click them in email though).

Hope these shortened links work:
http://goo.gl/1p9rz  (Mac 10.5 Tests 3)
http://goo.gl/FpnkJ (Mac 10.6 Tests 3)



>
https://chromiumcodereview.**appspot.com/9310017/<https://chromiumcodereview....
>

[Peter Kasting, 2012-02-04 00:23:21]

I think we should try re-landing this change and see if the same bots fail the
same ways.  If so we can roll back out again quickly.

I'll try to do this now.