Fixes bug in instant where we wouldn't initially tell the page the

Fixes bug in instant where we wouldn't initially tell the page the
real bounds of the omnibox. The bug occurred because we didn't
initially send down the bounds so that when the init script ran it
sent a bounds of 0x0. When the browser then processed the response
that the page supported instant it incorrectly assumed the page was
told the right bounds.

BUG=65463
TEST=see bug (specifcally comment 5). this is now covered by an
     interactive ui test as well.

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=69043

[tonyg_google, 2010-12-10 19:05:33]

On 2010/12/10 18:59:00, sky wrote:

LGTM

[sky, 2010-12-10 23:31:58]

I also needed to update InstantController as it wasn't recording the bounds when
it should have been, and I needed to update test expectations because of the
extract call.

Take another look?

Thanks,

  -Scott

[tonyg, 2010-12-11 00:44:17]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/5697003/diff/7001/chrome/browser/instant/insta...
File chrome/browser/instant/instant_browsertest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5697003/diff/7001/chrome/browser/instant/insta...
chrome/browser/instant/instant_browsertest.cc:255: true, "window.validHeight",
What do you think about replacing this with a test for the new API (ie.
window.searchBox.{x,y,width,height}) or if you want this one add a new one along
side. If you do that, there's a TODO on line 168 that can be killed.

[sky, 2010-12-13 18:35:43]

On 2010/12/11 00:44:17, tonyg wrote:
> LGTM
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5697003/diff/7001/chrome/browser/instant/insta...
> File chrome/browser/instant/instant_browsertest.cc (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5697003/diff/7001/chrome/browser/instant/insta...
> chrome/browser/instant/instant_browsertest.cc:255: true, "window.validHeight",
> What do you think about replacing this with a test for the new API (ie.
> window.searchBox.{x,y,width,height}) or if you want this one add a new one
along
> side. If you do that, there's a TODO on line 168 that can be killed.

I added coverage in this test along with a TODO to update it when we nuke the
old API. I couldn't write an entirely new test as that requires 66104 to be
fixed.

  -Scott