Initial implementation of "Synced Bookmarks" folder.

Initial implementation of "Synced Bookmarks" folder.

Mostly ensures that sycned bookmarks are correctly treated as an immutable
folder. Some of the UI-bits maybe incomplete. For example, if
enable-synced-bookmarks-folder is set, then synced bookmarks will appear in the
bookmark manager page and some components of the UI but it's not on the bookmark
bar or anything like that. This change also ensures that the synced bookmark
folder matches a sync folder if one is available.

BUG=
TEST=

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=84829

[tim (not reviewing), 2011-05-05 20:18:34]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/diff/2001/chrome/browser/bookmarks/boo...
File chrome/browser/bookmarks/bookmark_model.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/diff/2001/chrome/browser/bookmarks/boo...
chrome/browser/bookmarks/bookmark_model.h:320: }
nit - indent

http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/diff/2001/chrome/browser/sync/profile_...
File chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_service_bookmark_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/diff/2001/chrome/browser/sync/profile_...
chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_service_bookmark_unittest.cc:491: return
nit - indent

[Yaron, 2011-05-05 22:51:31]

Comments addressed. I also fixed some unit tests that I broke when adding the
command line flag. I'll ship these to try server and hopefully they'll come up
green this time.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/diff/2001/chrome/browser/bookmarks/boo...
File chrome/browser/bookmarks/bookmark_model.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/diff/2001/chrome/browser/bookmarks/boo...
chrome/browser/bookmarks/bookmark_model.h:320: }
On 2011/05/05 20:18:34, timsteele wrote:
> nit - indent

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/diff/2001/chrome/browser/sync/profile_...
File chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_service_bookmark_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/diff/2001/chrome/browser/sync/profile_...
chrome/browser/sync/profile_sync_service_bookmark_unittest.cc:491: return
On 2011/05/05 20:18:34, timsteele wrote:
> nit - indent

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-05-09 21:31:30]

Can't process patch for file
chrome/browser/ui/gtk/bookmarks/bookmark_editor_gtk_unittest.cc.
File's status is None, patchset upload is incomplete.

[Yaron, 2011-05-09 21:52:15]

On 2011/05/09 21:31:30, commit-bot wrote:
> Can't process patch for file
> chrome/browser/ui/gtk/bookmarks/bookmark_editor_gtk_unittest.cc.
> File's status is None, patchset upload is incomplete.

Does anyone know how to unbork this commit? It seems that the one file mentioned
is missing the "M"/modified bit. I've searched around for a bit but I don't see
anything. I could try rebasing but the file hasn't been updated since I made my
changes so I'm not optimistic

[ncarter (slow), 2011-05-09 22:01:38]

On 2011/05/09 21:52:15, Yaron wrote:
> On 2011/05/09 21:31:30, commit-bot wrote:
> > Can't process patch for file
> > chrome/browser/ui/gtk/bookmarks/bookmark_editor_gtk_unittest.cc.
> > File's status is None, patchset upload is incomplete.
> 
> Does anyone know how to unbork this commit? It seems that the one file
mentioned
> is missing the "M"/modified bit. I've searched around for a bit but I don't
see
> anything. I could try rebasing but the file hasn't been updated since I made
my
> changes so I'm not optimistic

Maybe this:
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/coding-style#TOC-Subversion-properties ?

[Yaron, 2011-05-10 00:18:49]

On 2011/05/09 22:01:38, ncarter wrote:
> On 2011/05/09 21:52:15, Yaron wrote:
> > On 2011/05/09 21:31:30, commit-bot wrote:
> > > Can't process patch for file
> > > chrome/browser/ui/gtk/bookmarks/bookmark_editor_gtk_unittest.cc.
> > > File's status is None, patchset upload is incomplete.
> > 
> > Does anyone know how to unbork this commit? It seems that the one file
> mentioned
> > is missing the "M"/modified bit. I've searched around for a bit but I don't
> see
> > anything. I could try rebasing but the file hasn't been updated since I made
> my
> > changes so I'm not optimistic
> 
> Maybe this:
> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/coding-style#TOC-Subversion-properties ?

I don't think that does it. It's not a new file and mine looks correct.

[sky, 2011-05-11 14:48:07]

How come you didn't include reviewers listed in 
chrome/browser/bookmarks/OWNERS?

  -Scott

[Yaron, 2011-05-11 15:47:02]

It was an honest mistake, sorry.
1) It's been a while since I've worked in a codebase where I'm not an owner and
so it slipped my mind
2) I didn't realize owners wasn't enforced by tooling.

I'll revert this because of 82273 and so you can do a proper review.

On 2011/05/11 14:48:07, sky wrote:
> How come you didn't include reviewers listed in 
> chrome/browser/bookmarks/OWNERS?
> 
>   -Scott

[sky, 2011-05-11 15:51:07]

Understood. I'm not sure I would have caught the regression in a
review. Now you have an extra test case to write a test for.

  -Scott

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:47 AM,  <yfriedman@chromium.org> wrote:
> It was an honest mistake, sorry.
> 1) It's been a while since I've worked in a codebase where I'm not an owner
> and
> so it slipped my mind
> 2) I didn't realize owners wasn't enforced by tooling.
>
> I'll revert this because of 82273 and so you can do a proper review.
>
> On 2011/05/11 14:48:07, sky wrote:
>>
>> How come you didn't include reviewers listed in
>> chrome/browser/bookmarks/OWNERS?
>
>>   -Scott
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/
>

[tim (not reviewing), 2011-05-11 15:51:57]

My bad too.  Does the commit bot check for multiple LGTMs?

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:47 AM, <yfriedman@chromium.org> wrote:

> It was an honest mistake, sorry.
> 1) It's been a while since I've worked in a codebase where I'm not an owner
> and
> so it slipped my mind
> 2) I didn't realize owners wasn't enforced by tooling.
>
> I'll revert this because of 82273 and so you can do a proper review.
>
>
> On 2011/05/11 14:48:07, sky wrote:
>
>> How come you didn't include reviewers listed in
>> chrome/browser/bookmarks/OWNERS?
>>
>
>    -Scott
>>
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/
>

[sky, 2011-05-11 15:54:44]

I know from the command line if you don't have LGTMs from the
necessary folks you have to use -f, but I'm not sure about the commit
bot.

  -Scott

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Tim Steele <tim@chromium.org> wrote:
> My bad too.  Does the commit bot check for multiple LGTMs?
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:47 AM, <yfriedman@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> It was an honest mistake, sorry.
>> 1) It's been a while since I've worked in a codebase where I'm not an
>> owner and
>> so it slipped my mind
>> 2) I didn't realize owners wasn't enforced by tooling.
>>
>> I'll revert this because of 82273 and so you can do a proper review.
>>
>> On 2011/05/11 14:48:07, sky wrote:
>>>
>>> How come you didn't include reviewers listed in
>>> chrome/browser/bookmarks/OWNERS?
>>
>>>   -Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/
>
>

[Yaron, 2011-05-11 15:55:42]

Tim, if you recall, I couldn't use the commit bot because of the issue with
bookmark_editor_gtk_unittest.cc so it wouldn't have helped (although it'd be
interesting to know in either case)

I uploaded http://codereview.chromium.org/7002033/

On 2011/05/11 15:51:57, timsteele wrote:
> My bad too.  Does the commit bot check for multiple LGTMs?
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:47 AM, <mailto:yfriedman@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > It was an honest mistake, sorry.
> > 1) It's been a while since I've worked in a codebase where I'm not an owner
> > and
> > so it slipped my mind
> > 2) I didn't realize owners wasn't enforced by tooling.
> >
> > I'll revert this because of 82273 and so you can do a proper review.
> >
> >
> > On 2011/05/11 14:48:07, sky wrote:
> >
> >> How come you didn't include reviewers listed in
> >> chrome/browser/bookmarks/OWNERS?
> >>
> >
> >    -Scott
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/
> >

[Yaron, 2011-05-11 15:56:24]

Strange because I used "git cl dcommit" and I definitely didn't force it.
 
On 2011/05/11 15:54:44, sky wrote:
> I know from the command line if you don't have LGTMs from the
> necessary folks you have to use -f, but I'm not sure about the commit
> bot.
> 
>   -Scott
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Tim Steele <mailto:tim@chromium.org> wrote:
> > My bad too. &nbsp;Does the commit bot check for multiple LGTMs?
> >
> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:47 AM, <mailto:yfriedman@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> It was an honest mistake, sorry.
> >> 1) It's been a while since I've worked in a codebase where I'm not an
> >> owner and
> >> so it slipped my mind
> >> 2) I didn't realize owners wasn't enforced by tooling.
> >>
> >> I'll revert this because of 82273 and so you can do a proper review.
> >>
> >> On 2011/05/11 14:48:07, sky wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How come you didn't include reviewers listed in
> >>> chrome/browser/bookmarks/OWNERS?
> >>
> >>> &nbsp; -Scott
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/6931018/
> >
> >