Close all panels originated by the extension when extension unloads.

chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/window_open/close_panels_on_uninstall/background.html

Index: chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/window_open/close_panels_on_uninstall/background.html
diff --git a/chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/window_open/close_panels_on_uninstall/background.html b/chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/window_open/close_panels_on_uninstall/background.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..453277213c2a3a2bc5e853c2509dc62f2e86db7d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/window_open/close_panels_on_uninstall/background.html
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+<script>
+
+// Open a panel, popup and tab to non-extension content.
+chrome.windows.create({url: "about:blank", type: "panel"});

[dcheng, 2011/10/28 19:48:17]

about:blank has special behavior. I would create a test page that's not part of
the extension and use that instead.

[prasadt, 2011/10/28 20:19:35]

about:blank meets the requirement for this test as its not considered part of
the extension and that's pretty much what the test needs.

I tried to do it with a test page that's not part of the extension. But I
couldn't find a way to communicate back to the test code that the page loaded as
I'm doing for the extension pages with chrome.test.sendMessage, that mechanism
seems to work only for extension pages. If there is an equivalent of
ExtensionTestMessageListener class for non-extension pages, I'll be happy to use
it. But writing a new listener just for this test seems unnecessary.

Its true that I'm not able to communicate back with about:blank either but its
loading fast enough because:
1) The original browser window that the browser tests create by default is
created with about:blank and so no new process is getting created.
2) about:blank does not involve loading file from disk and parsing html.

There is potential for flakiness but looks like a low risk.

[dcheng, 2011/10/28 20:27:08]

There's some ongoing work to fix the current issues with extensions and security
origins. Per
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/browsers.html#abo...:
The origin of the about:blank Document is set when the Document is created. If
the new browsing context has a creator browsing context, then the origin of the
about:blank Document is the origin of the creator Document. Otherwise, the
origin of the about:blank Document is a globally unique identifier assigned when
the new browsing context is created.

So it is quite possible that in the future, about:blank pages opened by an
extension will be considered part of the extension.

[prasadt, 2011/10/28 20:53:23]

As it stands now, this may not be an issue for this test as the first
about:blank is getting created before extension is loaded.

I could use chrome://extensions instead of about:blank and that works. But there
is a higher chance of running into a timing issue with that causing flakiness,
as it involves creating a new process.

I suggest we stick with about:blank for now and deal with it in the unlikely
case it starts failing sometime in the future.

[dcheng, 2011/10/28 21:11:57]

There's no guarantee that about:blank pages open in the same process, so
about:blank isn't really any guarantee that the timing will work. What is the
timing issue anyway for non-extension pages? I'm trying to understand where the
source of flakiness is coming from, and why WaitForTabsAndPopups isn't enough to
avoid it.

[prasadt, 2011/10/28 22:11:02]

Discussed offline. Yes, about:blank does not guarantee that there won't be a
timing issue. Its just my judgement call that it makes it far less likely.

+window.open("about:blank",
+    "content_popup_non_extension", "height=200,width=200");
+window.open("about:blank", "", "");
+
+// Open a panel, popup and tab to extension content.
+chrome.windows.create({url: "content_panel.html", type: "panel"});
+chrome.windows.create({url: "content_popup.html", type: "popup"});
+chrome.tabs.create({url: "content_tab.html"});
+
+</script>