OOPIF: Allow OOP frames to print console messages in layout tests.

OOPIF: Allow OOP frames to print console messages in layout tests.

When running layout tests with --site-per-process, console messages
from OOP frames were not showing up in test output, breaking
expectations for a lot of tests.  This CL fixes this by allowing
ShellViewHostMsg_PrintMessage to be sent from a swapped-out
RenderView.

BUG=475312, 417518
TEST=http/test/security/postMessage/invalid-origin-throws-exception.html passes with --site-per-process

Committed: https://crrev.com/b57804d8bb5373211a5280f5495c05721f484cfb
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#324555}

[alexmos, 2015-04-09 00:47:02]

alexmos@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ creis@chromium.org

[alexmos, 2015-04-09 00:56:04]

Hey Charlie, this is another workaround to get layout tests further along with
--site-per-process.  Do you think this is acceptable?  Long-term, this and
similar messages should probably be sent via RFH.

[dcheng, 2015-04-09 01:08:55]

dcheng@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dcheng@chromium.org

[dcheng, 2015-04-09 01:08:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
File content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc:52: case
ShellViewHostMsg_PrintMessage::ID:
Would it make sense to tie this to the --site-per-process flag?

[dcheng, 2015-04-09 01:09:05]

On 2015/04/09 at 01:08:56, dcheng wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
> File content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
> content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc:52: case
ShellViewHostMsg_PrintMessage::ID:
> Would it make sense to tie this to the --site-per-process flag?

Or even --dump-render-tree.

[Charlie Reis, 2015-04-09 17:32:26]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
File content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc:52: case
ShellViewHostMsg_PrintMessage::ID:
On 2015/04/09 01:08:55, dcheng wrote:
> Would it make sense to tie this to the --site-per-process flag?
> 
> Or even --dump-render-tree.

There's nothing in Chrome that processes this message, so it's not an issue for
Chrome builds.

We could tie it to --site-per-process if you're concerned that existing tests
might fail due to swapped out RVHs sending console messages, but that seems
unlikely to me.  Layout tests don't really do many (any?) cross-process
navigations.

I think this is fine until we move WebKitTestRunner from RenderView to
RenderFrame.

[dcheng, 2015-04-09 17:37:31]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
File content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc:52: case
ShellViewHostMsg_PrintMessage::ID:
On 2015/04/09 17:32:25, Charlie Reis (slow until 4-15) wrote:
> On 2015/04/09 01:08:55, dcheng wrote:
> > Would it make sense to tie this to the --site-per-process flag?
> > 
> > Or even --dump-render-tree.
> 
> There's nothing in Chrome that processes this message, so it's not an issue
for
> Chrome builds.
> 
> We could tie it to --site-per-process if you're concerned that existing tests
> might fail due to swapped out RVHs sending console messages, but that seems
> unlikely to me.  Layout tests don't really do many (any?) cross-process
> navigations.
> 
> I think this is fine until we move WebKitTestRunner from RenderView to
> RenderFrame.

sgtm

[alexmos, 2015-04-09 19:28:14]

On 2015/04/09 17:37:31, dcheng wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
> File content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005/diff/20001/content/common/swapped_...
> content/common/swapped_out_messages.cc:52: case
> ShellViewHostMsg_PrintMessage::ID:
> On 2015/04/09 17:32:25, Charlie Reis (slow until 4-15) wrote:
> > On 2015/04/09 01:08:55, dcheng wrote:
> > > Would it make sense to tie this to the --site-per-process flag?
> > > 
> > > Or even --dump-render-tree.
> > 
> > There's nothing in Chrome that processes this message, so it's not an issue
> for
> > Chrome builds.
> > 
> > We could tie it to --site-per-process if you're concerned that existing
tests
> > might fail due to swapped out RVHs sending console messages, but that seems
> > unlikely to me.  Layout tests don't really do many (any?) cross-process
> > navigations.
> > 
> > I think this is fine until we move WebKitTestRunner from RenderView to
> > RenderFrame.
> 
> sgtm

Just to be sure, I ran layout tests with this change and verified that they
still work.

[alexmos, 2015-04-09 19:28:20]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-09 19:29:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1067373005/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-09 19:38:55]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-09 19:38:56]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[Charlie Reis, 2015-04-09 19:46:36]

Hmm, I should be an owner for that file.  I guess it's treated like an IPC file?
 If so, dcheng's approval would be sufficient.

[alexmos, 2015-04-09 19:51:09]

Yeah, looks like it's treated like an IPC file.  Daniel, do you mind approving
this?

[dcheng, 2015-04-09 20:32:20]

On 2015/04/09 at 19:51:09, alexmos wrote:
> Yeah, looks like it's treated like an IPC file.  Daniel, do you mind approving
this?

lgtm

[alexmos, 2015-04-10 00:53:26]

The CQ bit was checked by alexmos@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-10 00:54:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1067373005/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-10 01:10:41]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-10 01:11:40]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b57804d8bb5373211a5280f5495c05721f484cfb
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#324555}

[brettw, 2016-03-22 00:04:50]

From https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=596736 I just filed:

https://codereview.chromium.org/1715573002
https://codereview.chromium.org/1067373005

Introduced includes from content/common to content/shell for
swapped_out_messages.cc

I am trying to make GN's header checker pass on content so we don't introduce
layering violations, and that's blocked on this laying violation.

content/shell is a test harness browser while content/common is linked into
every process in the browser. Including content_shell_messages here also brings
in other parts of content shell like shell_test_configuration.h and
leak_detection_result.h into content/common. We need to find a way to do this
that's not a layering violation.

Perhaps content_shell needs it's own superclass of the swapped out messages
filter.