[Android] Add a "quiet" flag so KillAll doesn't complain if no processes killed

[Android] Add a "quiet" flag so KillAll doesn't complain if no processes killed

This makes it easier to write what turns out to be the most
common usage of this method: ensure that some processes
are not running, and don't care if none is found.

Also helps to distinguish an adb/device error (which should
trigger a retry), from cases where no processes to kill are found
(where the caller doesn't need/want to retry).

Clients that benefit from this flag are also updated.

BUG=475845
Committed: https://crrev.com/84436c8ee6194ac0a782535b07e8643c7a768847
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#325217}

[perezju, 2015-04-10 15:57:08]

perezju@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jbudorick@chromium.org, skyostil@chromium.org

[perezju, 2015-04-10 15:57:09]

skyostil@chromium.org: Please review changes in telemetry
jbudorick@chromium.org: Please review changes in pylib

[jbudorick, 2015-04-10 16:02:34]

I wasn't sure when this would happen, so I had raywilliams submit this:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1074003002/

it can be converted independently, though.

Not sure how you want to handle the _GetPidsImpl conflict. I don't care which of
the two CLs it's in, as long as it's only in one of them.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/20001/build/android/pylib/dev...
File build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/20001/build/android/pylib/dev...
build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py:1356: return
self._GetPidsImpl(process_name)
Hah, I did this independently in my cl.

[perezju, 2015-04-10 16:10:22]

On 2015/04/10 16:02:34, jbudorick wrote:
> I wasn't sure when this would happen, so I had raywilliams submit this:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1074003002/
> 
> it can be converted independently, though.

Ha! Hadn't seen that CL. Another point to my argument for something like
quiet=True. :)

> Not sure how you want to handle the _GetPidsImpl conflict. I don't care which
of
> the two CLs it's in, as long as it's only in one of them.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/20001/build/android/pylib/dev...
> File build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/20001/build/android/pylib/dev...
> build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py:1356: return
> self._GetPidsImpl(process_name)
> Hah, I did this independently in my cl.

No worries, leaving now, so will rebase on Monday after other changes have
landed. But please do review the few implementation details here.

[jbudorick, 2015-04-10 16:14:26]

build/android/ lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/20001/build/android/pylib/dev...
File build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/20001/build/android/pylib/dev...
build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py:614: # TODO(perezu): use
timeout_retry.WaitFor
s/perezu/perezju

:)

[Sami, 2015-04-10 18:06:53]

lgtm.

[perezju, 2015-04-13 12:52:35]

The CQ bit was checked by perezju@chromium.org

[perezju, 2015-04-13 12:52:36]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
jbudorick@chromium.org, skyostil@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/#ps60001
(title: "update pylib/screenshot.py")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-13 12:52:54]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1079113002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-13 18:36:14]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-13 18:36:15]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

[perezju, 2015-04-14 10:19:11]

The CQ bit was checked by perezju@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-14 10:19:39]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1079113002/60001

[jbudorick, 2015-04-14 12:59:49]

On 2015/04/13 18:36:15, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   win_chromium_x64_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_x64_...)

This is not a flake. You need to revert signal.SIGKILL to 9.

[jbudorick, 2015-04-14 13:00:15]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/60001/build/android/pylib/dev...
File build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/60001/build/android/pylib/dev...
build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py:577: def KillAll(self, process_name,
signum=signal.SIGKILL, as_root=False,
(here)

[perezju, 2015-04-14 13:08:10]

On 2015/04/14 13:00:15, jbudorick wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/60001/build/android/pylib/dev...
> File build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/60001/build/android/pylib/dev...
> build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py:577: def KillAll(self,
process_name,
> signum=signal.SIGKILL, as_root=False,
> (here)

Grr.. should we name these maybe in pylib.constants? I think this is probably a
good idea, since they depend on the device, and not on the platform we're
running.

[jbudorick, 2015-04-14 13:08:53]

On 2015/04/14 13:08:10, perezju wrote:
> On 2015/04/14 13:00:15, jbudorick wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/60001/build/android/pylib/dev...
> > File build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/diff/60001/build/android/pylib/dev...
> > build/android/pylib/device/device_utils.py:577: def KillAll(self,
> process_name,
> > signum=signal.SIGKILL, as_root=False,
> > (here)
> 
> Grr.. should we name these maybe in pylib.constants? I think this is probably
a
> good idea, since they depend on the device, and not on the platform we're
> running.

Something like "device_signal"? Yeah, that seems reasonable.

[perezju, 2015-04-14 13:48:40]

The CQ bit was unchecked by perezju@chromium.org

[perezju, 2015-04-14 14:06:25]

ptal

[jbudorick, 2015-04-14 16:58:23]

lgtm

[perezju, 2015-04-15 07:39:28]

The CQ bit was checked by perezju@chromium.org

[perezju, 2015-04-15 07:39:28]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
skyostil@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1079113002/#ps100001
(title: "fix typo")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-15 07:39:59]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1079113002/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-15 10:19:31]

Committed patchset #6 (id:100001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-15 10:20:23]

Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/84436c8ee6194ac0a782535b07e8643c7a768847
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#325217}