Move undo files into //components/undo

Move undo files into //components/undo

Create a new component //components/undo and move files from
//chrome/browser/undo into the component.

Add DEPS, OWNERS files and add dependencies on the new component into
chrome/browser/BUILD.gn & chrome/chrome_browser.gypi.

Files where moved using tools/git/move_source_files.py and the #include
lines updated automatically by the script.

BUG=476921
Committed: https://crrev.com/c083d1f4de8537ee81131ddb5d388f2f686fac85
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#325718}

[sdefresne, 2015-04-16 16:02:17]

sdefresne@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ droger@chromium.org, sky@chromium.org

[sdefresne, 2015-04-16 16:02:18]

droger: please take a look
sky: OWNERS review + new DEPS on //ui/base

[sky, 2015-04-16 16:09:45]

LGTM

[droger, 2015-04-17 09:06:22]

LGTM

Do we need a README file?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.gn
File components/undo/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.g...
components/undo/BUILD.gn:34: "//components/undo",
Should it be ":undo" instead? I don't know if this makes a difference or not.

[droger, 2015-04-17 09:07:41]

On 2015/04/17 09:06:22, droger wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> Do we need a README file?
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.gn
> File components/undo/BUILD.gn (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.g...
> components/undo/BUILD.gn:34: "//components/undo",
> Should it be ":undo" instead? I don't know if this makes a difference or not.

Note: these are optional, you can commit as is if you want.

[sdefresne, 2015-04-17 13:52:00]

Other components do not have a README, so I didn't put one.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.gn
File components/undo/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.g...
components/undo/BUILD.gn:34: "//components/undo",
On 2015/04/17 09:06:21, droger wrote:
> Should it be ":undo" instead? I don't know if this makes a difference or not.

There is no need, as //a/b is the same as //a/b:b.

[sdefresne, 2015-04-17 13:52:05]

The CQ bit was checked by sdefresne@chromium.org

[sdefresne, 2015-04-17 13:52:05]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from sky@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/#ps20001
(title: "Rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 13:52:16]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1090993003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 14:22:10]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 14:22:12]

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

[sdefresne, 2015-04-17 19:25:20]

The CQ bit was checked by sdefresne@chromium.org

[sdefresne, 2015-04-17 19:25:20]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from droger@chromium.org,
sky@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/#ps40001
(title: "Fix gn compilation")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 19:25:45]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1090993003/40001

[tfarina, 2015-04-17 20:53:14]

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

[tfarina, 2015-04-17 20:53:15]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.gn
File components/undo/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.g...
components/undo/BUILD.gn:34: "//components/undo",
On 2015/04/17 13:52:00, sdefresne wrote:
> On 2015/04/17 09:06:21, droger wrote:
> > Should it be ":undo" instead? I don't know if this makes a difference or
not.
> 
> There is no need, as //a/b is the same as //a/b:b.

I think that is not Roger was suggesting.

What I think he was suggesting is something like this:

deps = [
  ":undo",
  "//components/bookmarks/test",
]

And yes, I agree with him. This is because the target 'undo' is defined in the
same BUILD.gn file as unit_tests, so it can refer to it by just ':undo', so the
full path is not needed. And this is a standard practice among all other
BUILD.gn deps we have.

Would you mind following up with another CL for this?

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 21:12:53]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 21:14:57]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/c083d1f4de8537ee81131ddb5d388f2f686fac85
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#325718}

[sdefresne, 2015-04-20 08:42:37]

On 2015/04/17 20:53:15, tfarina wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.gn
> File components/undo/BUILD.gn (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1090993003/diff/20001/components/undo/BUILD.g...
> components/undo/BUILD.gn:34: "//components/undo",
> On 2015/04/17 13:52:00, sdefresne wrote:
> > On 2015/04/17 09:06:21, droger wrote:
> > > Should it be ":undo" instead? I don't know if this makes a difference or
> not.
> > 
> > There is no need, as //a/b is the same as //a/b:b.
> 
> I think that is not Roger was suggesting.
> 
> What I think he was suggesting is something like this:
> 
> deps = [
>   ":undo",
>   "//components/bookmarks/test",
> ]
> 
> And yes, I agree with him. This is because the target 'undo' is defined in the
> same BUILD.gn file as unit_tests, so it can refer to it by just ':undo', so
the
> full path is not needed. And this is a standard practice among all other
> BUILD.gn deps we have.
> 
> Would you mind following up with another CL for this?

Oh yes, I misunderstood him. Fixed in https://codereview.chromium.org/1097773005