Roll src/third_party/android_protobuf 94f522f9:999188d0

Roll src/third_party/android_protobuf 94f522f9:999188d0

Required for use of the cardboard-java library.

src/third_party/cacheinvalidation/src/proto/android_channel.proto must be updated to include "option allow_alias = true;" in the MajorVersion enum. Otherwise a build-blocking warning about duplicate enum values is raised after this roll.

BUG=389343
Committed: https://crrev.com/1f68ee2ee5486be6b32f40382258dfbb295697a5
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#334064}

[bajones, 2015-06-05 21:18:54]

Rolling to top-of-tree with a minor required change in cacheinvalidation to
prevent build errors. Please take a look!

[bajones, 2015-06-06 04:12:00]

bajones@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ meek@chromium.org, nyquist@chromium.org, zea@chromium.org

[bajones, 2015-06-06 04:12:01]

For some reason my last attempt failed to add any of the reviewers I requested.
:P Let's try this again...

Rolling to top-of-tree with a minor required change in cacheinvalidation to
prevent build errors. Please take a look!

[Nicolas Zea, 2015-06-08 17:55:02]

Didn't you already land that change to the cacheinvalidation folder?

[bajones, 2015-06-09 16:53:25]

On 2015/06/08 17:55:02, Nicolas Zea wrote:
> Didn't you already land that change to the cacheinvalidation folder?

I did do a separate CL for it, yes (which you LGTMed) but found while testing
with the trybots that it required the android_protobuf roll to recognize the
"allow_alias" option. If you roll the protobuf lib without that update, though,
it throws up warnings that block the build, so the roll and the change have to
be made in parallel.

Sorry for the confusion!

[Nicolas Zea, 2015-06-09 17:10:49]

Ah, ok, cacheinvalidation LGTM then

[nyquist, 2015-06-09 17:13:16]

Is there an internal CL for this as well?
I wouldn't want us to fork the cacheinvalidation library.

[bajones, 2015-06-09 17:17:26]

On 2015/06/09 17:13:16, nyquist wrote:
> Is there an internal CL for this as well?
> I wouldn't want us to fork the cacheinvalidation library.

cacheinvalidation was merged into the Chrome repo last week.
(https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4a996cdc7a36a71ac511c153375f...)

[bajones, 2015-06-09 22:24:36]

nyquist@, meek@: Review ping for android_protobuf/ and DEPS roll?

[nyquist, 2015-06-09 22:38:31]

On 2015/06/09 17:17:26, bajones wrote:
> On 2015/06/09 17:13:16, nyquist wrote:
> > Is there an internal CL for this as well?
> > I wouldn't want us to fork the cacheinvalidation library.
> 
> cacheinvalidation was merged into the Chrome repo last week.
>
(https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4a996cdc7a36a71ac511c153375f...)

Yes, but that's not the source of truth.

The source code lives internally and was only ever exported to code.google.com.
From now on, it needs to be exported to the chromium repo directly.

[Colin Meek, 2015-06-09 22:51:51]

On 2015/06/09 22:38:31, nyquist wrote:
> On 2015/06/09 17:17:26, bajones wrote:
> > On 2015/06/09 17:13:16, nyquist wrote:
> > > Is there an internal CL for this as well?
> > > I wouldn't want us to fork the cacheinvalidation library.
> > 
> > cacheinvalidation was merged into the Chrome repo last week.
> >
>
(https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4a996cdc7a36a71ac511c153375f...)
> 
> Yes, but that's not the source of truth.
> 
> The source code lives internally and was only ever exported to
http://code.google.com.
> From now on, it needs to be exported to the chromium repo directly.

The allow_alias flag is already in the authoritative source. We'll update the
export script so that the flag isn't stripped out the next time we export the
cacheinvalidation library.

[nyquist, 2015-06-09 22:52:38]

lgtm

[bajones, 2015-06-09 22:54:06]

The CQ bit was checked by bajones@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-09 22:55:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1149283005/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-09 23:27:48]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-09 23:27:49]

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...)

[bajones, 2015-06-09 23:56:11]

The CQ bit was checked by bajones@chromium.org

[bajones, 2015-06-09 23:56:11]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
nyquist@chromium.org, zea@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1149283005/#ps40001
(title: "Updated BUILD.gn")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-09 23:57:29]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1149283005/40001

[bajones, 2015-06-10 00:13:20]

The CQ bit was checked by bajones@chromium.org

[bajones, 2015-06-10 00:13:20]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
nyquist@chromium.org, zea@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1149283005/#ps60001
(title: "Updated BUILD.gn for reals this time")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-10 00:17:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1149283005/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-10 01:55:24]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-10 01:55:25]

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

[bajones, 2015-06-10 23:01:46]

I've corrected the license issue from the last set of tryjob failures, but I'm
not sure how to address the remaining issue on the android_clang_dbg_recipe bot.
It's giving the following errors:

CRITICAL:root:The following classes needed for analysis were missing:
  java.rmi.Remote
Missing classes: 1

and

FindBugs reported the following issues:
EI_EXPOSE_REP: May expose internal representation by returning reference to
mutable object
  In class com.google.protobuf.nano.CodedInputByteBufferNano
  In method com.google.protobuf.nano.CodedInputByteBufferNano.getBuffer()
  Field com.google.protobuf.nano.CodedInputByteBufferNano.buffer
  At CodedInputByteBufferNano.java:[line 556]

I'm not sure why these errors are only showing up on one bot, and unfortunately
I'm not familiar enough with the classes involved to know how to best address
them. Any thoughts?

[nyquist, 2015-06-11 05:59:01]

On 2015/06/10 23:01:46, bajones wrote:
> I've corrected the license issue from the last set of tryjob failures, but I'm
> not sure how to address the remaining issue on the android_clang_dbg_recipe
bot.
> It's giving the following errors:
> 
> CRITICAL:root:The following classes needed for analysis were missing:
>   java.rmi.Remote
> Missing classes: 1

I've seen this before, but don't remember what the reason was. From what I
remember, it was a red herring. First of all, we don't use RMI in Chrome for
Android. Maybe it failed because findbugs failed?
I don't think the bot it failed on runs proguard, so I don't think it's that
either.

> 
> and
> 
> FindBugs reported the following issues:
> EI_EXPOSE_REP: May expose internal representation by returning reference to
> mutable object
>   In class com.google.protobuf.nano.CodedInputByteBufferNano
>   In method com.google.protobuf.nano.CodedInputByteBufferNano.getBuffer()
>   Field com.google.protobuf.nano.CodedInputByteBufferNano.buffer
>   At CodedInputByteBufferNano.java:[line 556]
> 
> I'm not sure why these errors are only showing up on one bot, and
unfortunately
> I'm not familiar enough with the classes involved to know how to best address
> them. Any thoughts?

Only the clang bot runs findbugs I think?
This is something we should probably ignore. It was news to me that we run
findbugs on third party code though.
Hopefully you can remove this error by disabling it.

[bajones, 2015-06-11 19:15:23]

bajones@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jbudorick@chromium.org

[bajones, 2015-06-11 19:15:24]

jbudorick@: Added a findbugs exception since the error is in a third party lib.
Could you review?

[jbudorick, 2015-06-11 19:31:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1149283005/diff/120001/third_party/android_pr...
File third_party/android_protobuf/android_protobuf.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1149283005/diff/120001/third_party/android_pr...
third_party/android_protobuf/android_protobuf.gyp:16: 'additional_src_dirs': [
'src/java/src/main/java/com/google/protobuf/nano' ],
I think you can just add

  'run_findbugs': 0

here instead of adding to the exclusion file.

[bajones, 2015-06-11 20:19:47]

On 2015/06/11 19:31:56, jbudorick wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1149283005/diff/120001/third_party/android_pr...
> File third_party/android_protobuf/android_protobuf.gyp (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1149283005/diff/120001/third_party/android_pr...
> third_party/android_protobuf/android_protobuf.gyp:16: 'additional_src_dirs': [
> 'src/java/src/main/java/com/google/protobuf/nano' ],
> I think you can just add
> 
>   'run_findbugs': 0
> 
> here instead of adding to the exclusion file.

I much prefer that suggestion, thanks! Giving it a try now.

[bajones, 2015-06-11 20:41:46]

The CQ bit was checked by bajones@chromium.org

[bajones, 2015-06-11 20:41:47]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
nyquist@chromium.org, zea@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1149283005/#ps140001
(title: "Trying jbudorick@'s suggestion")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-11 20:42:04]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1149283005/140001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-11 22:57:35]

Committed patchset #8 (id:140001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-11 22:58:33]

Patchset 8 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/1f68ee2ee5486be6b32f40382258dfbb295697a5
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#334064}