chrome/browser/ui: Remove use of MessageLoopProxy and deprecated MessageLoop APIs

chrome/browser/ui: Remove use of MessageLoopProxy and deprecated MessageLoop APIs

This patch was mostly autogenerated with https://codereview.chromium.org/1010073002/.

BUG=465354
Committed: https://crrev.com/380bb22211dafb455405b3cc4fb4fc0ec5323ac6
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#334146}

[Sami, 2015-06-08 18:29:47]

skyostil@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ msw@chromium.org

[Sami, 2015-06-08 18:30:11]

Sorry for the big patch but it is pretty mechanical. PTAL.

[msw, 2015-06-09 00:51:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/app_list/...
File chrome/browser/ui/app_list/app_list_service_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/app_list/...
chrome/browser/ui/app_list/app_list_service_impl.cc:421: if
(base::MessageLoop::current()) {
Shouldn't this now check base::ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::IsSet() or similar?
Ditto below and the next file in the CL, please audit throughout as needed.

[Sami, 2015-06-09 10:20:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/app_list/...
File chrome/browser/ui/app_list/app_list_service_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/1/chrome/browser/ui/app_list/...
chrome/browser/ui/app_list/app_list_service_impl.cc:421: if
(base::MessageLoop::current()) {
On 2015/06/09 00:51:56, msw wrote:
> Shouldn't this now check base::ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::IsSet() or similar?
> Ditto below and the next file in the CL, please audit throughout as needed.

Well spotted, thanks. Fixed here, below and in app_list_shower_views.cc which
were the only instances.

[msw, 2015-06-10 00:12:58]

Can you please take a closer look at this CL?
I'm worried that the automated changes aren't complete...

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/libgt...
File chrome/browser/ui/libgtk2ui/print_dialog_gtk2.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/libgt...
chrome/browser/ui/libgtk2ui/print_dialog_gtk2.cc:20: #include
"base/thread_task_runner_handle.h"
Take a look at this file; did you mean to change the includes but leave the
existing call to BrowserThread::GetMessageLoopProxyForThread?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/tab_m...
File chrome/browser/ui/tab_modal_confirm_dialog_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/tab_m...
chrome/browser/ui/tab_modal_confirm_dialog_browsertest.cc:138:
content::RunMessageLoop();
Is this still correct?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/ash/tab_scrubber_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/ash/tab_scrubber_browsertest.cc:12: #include
"base/thread_task_runner_handle.h"
Perhaps remove this and message_loop.h, and include base/run_loop.h instead?
This file only uses base::RunLoop and content::RunThisRunLoop.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/bookmarks/bookmark_bar_view_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/bookmarks/bookmark_bar_view_test.cc:321:
loop->task_runner()->PostTask(FROM_HERE, run_loop.QuitClosure());
Is this still correct? Should this file include message_loop.h and run_loop.h?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/status_bubble_views.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/status_bubble_views.cc:248: FROM_HERE,
base::Bind(&StatusBubbleViews::StatusView::OnTimer,
nit: the old line breaking might have been clearer for the trailing |time| arg.
ditto below and elsewhere, but maybe not worth auditing all these calls...

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/status_icons/status_tray_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/status_icons/status_tray_win.cc:79:
worker_thread_.task_runner()->PostTaskAndReply(
Should this file include location.h and single_thread_task_runner.h?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/chromeos/login/l10n_util_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/chromeos/login/l10n_util_unittest.cc:38:
->StartLoadingMachineStatistics(loop.task_runner(), false);
Should this instead use a SingleThreadTaskRunner? (update includes)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc:71: // Runs the
current MessageLoop until |condition| is true or timeout.
nit: update comment?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc:84:
content::RunMessageLoop();
nit: Is this still correct?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/local_discovery/local_discovery_ui_browsertest.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/local_discovery/local_discovery_ui_browsertest.cc:444:
&base::MessageLoop::Quit, base::Unretained(
Is this and base::MessageLoop::current() here and below still correct?
(keep the message_loop.h include if needed)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
File chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc:45:
base::MessageLoop::current()->RunUntilIdle();
Is this correct? Please check other files for base::MessageLoop::current().

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc:147: FROM_HERE,
base::MessageLoop::QuitWhenIdleClosure());
Is this still correct? Maybe update the QuitLoop() function name?

[Sami, 2015-06-10 12:35:34]

Thanks again for the detailed review of a hefty patch. There are some more
details on the linked bug but let me try to summarize:

- The task posting interfaces on MessageLoop as well as the MessageLoopProxy
have been deprecated to reduce the coupling between the MessageLoop and code
which only really wants to post tasks to be executed.

- The preferred way to post tasks is through the TaskRunner interface
(MessageLoop::task_runner()) or via the corresponding TLS getter
(ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get()).

- On the MessageLoop's thread, posting through the ThreadTaskRunnerHandle is
always equivalent to posting to that same message loop's task runner. There are
DCHECKs to enforce this.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/libgt...
File chrome/browser/ui/libgtk2ui/print_dialog_gtk2.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/libgt...
chrome/browser/ui/libgtk2ui/print_dialog_gtk2.cc:20: #include
"base/thread_task_runner_handle.h"
On 2015/06/10 00:12:57, msw wrote:
> Take a look at this file; did you mean to change the includes but leave the
> existing call to BrowserThread::GetMessageLoopProxyForThread?

Yes, I'm not renaming GetMessageLoopProxyForThread for now because  it it's
pretty widely used and is better done as a separate series of patches. Note that
it already returns a SingleThreadTaskRunner so at least the type is correct.

However, you're right that the thread_task_runner_handle.h include isn't
necessary here. Looks like while preparing this patch I accidentally changed
some of the message_loop_proxy.h includes to thread_task_runner_handle.h. I've
now checked each of these and removed the unnecessary ones (two instances).
Sorry about that and thanks for spotting it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/tab_m...
File chrome/browser/ui/tab_modal_confirm_dialog_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/tab_m...
chrome/browser/ui/tab_modal_confirm_dialog_browsertest.cc:138:
content::RunMessageLoop();
On 2015/06/10 00:12:57, msw wrote:
> Is this still correct?

Yes, it is posting a task to the same message loop as before
(ThreadTaskRunnerHandle always points to the current thread's message loop).

The only difference is that we're no longer asserting the type of the message
loop (UI), but from a cursory look it doesn't feel like this test should be
checking that since it's relying on the normal content test harness to set
everything up.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/ash/tab_scrubber_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/ash/tab_scrubber_browsertest.cc:12: #include
"base/thread_task_runner_handle.h"
On 2015/06/10 00:12:57, msw wrote:
> Perhaps remove this and message_loop.h, and include base/run_loop.h instead?
> This file only uses base::RunLoop and content::RunThisRunLoop.

Right, this was the other header I added by mistake. Replaced this and
message_loop.h with run_loop.h

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/bookmarks/bookmark_bar_view_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/bookmarks/bookmark_bar_view_test.cc:321:
loop->task_runner()->PostTask(FROM_HERE, run_loop.QuitClosure());
On 2015/06/10 00:12:57, msw wrote:
> Is this still correct?

Yes, MessageLoop::task_runner()->PostTask replaces MessageLoop::PostTask.

> Should this file include message_loop.h and run_loop.h?

Yes it should. It was probably getting them transitively from some other header
which is why I didn't noticed. Fixed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/status_bubble_views.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/status_bubble_views.cc:248: FROM_HERE,
base::Bind(&StatusBubbleViews::StatusView::OnTimer,
On 2015/06/10 00:12:57, msw wrote:
> nit: the old line breaking might have been clearer for the trailing |time|
arg.
> ditto below and elsewhere, but maybe not worth auditing all these calls...

Right, this was done by git cl format. I've reverted back to the previous style
for this file.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/status_icons/status_tray_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/status_icons/status_tray_win.cc:79:
worker_thread_.task_runner()->PostTaskAndReply(
On 2015/06/10 00:12:57, msw wrote:
> Should this file include location.h and single_thread_task_runner.h?

Yes, well spotted, thanks. The automated rewriting tool doesn't work for windows
targets which is why these were left out.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc:71: // Runs the
current MessageLoop until |condition| is true or timeout.
On 2015/06/10 00:12:58, msw wrote:
> nit: update comment?

The comment still looks accurate to me: the function executes the current
thread's message loop until a condition passes or we time out. The only thing
that changes is that we use a different API for posting into the message loop.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc:84:
content::RunMessageLoop();
On 2015/06/10 00:12:58, msw wrote:
> nit: Is this still correct?

Yes, it's still posting to the message loop for the current thread.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/local_discovery/local_discovery_ui_browsertest.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/local_discovery/local_discovery_ui_browsertest.cc:444:
&base::MessageLoop::Quit, base::Unretained(
On 2015/06/10 00:12:58, msw wrote:
> Is this and base::MessageLoop::current() here and below still correct?

Yes, both MessageLoop::current and ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get point to the same
task queue.

> (keep the message_loop.h include if needed)

Hmm, yes, looks like we still need it for all the MessageLoop references here. A
checked all the the other modified files too and fixed 5 instances where we need
to keep message_loop.h.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
File chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc:45:
base::MessageLoop::current()->RunUntilIdle();
On 2015/06/10 00:12:58, msw wrote:
> Is this correct? Please check other files for base::MessageLoop::current().

Yes, this is still correct[1]: you can't call Run on a SingleThreadTaskRunner
which is why this operation needs to be done directly on the MessageLoop.

[1] Although deprecated too but not the subject of this patch :)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc:147: FROM_HERE,
base::MessageLoop::QuitWhenIdleClosure());
On 2015/06/10 00:12:58, msw wrote:
> Is this still correct? Maybe update the QuitLoop() function name?

Yes, this is still exiting the message loop for the current thread. Only the way
the quit closure is posted changes.

[msw, 2015-06-10 19:34:01]

I know you've discussed these plans thoroughly, but I dislike the added
complexity in a few of these files. Files using base::MessageLoop::current() for
Run or to bind callbacks should probably post tasks to
base::MessageLoop::current()->task_runner() instead of
base::ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get() for the sake of simplicity/readability...
Introducing ThreadTaskRunnerHandle (and SingleThreadTaskRunner) there without
removing MessageLoop usage adds complexity for little/no gain and is likely to
confuse unfamiliar readers... WDYT?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/tab_m...
File chrome/browser/ui/tab_modal_confirm_dialog_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/tab_m...
chrome/browser/ui/tab_modal_confirm_dialog_browsertest.cc:138:
content::RunMessageLoop();
On 2015/06/10 12:35:33, Sami wrote:
> On 2015/06/10 00:12:57, msw wrote:
> > Is this still correct?
> 
> Yes, it is posting a task to the same message loop as before
> (ThreadTaskRunnerHandle always points to the current thread's message loop).
> 
> The only difference is that we're no longer asserting the type of the message
> loop (UI), but from a cursory look it doesn't feel like this test should be
> checking that since it's relying on the normal content test harness to set
> everything up.

If feels odd to post a task to base::ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get() and then call
content::RunMessageLoop()... Is there a way to run that SingleThreadTaskRunner
directly or with more consistent terminology? ie. it seems silly that you can't
call base::ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get()->Run().

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/local_discovery/local_discovery_ui_browsertest.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/20001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/local_discovery/local_discovery_ui_browsertest.cc:444:
&base::MessageLoop::Quit, base::Unretained(
On 2015/06/10 12:35:34, Sami wrote:
> On 2015/06/10 00:12:58, msw wrote:
> > Is this and base::MessageLoop::current() here and below still correct?
> 
> Yes, both MessageLoop::current and ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get point to the
same
> task queue.
> 
> > (keep the message_loop.h include if needed)
> 
> Hmm, yes, looks like we still need it for all the MessageLoop references here.
A
> checked all the the other modified files too and fixed 5 instances where we
need
> to keep message_loop.h.

Again, it seems odd to use inconsistent terminology and access points to work
with the same logical elements (posting MessageLoop::Quit for the
MessageLoop::current() to the SingleThreadTaskRunner held by
ThreadTaskRunnerHandle, then calling MessageLoop::current()->Run()). This new
code is more confusing than the old code (posting the same task to
MessageLoop::current()), and I feel like this isn't the only example. I hope
this refactoring doesn't leave us in a more confusing world... What is the plan
to fix cases like this? Can't we bind Quit() and call Run() on the
SingleThreadTaskRunner? Or should this instead use
MessageLoop::current()->task_runner()->PostDelayedTask()?

[Sami, 2015-06-11 18:14:28]

On 2015/06/10 19:34:01, msw wrote:
> I know you've discussed these plans thoroughly, but I dislike the added
> complexity in a few of these files. Files using base::MessageLoop::current()
for
> Run or to bind callbacks should probably post tasks to
> base::MessageLoop::current()->task_runner() instead of
> base::ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get() for the sake of simplicity/readability...
> Introducing ThreadTaskRunnerHandle (and SingleThreadTaskRunner) there without
> removing MessageLoop usage adds complexity for little/no gain and is likely to
> confuse unfamiliar readers... WDYT?

Yes, I think I agree with you: code that is explicitly dealing with a message
loop is probably better served by posting tasks explicitly to that loop instead
of going via TTRH. For code that is agnostic about message loops (which is
generally the majority), I think TTRH is a better fit because it matches that
use case more closely.

Do you think this is a fair summary? If so, I'd be happy to rework along that.

[msw, 2015-06-11 18:25:34]

On 2015/06/11 18:14:28, Sami wrote:
> On 2015/06/10 19:34:01, msw wrote:
> > I know you've discussed these plans thoroughly, but I dislike the added
> > complexity in a few of these files. Files using base::MessageLoop::current()
> for
> > Run or to bind callbacks should probably post tasks to
> > base::MessageLoop::current()->task_runner() instead of
> > base::ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get() for the sake of
simplicity/readability...
> > Introducing ThreadTaskRunnerHandle (and SingleThreadTaskRunner) there
without
> > removing MessageLoop usage adds complexity for little/no gain and is likely
to
> > confuse unfamiliar readers... WDYT?
> 
> Yes, I think I agree with you: code that is explicitly dealing with a message
> loop is probably better served by posting tasks explicitly to that loop
instead
> of going via TTRH. For code that is agnostic about message loops (which is
> generally the majority), I think TTRH is a better fit because it matches that
> use case more closely.
> 
> Do you think this is a fair summary? If so, I'd be happy to rework along that.

Yes, that sounds much nicer, at least for now.

[Sami, 2015-06-11 19:09:05]

On 2015/06/11 18:25:34, msw wrote:
> 
> Yes, that sounds much nicer, at least for now.

Great, thanks. This is now done.

[msw, 2015-06-12 00:31:22]

lgtm with nits

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/brows...
File chrome/browser/ui/browser_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/brows...
chrome/browser/ui/browser_browsertest.cc:207:
base::MessageLoop::current()->task_runner()->PostTask(
nit: include message_loop.h and base/location.h

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/bookmarks/bookmark_bar_view_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/bookmarks/bookmark_bar_view_test.cc:12: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/download/download_item_view.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/download/download_item_view.cc:18: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/web_dialog_view_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/web_dialog_view_browsertest.cc:9: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc:7: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/local_discovery/local_discovery_ui_browsertest.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/local_discovery/local_discovery_ui_browsertest.cc:13:
#include "base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
File chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc:12: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

[Sami, 2015-06-12 10:56:23]

Thanks, all comments addressed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/brows...
File chrome/browser/ui/browser_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/brows...
chrome/browser/ui/browser_browsertest.cc:207:
base::MessageLoop::current()->task_runner()->PostTask(
On 2015/06/12 00:31:21, msw wrote:
> nit: include message_loop.h and base/location.h

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/bookmarks/bookmark_bar_view_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/bookmarks/bookmark_bar_view_test.cc:12: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
On 2015/06/12 00:31:21, msw wrote:
> nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/download/download_item_view.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/download/download_item_view.cc:18: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
On 2015/06/12 00:31:21, msw wrote:
> nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
File chrome/browser/ui/views/web_dialog_view_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/views...
chrome/browser/ui/views/web_dialog_view_browsertest.cc:9: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
On 2015/06/12 00:31:21, msw wrote:
> nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/constrained_web_dialog_ui_browsertest.cc:7: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
On 2015/06/12 00:31:21, msw wrote:
> nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
File chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/diff/60001/chrome/browser/ui/windo...
chrome/browser/ui/window_sizer/window_sizer_ash_uitest.cc:12: #include
"base/single_thread_task_runner.h"
On 2015/06/12 00:31:22, msw wrote:
> nit: remove sttr and ttrh headers.

Done.

[Sami, 2015-06-12 10:56:29]

The CQ bit was checked by skyostil@chromium.org

[Sami, 2015-06-12 10:56:30]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from msw@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1160073004/#ps80001
(title: "Review comments.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-12 10:56:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1160073004/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-12 12:07:17]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-12 12:08:13]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/380bb22211dafb455405b3cc4fb4fc0ec5323ac6
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#334146}