[DevTools] Do not report edited resources via Page.getResourceContent.

[DevTools] Do not report edited resources via Page.getResourceContent.

Instead of requesting scripts through Page.getResourceContent, we should
use Debugger.getScriptSource or CSS.getStylesheetTest.

NetworkProject already does that.

A couple of race fixes along the way because of changed timings.

BUG=none

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=200585

[dgozman, 2015-07-16 15:45:36]

The CQ bit was checked by dgozman@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-16 15:45:48]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1238103002/20001

[dgozman, 2015-07-16 15:46:01]

dgozman@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ pfeldman@chromium.org, sergeyv@chromium.org, yurys@chromium.org

[dgozman, 2015-07-16 15:46:01]

Could you please take a look?

[yurys, 2015-07-16 16:30:35]

I like backend part.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/LayoutTests/http/tests/...
File LayoutTests/http/tests/inspector/workspace-test.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/LayoutTests/http/tests/...
LayoutTests/http/tests/inspector/workspace-test.js:14:
WebInspector.NetworkProject.prototype._populate = restoreAfterCalledOnce;
Please use InspectorTest.override instead.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/core/inspector/I...
File Source/core/inspector/InspectorPageAgent.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/core/inspector/I...
Source/core/inspector/InspectorPageAgent.cpp:531: if
(m_cssAgent->getEditedStyleSheet(url, &content)) {
Are you going to remove this one too?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:532:
scripts[0].requestContent(loadResourceContent.bind(this));
Why not scripts[0].requestContent(callback); ? Can script.requestContent fail?
Even in that case we would just repeat  findScripts(...) and call to
requestContent.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js:243: if
(boundScriptFile && boundScriptFile.hasScripts(scripts))
Was it a bug or what? If so it may make sense to extract them into a separate
CL.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/sdk/DebuggerModel.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/sdk/DebuggerModel.js:133:
this._pauseOnExceptionStateChanged();
I'd expect all of these code to be executed after debugger was enabled. Now we
will send  DebuggerWasEnabled after modifying exception state which is weird I
suspect it may well break something.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/workspace/UISourceCode.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/workspace/UISourceCode.js:465: return this._content ||
"";
I wonder why JS compiler didn't catch this?

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-16 17:03:16]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-16 17:03:17]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[dgozman, 2015-07-17 14:39:16]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/LayoutTests/http/tests/...
File LayoutTests/http/tests/inspector/workspace-test.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/LayoutTests/http/tests/...
LayoutTests/http/tests/inspector/workspace-test.js:14:
WebInspector.NetworkProject.prototype._populate = restoreAfterCalledOnce;
On 2015/07/16 16:30:35, yurys wrote:
> Please use InspectorTest.override instead.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/core/inspector/I...
File Source/core/inspector/InspectorPageAgent.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/core/inspector/I...
Source/core/inspector/InspectorPageAgent.cpp:531: if
(m_cssAgent->getEditedStyleSheet(url, &content)) {
On 2015/07/16 16:30:35, yurys wrote:
> Are you going to remove this one too?

In next patch if this one sticks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:532:
scripts[0].requestContent(loadResourceContent.bind(this));
On 2015/07/16 16:30:35, yurys wrote:
> Why not scripts[0].requestContent(callback); ? Can script.requestContent fail?
> Even in that case we would just repeat  findScripts(...) and call to
> requestContent.

Fixed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js:243: if
(boundScriptFile && boundScriptFile.hasScripts(scripts))
On 2015/07/16 16:30:35, yurys wrote:
> Was it a bug or what? If so it may make sense to extract them into a separate
> CL.

This is a race, but it always happened in one order because of event listeners
order. So, before this patch it was even impossible to write a test.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/sdk/DebuggerModel.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/sdk/DebuggerModel.js:133:
this._pauseOnExceptionStateChanged();
On 2015/07/16 16:30:35, yurys wrote:
> I'd expect all of these code to be executed after debugger was enabled. Now we
> will send  DebuggerWasEnabled after modifying exception state which is weird I
> suspect it may well break something.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/workspace/UISourceCode.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/workspace/UISourceCode.js:465: return this._content ||
"";
On 2015/07/16 16:30:35, yurys wrote:
> I wonder why JS compiler didn't catch this?

Probably because this._content was not initialized in constructor and didn't
have type annotation.

[yurys, 2015-07-17 14:53:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/40001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/40001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:499: else if (type ===
WebInspector.resourceTypes.Script)
This branch is unreachable, we would have returned at line 511 if it were type
=== Script and we found a script or am I missing something?

[dgozman, 2015-07-17 16:41:42]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/40001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/40001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:499: else if (type ===
WebInspector.resourceTypes.Script)
On 2015/07/17 14:53:08, yurys wrote:
> This branch is unreachable, we would have returned at line 511 if it were type
> === Script and we found a script or am I missing something?

You are right! Done.

[yurys, 2015-07-20 08:23:38]

lgtm

[sergeyv, 2015-07-20 08:40:59]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:485: callback(content);
Looks like you are going to have a stale content for edited scripts after a
reopening of DevTools.

[sergeyv, 2015-07-20 08:45:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:485: callback(content);
On 2015/07/20 08:40:58, sergeyv wrote:
> Looks like you are going to have a stale content for edited scripts after a
> reopening of DevTools.

Sorry, I mixed up brackets. That's not correct

[dgozman, 2015-07-20 09:17:54]

The CQ bit was checked by dgozman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-20 09:18:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1238103002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-07-20 10:40:26]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=199161

[pfeldman, 2015-07-20 17:47:56]

A revert of this CL (patchset #4 id:60001) has been created in
https://codereview.chromium.org/1240373002/ by pfeldman@chromium.org.

The reason for reverting is: I'm not sure it works the right way with the
extensions / resources panel..

[dgozman, 2015-07-20 18:05:26]

On 2015/07/20 17:47:56, pfeldman wrote:
> A revert of this CL (patchset #4 id:60001) has been created in
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1240373002/ by mailto:pfeldman@chromium.org.
> 
> The reason for reverting is: I'm not sure it works the right way with the
> extensions / resources panel..

Could you please be more specific? Describe your concerns.

[pfeldman, 2015-07-20 18:16:33]

On 2015/07/20 18:05:26, dgozman wrote:
> On 2015/07/20 17:47:56, pfeldman wrote:
> > A revert of this CL (patchset #4 id:60001) has been created in
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/1240373002/ by mailto:pfeldman@chromium.org.
> > 
> > The reason for reverting is: I'm not sure it works the right way with the
> > extensions / resources panel..
> 
> Could you please be more specific? Describe your concerns.

My concern is that page agent no longer returns the right content for the edited
scripts.

[dgozman, 2015-07-20 18:25:39]

On 2015/07/20 18:16:33, pfeldman wrote:
> On 2015/07/20 18:05:26, dgozman wrote:
> > On 2015/07/20 17:47:56, pfeldman wrote:
> > > A revert of this CL (patchset #4 id:60001) has been created in
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/1240373002/ by
mailto:pfeldman@chromium.org.
> > > 
> > > The reason for reverting is: I'm not sure it works the right way with the
> > > extensions / resources panel..
> > 
> > Could you please be more specific? Describe your concerns.
> 
> My concern is that page agent no longer returns the right content for the
edited
> scripts.

Definitely. But is that a problem? I didn't find any regressions on frontend
(since resources panel has stale content anyway), and it's hidden in protocol.
Any particular scenario in mind?

[pfeldman, 2015-07-20 18:30:15]

As I said in the revert comment, extensions API is a concern.

[yurys, 2015-07-21 08:43:44]

On 2015/07/20 18:30:15, pfeldman wrote:
> As I said in the revert comment, extensions API is a concern.

Do you mean frontend extenstion API or chrome.debugger? Page.getResourceTree and
Page.getResourceContent are hidden methods so the latter should not be a
concern. As for the former it should also be fine, all tests are passing. Please
explain in more details on why adding this complexity to the backend just to
support some edge case scenario involving extensions is absolutely unavoidable?

[dgozman, 2015-07-21 09:33:46]

On 2015/07/21 08:43:44, yurys wrote:
> On 2015/07/20 18:30:15, pfeldman wrote:
> > As I said in the revert comment, extensions API is a concern.
> 
> Do you mean frontend extenstion API or chrome.debugger? Page.getResourceTree
and
> Page.getResourceContent are hidden methods so the latter should not be a
> concern. As for the former it should also be fine, all tests are passing.
Please
> explain in more details on why adding this complexity to the backend just to
> support some edge case scenario involving extensions is absolutely
unavoidable?

Looking at the code, frontend extension API should not even be affected.
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/WebKit....

[pfeldman, 2015-07-22 04:16:15]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/core/inspector/I...
File Source/core/inspector/InspectorPageAgent.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/core/inspector/I...
Source/core/inspector/InspectorPageAgent.cpp:532: if
(m_cssAgent->getEditedStyleSheet(url, &content)) {
Could you explain why we would treat CSS and JS differently? It used to be
consistent, now it is not. The clients of this API (should there be any), should
agree on whether they receive original content of the resource or the edited
one. After your change, they can't commit to either of the models.

It might be that extensions API are not affected due to being migrated to
UISourceCodes, but still, it introduces a nasty inconsistency and does not seem
to improve things.

[yurys, 2015-07-22 08:09:02]

On 2015/07/22 04:16:15, pfeldman wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/core/inspector/I...
> File Source/core/inspector/InspectorPageAgent.cpp (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/core/inspector/I...
> Source/core/inspector/InspectorPageAgent.cpp:532: if
> (m_cssAgent->getEditedStyleSheet(url, &content)) {
> Could you explain why we would treat CSS and JS differently? It used to be
> consistent, now it is not. The clients of this API (should there be any),
should
> agree on whether they receive original content of the resource or the edited
> one. After your change, they can't commit to either of the models.
> 
> It might be that extensions API are not affected due to being migrated to
> UISourceCodes, but still, it introduces a nasty inconsistency and does not
seem
> to improve things.

This was already discussed above. See
https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/20001/Source/core/inspector/I...

[pfeldman, 2015-07-24 16:50:51]

I think we need a VC to discuss it since I am not sure you know what you are
doing here.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/devtools/front_e...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/60001/Source/devtools/front_e...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:172: if (debuggerModel &&
!debuggerModel.debuggerEnabled())
Alright, so what you are doing here is you start listening to the network
requests after the debugger model has been enabled. This really does not make
sense to me. Network project is a network project, debugger project is a
debugger project.

[pfeldman, 2015-07-24 16:55:32]

As I understand it currently, this is not lgtm

[dgozman, 2015-08-11 22:15:00]

The CQ bit was checked by dgozman@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[dgozman, 2015-08-11 22:15:10]

Pavel, PTAL.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-11 22:15:13]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1238103002/120001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1238103002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-11 22:17:36]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-11 22:17:36]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/7...)

[pfeldman, 2015-08-11 23:22:43]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:252: return
resource.resourceType() === WebInspector.resourceTypes.Document ? new
WebInspector.NetworkProject.DocumentFallbackResource(resource) : resource;
Lets use this opportunity to nuke the concatenated resource. All you need here
is a plain HTML resource.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:354: if
(resource.resourceType() === WebInspector.resourceTypes.Script ||
resource.resourceType() === WebInspector.resourceTypes.Stylesheet)
Why would we do anything upon resourceAdded? I thought we agreed upon nuking it
altogether.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js:242: var
boundScriptFile = this.scriptFile(uiSourceCode);
When does this happen?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js:324: script =
scripts[0];
How does this make sense?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/workspace/UISourceCode.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/workspace/UISourceCode.js:465: return this._content ||
"";
why is this necessary?

[dgozman, 2015-08-12 23:22:12]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:252: return
resource.resourceType() === WebInspector.resourceTypes.Document ? new
WebInspector.NetworkProject.DocumentFallbackResource(resource) : resource;
On 2015/08/11 23:22:43, pfeldman wrote:
> Lets use this opportunity to nuke the concatenated resource. All you need here
> is a plain HTML resource.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/NetworkProject.js:354: if
(resource.resourceType() === WebInspector.resourceTypes.Script ||
resource.resourceType() === WebInspector.resourceTypes.Stylesheet)
On 2015/08/11 23:22:43, pfeldman wrote:
> Why would we do anything upon resourceAdded? I thought we agreed upon nuking
it
> altogether.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js:242: var
boundScriptFile = this.scriptFile(uiSourceCode);
On 2015/08/11 23:22:43, pfeldman wrote:
> When does this happen?

Added comment.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js:324: script =
scripts[0];
On 2015/08/11 23:22:43, pfeldman wrote:
> How does this make sense?

This is mirroring constructor. Refactored.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/workspace/UISourceCode.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/120001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/workspace/UISourceCode.js:465: return this._content ||
"";
On 2015/08/11 23:22:43, pfeldman wrote:
> why is this necessary?

Extracted into separate patch.

[pfeldman, 2015-08-12 23:38:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
File
LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider-expected.txt
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider-expected.txt:11:
Running: testScriptResource
Why did the expectations change? Your change should not have functional changes
for this use case, no?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
File LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider.html
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider.html:116:
function testStylesheetResource(next)
Why is this removed?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js:324: return
this._script && this._script === scripts[0];
This method name does not make sense to me. Why should it be the first one?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/sdk/Resource.js (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/sdk/Resource.js:313: if (this.resourceType() ===
WebInspector.resourceTypes.Document) {
Do you have an idea on why it was here?

[dgozman, 2015-08-13 18:27:26]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
File
LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider-expected.txt
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider-expected.txt:11:
Running: testScriptResource
On 2015/08/12 23:38:42, pfeldman wrote:
> Why did the expectations change? Your change should not have functional
changes
> for this use case, no?

Test was checking that we add UISourceCode for script resources, which we do not
anymore.
Same for stylesheets.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
File LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider.html
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider.html:116:
function testStylesheetResource(next)
On 2015/08/12 23:38:42, pfeldman wrote:
> Why is this removed?

Because adding stylesheet resource does not affect NetworkProject anymore. Only
stylesheets coming from CSS agent are displayed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/bindings/ResourceScriptMapping.js:324: return
this._script && this._script === scripts[0];
On 2015/08/12 23:38:42, pfeldman wrote:
> This method name does not make sense to me. Why should it be the first one?

Please see the constructor of this object. If you think it has strange API,
let's change in another patch.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/Source/devtools/front_...
File Source/devtools/front_end/sdk/Resource.js (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/Source/devtools/front_...
Source/devtools/front_end/sdk/Resource.js:313: if (this.resourceType() ===
WebInspector.resourceTypes.Document) {
On 2015/08/12 23:38:42, pfeldman wrote:
> Do you have an idea on why it was here?

Added to support fallback provider here:
https://codereview.chromium.org/144283012.

[pfeldman, 2015-08-13 19:22:33]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
File LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider.html
(left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/diff/160001/LayoutTests/inspector/...
LayoutTests/inspector/sources/debugger/network-uisourcecode-provider.html:116:
function testStylesheetResource(next)
On 2015/08/13 18:27:26, dgozman wrote:
> On 2015/08/12 23:38:42, pfeldman wrote:
> > Why is this removed?
> 
> Because adding stylesheet resource does not affect NetworkProject anymore.
Only
> stylesheets coming from CSS agent are displayed.

Does this mean that we no longer show stylesheets that are not active due to
media mismatch?

[pfeldman, 2015-08-13 19:32:11]

lgtm

[dgozman, 2015-08-13 19:33:45]

The CQ bit was checked by dgozman@chromium.org

[dgozman, 2015-08-13 19:33:45]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from yurys@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1238103002/#ps160001
(title: "Nuked concatenated, fixed comments")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-13 19:33:57]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1238103002/160001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1238103002/160001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-13 22:12:31]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-13 22:12:32]

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

[dgozman, 2015-08-13 22:30:49]

The CQ bit was checked by dgozman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-13 22:31:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1238103002/160001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1238103002/160001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-14 00:20:28]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-14 00:20:29]

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

[dgozman, 2015-08-14 23:56:48]

The CQ bit was checked by dgozman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-14 23:57:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1238103002/160001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1238103002/160001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-15 01:04:39]

Committed patchset #9 (id:160001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=200585