Add a new gyp flag: fieldtrial_testing_like_official_build

Add a new gyp flag: fieldtrial_testing_like_official_build

When set to 1, this will NOT activate the field trial test specified
in the fieldtrial_testing_config_*.json.  This gives Chromium
packagers the flexibility to disable field trial testing config for
their package as we have on our Google Chrome build.

BUG=515686
Committed: https://crrev.com/3d2e44fe0e7994b083504c249b654e20d76228e0
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#341845}

[danduong, 2015-07-30 22:18:24]

danduong@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ asvitkine@chromium.org, brettw@chromium.org, pawjdan.jr@chromium.org

[danduong, 2015-07-30 22:20:05]

Assuming I don't hear any major objections from chromium-packagers, I'd like to
submit this next week.

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-07-31 15:03:11]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/1/build/common.gypi
File build/common.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/1/build/common.gypi#newcode374
build/common.gypi:374: 'fieldtrial_testing_like_official_build%': 0,
Is there a .gn change needed too or is this sufficient?

[danduong, 2015-07-31 17:14:35]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/1/build/common.gypi
File build/common.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/1/build/common.gypi#newcode374
build/common.gypi:374: 'fieldtrial_testing_like_official_build%': 0,
On 2015/07/31 at 15:03:10, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> Is there a .gn change needed too or is this sufficient?

Hmm, the tracing flag didn't have one. I just added a corresponding .gn change
though.

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-08-03 18:23:10]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
File chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:152: #if OFFICIAL_BUILD
You switched from GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD to OFFICIAL_BUILD. I thought
GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD is the better thing to use? I think OFFICIAL_BUILD is what
just triggers extra optimizations when building Release? e.g. things like LTO

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:157: #endif
Hmm, this is a bit messy to put at the top of this cc file. Maybe we could tuck
it away in a header file somewhere? Or in gyp/gn itself?

[danduong, 2015-08-03 18:30:59]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
File chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:152: #if OFFICIAL_BUILD
On 2015/08/03 at 18:23:10, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> You switched from GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD to OFFICIAL_BUILD. I thought
GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD is the better thing to use? I think OFFICIAL_BUILD is what
just triggers extra optimizations when building Release? e.g. things like LTO

I was basically copying the convention from tracing_like_official build. It's
really not clear to me which is better and for which reason.

Is there any problem with this does? I believe the desire is to have the final
build NOT do field trial testing and all other builds to have it.

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-08-03 19:47:25]

So OFFICIAL_BUILD doesn't get enabled in Debug builds, even if you're
building a Google Chrome build. So far that reason, I find the flag
shouldn't generally be used.

e.g. if someone wanted to debug the behavior and decide to build a debug
build - it now wouldn't behave the same. So I'd use GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD
here. (Also welcome Brett's opinion - since he recently commented on a
Chromium-Dev thread on this subject.)

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:30 PM, <danduong@chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
> File chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc (right):
>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
> chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:152: #if OFFICIAL_BUILD
> On 2015/08/03 at 18:23:10, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
>
>> You switched from GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD to OFFICIAL_BUILD. I thought
>>
> GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD is the better thing to use? I think OFFICIAL_BUILD
> is what just triggers extra optimizations when building Release? e.g.
> things like LTO
>
> I was basically copying the convention from tracing_like_official build.
> It's really not clear to me which is better and for which reason.
>
> Is there any problem with this does? I believe the desire is to have the
> final build NOT do field trial testing and all other builds to have it.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[danduong, 2015-08-03 19:53:40]

On 2015/08/03 at 19:47:25, asvitkine wrote:
> So OFFICIAL_BUILD doesn't get enabled in Debug builds, even if you're
> building a Google Chrome build. So far that reason, I find the flag
> shouldn't generally be used.
> 
> e.g. if someone wanted to debug the behavior and decide to build a debug
> build - it now wouldn't behave the same. So I'd use GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD
> here. (Also welcome Brett's opinion - since he recently commented on a
> Chromium-Dev thread on this subject.)
> 
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:30 PM, <danduong@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
> > File chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc (right):
> >
> >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
> > chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:152: #if OFFICIAL_BUILD
> > On 2015/08/03 at 18:23:10, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> >
> >> You switched from GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD to OFFICIAL_BUILD. I thought
> >>
> > GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD is the better thing to use? I think OFFICIAL_BUILD
> > is what just triggers extra optimizations when building Release? e.g.
> > things like LTO
> >
> > I was basically copying the convention from tracing_like_official build.
> > It's really not clear to me which is better and for which reason.
> >
> > Is there any problem with this does? I believe the desire is to have the
> > final build NOT do field trial testing and all other builds to have it.
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/
> >
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
> 

Making GOOGLE_CHROME_BUILD consistent in behavior between debug and official
sounds reasonable to me.

[danduong, 2015-08-03 20:52:49]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
File chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/diff/20001/chrome/browser/chrome_b...
chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main.cc:157: #endif
On 2015/08/03 at 18:23:10, Alexei Svitkine wrote:
> Hmm, this is a bit messy to put at the top of this cc file. Maybe we could
tuck it away in a header file somewhere? Or in gyp/gn itself?

Moved it into gyp/gn

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2015-08-03 20:55:41]

LGTM

We should also document this somewhere on the Chromium project's site page - I'm
thinking of a page with information for Chromium packages - but not sure if one
exists.

[danduong, 2015-08-03 20:57:19]

brettw: PTAL

[brettw, 2015-08-04 19:10:47]

BUILD.gn LGTM

[danduong, 2015-08-04 20:11:39]

The CQ bit was checked by danduong@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-04 20:12:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1266113002/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1266113002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-04 20:18:02]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-04 20:18:03]

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...)
  android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_chromiu...)
  linux_chromium_gn_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[danduong, 2015-08-04 20:46:23]

The CQ bit was checked by danduong@chromium.org

[danduong, 2015-08-04 20:46:24]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from brettw@chromium.org,
asvitkine@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1266113002/#ps60001
(title: " ")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-04 20:47:58]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1266113002/60001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1266113002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-05 02:09:47]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-05 02:12:51]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/3d2e44fe0e7994b083504c249b654e20d76228e0
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#341845}