Reland of GN: Enable proguard for apks

Reland of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #1 id:1 of https://codereview.chromium.org/1436083002/ )

Reason for revert:
Reland with fix to write_build_config.py

Original issue's description:
> Revert of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #2 id:20001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/1433873004/ )
>
> Reason for revert:
> Broke gn-release-builder-l
> https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/internal.client.clank/builders/gn-release-builder-l/builds/3091/steps/compile/logs/stdio
>
> Original issue's description:
> > GN: Enable proguard for apks
> >
> > This moves a little bit more about how to run proguard for test apks into
> > proguard_utils.py and adds the gn rules/etc for running proguard on apks.
> >
> > BUG=554513
>
> TBR=newt@chromium.org
> NOPRESUBMIT=true
> NOTREECHECKS=true
> NOTRY=true
> BUG=554513
BUG=554513
Committed: https://crrev.com/b8e26c7657eaa460a1646e51efa13f9abf5deeab
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#359327}

[agrieve, 2015-11-12 02:00:45]

Created Reland of GN: Enable proguard for apks

[agrieve, 2015-11-12 02:00:59]

Description was changed from

==========
Reland of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #1 id:1 of
https://codereview.chromium.org/1436083002/ )

Reason for revert:
Reland with fix to write_build_config.py

Original issue's description:
> Revert of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #2 id:20001 of
https://codereview.chromium.org/1433873004/ )
> 
> Reason for revert:
> Broke gn-release-builder-l
>
https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/internal.client.clank/builders/gn-rele...
> 
> Original issue's description:
> > GN: Enable proguard for apks
> > 
> > This moves a little bit more about how to run proguard for test apks into
> > proguard_utils.py and adds the gn rules/etc for running proguard on apks.
> > 
> > BUG=554513
> 
> TBR=newt@chromium.org
> NOPRESUBMIT=true
> NOTREECHECKS=true
> NOTRY=true
> BUG=554513

TBR=newt@chromium.org
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=554513
==========

to

==========
Reland of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #1 id:1 of
https://codereview.chromium.org/1436083002/ )

Reason for revert:
Reland with fix to write_build_config.py

Original issue's description:
> Revert of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #2 id:20001 of
https://codereview.chromium.org/1433873004/ )
> 
> Reason for revert:
> Broke gn-release-builder-l
>
https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/internal.client.clank/builders/gn-rele...
> 
> Original issue's description:
> > GN: Enable proguard for apks
> > 
> > This moves a little bit more about how to run proguard for test apks into
> > proguard_utils.py and adds the gn rules/etc for running proguard on apks.
> > 
> > BUG=554513
> 
> TBR=newt@chromium.org
> NOPRESUBMIT=true
> NOTREECHECKS=true
> NOTRY=true
> BUG=554513

TBR=newt@chromium.org
BUG=554513
==========

[newt (away), 2015-11-12 02:15:09]

Could you upload the original CL as a patch set and then reupload the new CL, so
it's easy to see the diff?

[agrieve, 2015-11-12 02:26:09]

On 2015/11/12 02:15:09, newt wrote:
> Could you upload the original CL as a patch set and then reupload the new CL,
so
> it's easy to see the diff?

You're too quick for me!

This is still the original patch set. I haven't fixed it yet :P. Not sure if
there's a better flow for doing this, but I:
1. reverted ther revert
2. git cl patched it in locall
3. I'm now working on a fix.

[newt (away), 2015-11-12 02:34:47]

On 2015/11/12 02:26:09, agrieve wrote:
> On 2015/11/12 02:15:09, newt wrote:
> > Could you upload the original CL as a patch set and then reupload the new
CL,
> so
> > it's easy to see the diff?
> 
> You're too quick for me!
> 
> This is still the original patch set. I haven't fixed it yet :P. Not sure if
> there's a better flow for doing this, but I:
> 1. reverted ther revert
> 2. git cl patched it in locall
> 3. I'm now working on a fix.

Ah. I see :)

After step #1, rietveld sent me an email, which is why I thought this was ready
for review.

When creating a re-land CL, I usually revert the revert locally (git revert
abc123), then upload it, then make whatever fixes are needed, then reupload and
ask for a review.

[agrieve, 2015-11-12 03:15:35]

Description was changed from

==========
Reland of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #1 id:1 of
https://codereview.chromium.org/1436083002/ )

Reason for revert:
Reland with fix to write_build_config.py

Original issue's description:
> Revert of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #2 id:20001 of
https://codereview.chromium.org/1433873004/ )
> 
> Reason for revert:
> Broke gn-release-builder-l
>
https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/internal.client.clank/builders/gn-rele...
> 
> Original issue's description:
> > GN: Enable proguard for apks
> > 
> > This moves a little bit more about how to run proguard for test apks into
> > proguard_utils.py and adds the gn rules/etc for running proguard on apks.
> > 
> > BUG=554513
> 
> TBR=newt@chromium.org
> NOPRESUBMIT=true
> NOTREECHECKS=true
> NOTRY=true
> BUG=554513

TBR=newt@chromium.org
BUG=554513
==========

to

==========
Reland of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #1 id:1 of
https://codereview.chromium.org/1436083002/ )

Reason for revert:
Reland with fix to write_build_config.py

Original issue's description:
> Revert of GN: Enable proguard for apks (patchset #2 id:20001 of
https://codereview.chromium.org/1433873004/ )
> 
> Reason for revert:
> Broke gn-release-builder-l
>
https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/internal.client.clank/builders/gn-rele...
> 
> Original issue's description:
> > GN: Enable proguard for apks
> > 
> > This moves a little bit more about how to run proguard for test apks into
> > proguard_utils.py and adds the gn rules/etc for running proguard on apks.
> > 
> > BUG=554513
> 
> TBR=newt@chromium.org
> NOPRESUBMIT=true
> NOTREECHECKS=true
> NOTRY=true
> BUG=554513

BUG=554513
==========

[agrieve, 2015-11-12 03:17:20]

On 2015/11/12 02:34:47, newt wrote:
> On 2015/11/12 02:26:09, agrieve wrote:
> > On 2015/11/12 02:15:09, newt wrote:
> > > Could you upload the original CL as a patch set and then reupload the new
> CL,
> > so
> > > it's easy to see the diff?
> > 
> > You're too quick for me!
> > 
> > This is still the original patch set. I haven't fixed it yet :P. Not sure if
> > there's a better flow for doing this, but I:
> > 1. reverted ther revert
> > 2. git cl patched it in locall
> > 3. I'm now working on a fix.
> 
> Ah. I see :)
> 
> After step #1, rietveld sent me an email, which is why I thought this was
ready
> for review.
> 
> When creating a re-land CL, I usually revert the revert locally (git revert
> abc123), then upload it, then make whatever fixes are needed, then reupload
and
> ask for a review.

Makes sense. I'll go that route from now on.

Turns out the only bug was the assert was in wrong place (PS2 shows this
clearly).
Sending you a downstream change to fix the assert firing in the first place.

[newt (away), 2015-11-12 03:36:29]

lgtm

[agrieve, 2015-11-12 15:12:49]

The CQ bit was checked by agrieve@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-12 15:13:20]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1435193002/210001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1435193002/210001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-12 16:25:14]

Committed patchset #3 (id:210001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-12 20:07:46]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b8e26c7657eaa460a1646e51efa13f9abf5deeab
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#359327}