Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285, 507792
NOTRY=True

Committed: https://crrev.com/2f1e811f2b4b8b3d7ea70cdbd4bd3c1bef3acb6a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#363255}

[no sievers, 2015-11-19 01:10:35]

Description was changed from

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_BROWSER_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
==========

to

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_BROWSER_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
==========

[no sievers, 2015-11-19 01:10:35]

sievers@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ tedchoc@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-11-19 01:14:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/build/config/BUILD.gn
File build/config/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/build/config/BUILD.gn#newco...
build/config/BUILD.gn:43: # USE_X11 for all dependents so that everything that
could use X11 gets the
I'm wondering if it's worth doing that.

For gyp it was also easier to restrict the define to chrome/ (through
chrome_browser_android.gypi) while for GN I couldn't find a good common place
where I wouldn't be scared that some compile target would be missing the
#define.

I'll see if we can at least leverage 'gn check' to make sure the
android_java_ui=0 build does not include headers from java_ui sources.

[no sievers, 2015-11-19 01:26:53]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/build/config/BUILD.gn
File build/config/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/build/config/BUILD.gn#newco...
build/config/BUILD.gn:43: # USE_X11 for all dependents so that everything that
could use X11 gets the
On 2015/11/19 01:14:18, sievers wrote:
> I'm wondering if it's worth doing that.
> 
> For gyp it was also easier to restrict the define to chrome/ (through
> chrome_browser_android.gypi) while for GN I couldn't find a good common place
> where I wouldn't be scared that some compile target would be missing the
> #define.
> 
> I'll see if we can at least leverage 'gn check' to make sure the
> android_java_ui=0 build does not include headers from java_ui sources.

For 'gn check' to work I *think* I need to specify 'visibility', which I think
works only with targets.

[mfomitchev, 2015-11-19 15:41:05]

mfomitchev@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ mfomitchev@chromium.org

[mfomitchev, 2015-11-19 15:41:05]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/build/config/BUILD.gn
File build/config/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/build/config/BUILD.gn#newco...
build/config/BUILD.gn:74: if (android_java_ui) {
Why not just do && instead of nested ifs?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/build/config/android/config...
File build/config/android/config.gni (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/build/config/android/config...
build/config/android/config.gni:94: android_java_ui = true
Will this be ignored if android_java_ui is already defined (e.g. via gn args)?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
File chrome/chrome_browser.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser.gypi#...
chrome/chrome_browser.gypi:626: 'chrome_browser_android_java_ui_sources': [
It's worth noting we were excluding less in auraclank2 for the Aura Android
build. We weren't excluding chrome_browser_android_sources, we weren't excluding
chrome_jni_registrar.cc, etc. It's probably the right thing to do, although I am
a little concerned that we are creating a new configuration, different from what
we have in the branch, and upstreaming will be more difficult and less
parallelizable because of that.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser_ui.gypi
File chrome/chrome_browser_ui.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser_ui.gy...
chrome/chrome_browser_ui.gypi:17: 'browser/ui/android/status_tray_android.cc',
Should status_tray_android.cc and android_about_app_info.cc also be moved to
chrome_browser_ui_android_java_ui_sources?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_browser_ui.gy...
chrome/chrome_browser_ui.gypi:424: 'chrome_browser_ui_android_java_ui_sources':
[
This name becomes confusing. There's two "ui"s in the name, but they have
different meaning, and it's hard to understand it, unless you know what's going
on already. We also have chrome_browser_android_java_ui_sources, which could
easily be confused with this source set. Perhaps we should avoid using "java_ui"
in source set names. I don't have any good suggestions, but IMHO even
chrome_browser_ui_android_non_aura_sources was easier to read/understand, even
though it was less accurate.

[mfomitchev, 2015-11-19 16:05:16]

Also, this doesn't include all of non views/ chrome/browser/ui (e.g.
chrome/browser/ui/webui/) - are you planning on landing that separately?

[no sievers, 2015-11-24 01:33:54]

Description was changed from

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_BROWSER_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
==========

to

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
==========

[no sievers, 2015-11-25 22:49:17]

sievers@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ sky@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-11-25 22:54:29]

+sky for GN/gyp changes and general stamp

Ted, this is ready for review. It looks horrible to review, but it's actually
kinda straightforward.

I've followed all the dependencies and actually tried to build with
android_java_ui=0 and looked at all the compiler and linker errors.
This will get us pretty close and when you enable views+aura this will resolve
the majority of linker errors, because it will use the other implementations
then.

Afterwards we'll have to refactor some of the Java code to be able to pull it
back in. But I figure it's better to strip everything out first.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/android/BUILD.gn
File chrome/android/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/android/BUILD.gn...
chrome/android/BUILD.gn:118: android_library("chrome_java") {
i've not mirrored these changes to gyp, though i could.

i've kept gypi and GN consistent in the other changes though just to make it
less confusing to people and less likely they will break this fragile thing.

[sky, 2015-11-30 16:12:21]

sky@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ brettw@chromium.org

[sky, 2015-11-30 16:12:22]

sky->brettw

[Ted C, 2015-11-30 19:39:05]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/app/chrome_main_...
File chrome/app/chrome_main_delegate.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/app/chrome_main_...
chrome/app/chrome_main_delegate.cc:798: #if defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
You always want this.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/backgrou...
File chrome/browser/background_sync/background_sync_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/backgrou...
chrome/browser/background_sync/background_sync_controller_impl.cc:11: #if
defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
This class doesn't seem UI related either.  Don't we always want to do this?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/download...
File chrome/browser/download/download_request_limiter.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/download...
chrome/browser/download/download_request_limiter.cc:27: #if
defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
I think there will need a broader discussion of whether this should be
OS_ANDROID or not, but I guess that isn't to be done here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/geolocat...
File chrome/browser/geolocation/geolocation_permission_context_factory.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/geolocat...
chrome/browser/geolocation/geolocation_permission_context_factory.cc:33:
GeolocationPermissionContextFactory::GeolocationPermissionContextFactory()
this most likely will need to be split out as I think you'll want at least some
parts of this

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/net/chro...
File chrome/browser/net/chrome_network_delegate.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/net/chro...
chrome/browser/net/chrome_network_delegate.cc:59: #if defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
it is really weird to see a UI ifdef in the network delegate.

I think we really need to look at each one of these individually and make sure
this is the right decision (and I certainly am not the one to be able to say in
many cases).

I think this is fine to get something progressing, but I don't really know how
we can make sure we don't forget and let something fall through the cracks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/platform...
File chrome/browser/platform_util_android.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/platform...
chrome/browser/platform_util_android.cc:18: namespace platform_util {
To me, it looks like you shouldn't be using this class at at all if
ANDROID_JAVA_UI is set.  You should be probably be using one of the other
existing ones or something new.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/printing...
File chrome/browser/printing/print_job_worker.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/printing...
chrome/browser/printing/print_job_worker.cc:216: #if defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
another place where I think you'd probably want some "part" of this.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/speech/t...
File chrome/browser/speech/tts_android.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/speech/t...
chrome/browser/speech/tts_android.cc:14: #if defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
same comment as platform_util

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/version_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/version_ui.cc:69: AndroidAboutAppInfo::GetOsInfo());
will want this to be OS_ANDROID at least

[no sievers, 2015-11-30 23:56:34]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/app/chrome_main_...
File chrome/app/chrome_main_delegate.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/app/chrome_main_...
chrome/app/chrome_main_delegate.cc:798: #if defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
On 2015/11/30 19:39:04, Ted C wrote:
> You always want this.

Yes, but it wouldn't work as is because I'm removing all Java code from the
build in this patch.

I put a TODO with bug number. This is definitely one of the straightforward ones
to do, but I want to gradually pull the Java code back into the build. And
ideally while we do it, we'd also organize the code with deps rules or
something, so that for example nobody can go in and make the exception reporter
depend on Tab.java or something.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/backgrou...
File chrome/browser/background_sync/background_sync_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/backgrou...
chrome/browser/background_sync/background_sync_controller_impl.cc:11: #if
defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
On 2015/11/30 19:39:05, Ted C wrote:
> This class doesn't seem UI related either.  Don't we always want to do this?

I think eventually we probably want it, but it needs refactoring.

JAVA_UI here also might mean JAVA_TAB_MODEL or what not (there is a web of
dependencies on the Java side in paricular).

I'd be happy to rename it also. Maybe JAVA_UI is not ideal, although a lot of it
ends up going back to this being the 'Java-based/Java-driven browser model /
frontend'. Can't really come up with a great name though.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/net/chro...
File chrome/browser/net/chrome_network_delegate.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/net/chro...
chrome/browser/net/chrome_network_delegate.cc:59: #if defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
On 2015/11/30 19:39:05, Ted C wrote:
> it is really weird to see a UI ifdef in the network delegate.
> 
> I think we really need to look at each one of these individually and make sure
> this is the right decision (and I certainly am not the one to be able to say
in
> many cases).
> 
> I think this is fine to get something progressing, but I don't really know how
> we can make sure we don't forget and let something fall through the cracks.

I debated decorating a lot of this code with TODOs. But I don't think it adds
much. 
I guess I should have explained that my plan was:
1) strip out all Java
2) bring shared/wanted stuff in bit by bit while potentially reorganizing the
code a bit (think deps rules, directory structure, gn/gyp which currently just
specifies one JAVA_IN_DIR)

This works better to unblock people because most of the missing Java code just
breaks (or changes) some specific feature, but we should still be able to build
the main browser.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/platform...
File chrome/browser/platform_util_android.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/platform...
chrome/browser/platform_util_android.cc:18: namespace platform_util {
On 2015/11/30 19:39:05, Ted C wrote:
> To me, it looks like you shouldn't be using this class at at all if
> ANDROID_JAVA_UI is set.  You should be probably be using one of the other
> existing ones or something new.

Makes sense. Changes reverted.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/speech/t...
File chrome/browser/speech/tts_android.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/speech/t...
chrome/browser/speech/tts_android.cc:14: #if defined(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
On 2015/11/30 19:39:05, Ted C wrote:
> same comment as platform_util

I can revert these changes. The Java implementation has no dependencies so it
should be easy to compile in as one of the first things.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
File chrome/browser/ui/webui/version_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/40001/chrome/browser/ui/webui...
chrome/browser/ui/webui/version_ui.cc:69: AndroidAboutAppInfo::GetOsInfo());
On 2015/11/30 19:39:05, Ted C wrote:
> will want this to be OS_ANDROID at least

Done. I reverted all changes to this file.

[brettw, 2015-12-01 00:47:22]

Sorry to add this on you, but we recently landed a new build #defines system so
we don't have to add even more global defines for every target. I expect that
the uses of your new define will increase rapidly, so I do think it's worth
doing proactively.

This system is already used for the google now flag. See
build/buildflag_header.gni for the docs. I just landed a change for another flag
that you can use as a template:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1478623004/
(This was just reverted because I missed a dependency).

I'm planning on rejecting all new global defines to the build and this type of
thing should be done without any changes to the build directory. I have an
announcement I was going to send to chromium-dev, but was waiting for the above
change to land as an example.

If you need to use this define from anywhere in src/ui, you probable want to put
the new header there. If it's only a Chrome layer thing (your current patch is)
then it's actually much easier and you just need to modify
//chrome/common:features and chrome/chrome_features.gyp, include the generated
header, and use:
  #if BUILDFLAG(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
in the code.

Also, it looks like the define is not set for the GYP build as-is.

[no sievers, 2015-12-01 01:19:37]

On 2015/12/01 00:47:22, brettw wrote:
> Sorry to add this on you, but we recently landed a new build #defines system
so
> we don't have to add even more global defines for every target. I expect that
> the uses of your new define will increase rapidly, so I do think it's worth
> doing proactively.
> 
> This system is already used for the google now flag. See
> build/buildflag_header.gni for the docs. I just landed a change for another
flag
> that you can use as a template:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1478623004/
> (This was just reverted because I missed a dependency).
> 
> I'm planning on rejecting all new global defines to the build and this type of
> thing should be done without any changes to the build directory. I have an
> announcement I was going to send to chromium-dev, but was waiting for the
above
> change to land as an example.
> 
> If you need to use this define from anywhere in src/ui, you probable want to
put
> the new header there. If it's only a Chrome layer thing (your current patch
is)
> then it's actually much easier and you just need to modify
> //chrome/common:features and chrome/chrome_features.gyp, include the generated
> header, and use:
>   #if BUILDFLAG(ANDROID_JAVA_UI)
> in the code.
> 
> Also, it looks like the define is not set for the GYP build as-is.

That's actually great. I did want the flag to be available in chrome/ only,
because
- in content USE_AURA is sufficient (with the goal of eventually eliminating the
distinction of AURA on android vs. not)
- in ui this is largely componentized (ui_android vs. aura and views)
- everywhere else this does and should not matter

For GYP I did actually set it in chrome_android.gypi in order to achieve exactly
that, but for GN I couldn't find a good place w/o risking that it would be
missing somewhere. So I'll try the new thing.

[no sievers, 2015-12-01 23:01:45]

ptal, this uses BUILDFLAG(ANDROID_JAVA_UI) now.

[no sievers, 2015-12-03 19:18:34]

friendly ping

[brettw, 2015-12-03 19:25:08]

I looked at the build flag set up and it LGTM. I didn't really look at the other
parts, I'm assuming other reviewers have looked at the functional details.

[no sievers, 2015-12-03 19:37:16]

Ted,
can you stamp source file changes as well as take a look at the build-related
changes in:
- chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
- chrome/browser/ui/BUILD.gn
- chrome/android/BUILD.gn

[Ted C, 2015-12-03 21:52:37]

On 2015/12/03 19:37:16, sievers wrote:
> Ted,
> can you stamp source file changes as well as take a look at the build-related
> changes in:
> - chrome/chrome_browser.gypi
> - chrome/browser/ui/BUILD.gn
> - chrome/android/BUILD.gn

lgtm

[no sievers, 2015-12-03 23:51:02]

The CQ bit was checked by sievers@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-12-03 23:51:03]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
tedchoc@chromium.org, brettw@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/#ps120001
(title: "rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-03 23:52:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1459793002/120001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1459793002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-04 01:58:44]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-04 01:58:45]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_arm64_dbg_recipe on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build
URL)
  android_chromium_gn_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no
build URL)
  android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no
build URL)
  android_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  cast_shell_android on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  cast_shell_linux on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  chromeos_amd64-generic_chromium_compile_only_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  chromeos_daisy_chromium_compile_only_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  chromeos_x86-generic_chromium_compile_only_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_android_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_compile_dbg_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_ozone_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_chromium_clobber_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no
build URL)
  linux_chromium_compile_dbg_32_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT,
no build URL)
  linux_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no
build URL)
  linux_chromium_gn_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no
build URL)
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build
URL)

[Bernhard Bauer, 2015-12-04 09:31:24]

bauerb@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ bauerb@chromium.org

[Bernhard Bauer, 2015-12-04 09:31:25]

Drive-by comment for supervised users:

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/120001/chrome/browser/supervi...
File chrome/browser/supervised_user/supervised_user_interstitial.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/120001/chrome/browser/supervi...
chrome/browser/supervised_user/supervised_user_interstitial.cc:40: #if
defined(OS_ANDROID)
You probably want to change this to #if BUILDFLAG(ANDROID_JAVA_UI) (but keep the
other branch as !defined(OS_ANDROID)).

[no sievers, 2015-12-04 17:45:06]

The CQ bit was checked by sievers@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-12-04 17:46:50]

The CQ bit was unchecked by sievers@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-12-04 17:58:38]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/120001/chrome/browser/supervi...
File chrome/browser/supervised_user/supervised_user_interstitial.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/diff/120001/chrome/browser/supervi...
chrome/browser/supervised_user/supervised_user_interstitial.cc:40: #if
defined(OS_ANDROID)
On 2015/12/04 09:31:25, Bernhard Bauer wrote:
> You probably want to change this to #if BUILDFLAG(ANDROID_JAVA_UI) (but keep
the
> other branch as !defined(OS_ANDROID)).

Done.

[no sievers, 2015-12-04 17:59:48]

The CQ bit was checked by sievers@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-12-04 17:59:48]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
tedchoc@chromium.org, brettw@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1459793002/#ps140001
(title: "rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-04 18:01:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1459793002/140001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1459793002/140001

[no sievers, 2015-12-04 18:29:06]

Description was changed from

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
==========

to

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
NOTRY=True
==========

[no sievers, 2015-12-04 18:29:18]

The CQ bit was unchecked by sievers@chromium.org

[no sievers, 2015-12-04 18:29:33]

The CQ bit was checked by sievers@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-04 18:31:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1459793002/140001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1459793002/140001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-04 18:44:03]

Description was changed from

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
NOTRY=True
==========

to

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
NOTRY=True
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-04 18:44:04]

Committed patchset #8 (id:140001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-04 18:44:48]

Description was changed from

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
NOTRY=True
==========

to

==========
Android: Allow compiling browser without Java UI

Currently OS_ANDROID is used in many places to invoke
Java UI-specific codepaths.
Introduce ANDROID_JAVA_UI instead where this makes
sense.

Exclude all android sources from chrome/browser/android
and chrome/browser/ui/android when this is not set.

Most of these have dependencies on the Java UI or tab model.
Some of the features will need revisiting / untangling.

BUG=557285,507792
NOTRY=True

Committed: https://crrev.com/2f1e811f2b4b8b3d7ea70cdbd4bd3c1bef3acb6a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#363255}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-04 18:44:50]

Patchset 8 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/2f1e811f2b4b8b3d7ea70cdbd4bd3c1bef3acb6a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#363255}