Index: cc/test/layer_tree_json_parser.cc |
diff --git a/cc/test/layer_tree_json_parser.cc b/cc/test/layer_tree_json_parser.cc |
index 9c959702bd54b3279898437fce592197948a458c..e7f3e9bf092d64408f0e2773443aac2d17470044 100644 |
--- a/cc/test/layer_tree_json_parser.cc |
+++ b/cc/test/layer_tree_json_parser.cc |
@@ -101,26 +101,8 @@ |
new_layer->SetContentsOpaque(contents_opaque); |
bool scrollable; |
- // TODO(wjmaclean) At some time in the future we may wish to test that a |
- // reconstructed layer tree contains the correct linkage for the scroll |
- // clip layer. This is complicated by the fact that the json output doesn't |
- // (currently) re-construct the tree with the same layer IDs as the original. |
- // But, since a clip layer is always an ancestor of the scrollable layer, we |
- // can just count the number of upwards hops to the clip layer and write that |
- // into the json file (with 0 hops implying no clip layer, i.e. not |
- // scrollable). Reconstructing the tree can then be accomplished by passing |
- // the parent pointer to this function and traversing the same number of |
- // ancestors to determine the pointer to the clip layer. The LayerTreesMatch() |
- // function should then check that both original and reconstructed layers |
- // have the same positioning with respect to their clip layers. |
- // |
- // For now, we can safely indicate a layer is scrollable by giving it a |
- // pointer to itself, something not normally allowed in a working tree. |
- // |
- // https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=330622 |
- // |
if (dict->GetBoolean("Scrollable", &scrollable)) |
- new_layer->SetScrollClipLayer(scrollable ? new_layer.get() : NULL); |
+ new_layer->SetScrollable(scrollable); |
bool wheel_handler; |
if (dict->GetBoolean("WheelHandler", &wheel_handler)) |