Build both v1 and v2 apps on the bots.

remoting/remoting.gyp

 # Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 # Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 # found in the LICENSE file.
 
 {
   'variables': {
     # TODO(dmaclach): can we pick this up some other way? Right now it's
     # duplicated from chrome.gyp
     'chromium_code': 1,
 
@@ skipping 2008 matching lines @@
               ],
               'process_outputs_as_sources': 1,
               'message': 'Running message compiler on <(RULE_INPUT_PATH).',
             },
           ],
         }],
       ],  # end of 'conditions'
     },  # end of target 'remoting_host_event_logger'
 
     {
       'target_name': 'remoting_webapp',

[Sergey Ulanov, 2013/05/24 21:39:42]

Why build both webapps as part of the same target? I think it would be better to
have a separate target remoting_webapp_v2 that builds v2 app.

[Jamie, 2013/05/25 03:30:45]

I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but one point in favor of this
approach is that devs are likely to notice sooner if the break the patch, rather
than waiting for a trybot failure to tell them.

[weitao, 2013/05/28 17:22:33]

I will keep the v1 and v2 builds in the same target so that it is easier to
catch the changes that accidentally breaks the v2 builds.

[Sergey Ulanov, 2013/05/29 02:15:16]

Well, then we could have two targets remoting_webapp_v[12] and then one dummy
target remoting_webapp that builds both versions. Having them as separate
targets will make it easier to see what each version dependends on. It would
also allow building v2 app without building the host plugin and all other stuff
it depends on. Beside that, having a separate target makes this patch shorter
and more readable.

       'type': 'none',
       'dependencies': [
         'remoting_resources',
         'remoting_host_plugin',
       ],
       'sources': [
         'webapp/build-webapp.py',
         '<(remoting_version_path)',
         '<(chrome_version_path)',
         '<@(remoting_webapp_patch_files)',
@@ skipping 34 matching lines @@
         }, {
           'variables': {
             'remoting_webapp_patch_files': [],
             'remoting_webapp_apps_v2_js_files': [],
           },
         }],
       ],
 
       # Can't use a 'copies' because we need to manipulate
       # the manifest file to get the right plugin name.
       # Also we need to move the plugin into the me2mom

[Lambros, 2013/05/24 19:28:24]

nit: s/me2mom/webapp

I'm not sure this whole comment is useful any more? It seems to be justifying
why we use a script rather than just using GYP 'copies'. But the build-webapp.py
script is doing more than just copying files. I vote for removing this comment -
let's see if Jamie agrees.

[Jamie, 2013/05/25 03:30:45]

Sgtm

[weitao, 2013/05/28 17:22:33]

Removed.

       # folder, which means 2 copies, and gyp doesn't
       # seem to guarantee the ordering of 2 copies statements
       # when the actual project is generated.
       'actions': [
         {
           'action_name': 'Build Remoting WebApp',
           'output_dir': '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/remoting/remoting.webapp',
           'zip_path': '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/remoting-webapp.zip',
           'inputs': [
             'webapp/build-webapp.py',
             '<(remoting_version_path)',
             '<(chrome_version_path)',
+            '<@(remoting_webapp_files)',
+            '<@(remoting_webapp_js_files)',
+            '<@(remoting_webapp_locale_files)',
+          ],
+          'conditions': [
+            ['enable_remoting_host==1', {
+              'inputs': [
+                '<(plugin_path)',
+              ],
+            }],
+          ],
+          'outputs': [
+            '<(_output_dir)',
+            '<(_zip_path)',
+          ],
+          'action': [
+            'python', 'webapp/build-webapp.py',
+            '<(buildtype)',
+            '<(version_full)',
+            '<(host_plugin_mime_type)',
+            '<(_output_dir)',
+            '<(_zip_path)',
+            '<(plugin_path)',
+            '<@(remoting_webapp_files)',
+            '<@(remoting_webapp_js_files)',
+            '<@(remoting_webapp_apps_v2_js_files)',

[Lambros, 2013/05/24 19:28:24]

Remove apps_v2_js_files from here? You've already removed it from the
corresponding 'inputs' list.

Also, I think it's worth alphabetizing the ..._files entries in both the
'inputs' and 'action' lists.

[weitao, 2013/05/28 17:22:33]

Removed and sorted.

+            '--locales',
+            '<@(remoting_webapp_locale_files)',
+          ],
+          'msvs_cygwin_shell': 1,
+        },
+        {
+          'action_name': 'Build Remoting WebApp V2',
+          'output_dir': '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/remoting/remoting.webapp.V2',
+          'zip_path': '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/remoting-webapp.V2.zip',
+          'inputs': [
+            'webapp/build-webapp.py',
+            '<(remoting_version_path)',
+            '<(chrome_version_path)',
             '<@(remoting_webapp_patch_files)',
             '<@(remoting_webapp_files)',
             '<@(remoting_webapp_js_files)',
             '<@(remoting_webapp_apps_v2_js_files)',
             '<@(remoting_webapp_locale_files)',
           ],
           'conditions': [
             ['enable_remoting_host==1', {
               'inputs': [
                 '<(plugin_path)',
@@ skipping 654 matching lines @@
                   '../base/allocator/allocator.gyp:allocator',
                 ],
               },
             ],
           ],
         }],  # end of 'toolkit_uses_gtk == 1'
       ],  # end of 'conditions'
     },  # end of target 'remoting_unittests'
   ],  # end of targets
 }