Add process title and nacl debug port fields to the processes api.

Add process title and nacl debug port fields to the processes api.

Adding title and nacl debug port to the processes api to allow a nacl debugger extension to discover and label possible debugging targets.

Re-enabling chrome.processes tests.

BUG=328714, 130138, 97499, 31663, 345411
TEST=None

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=252704

[bradn, 2014-02-14 00:03:48]

I'm interested in resussitating and moving chrome.processes to stable.
My ulterior motive is to add information needed to support nacl debugging in the
browser.
How does this look?
It appears several of the tests have been disabled for a long time.

[Charlie Reis, 2014-02-19 22:52:15]

On 2014/02/14 00:03:48, bradn wrote:
> I'm interested in resussitating and moving chrome.processes to stable.

Sorry for the delayed response.  Both Nasko and I haven't had the time to finish
up the API, but it would be great to see it make it to stable.  We can discuss
what's required for that separately.

> My ulterior motive is to add information needed to support nacl debugging in
the
> browser.
> How does this look?

This CL LGTM, though additions to an API require a review with the extensions
team, right?  I don't see many problems with exposing either title or debugging
port.  (The only thing I'd note is that the task manager column doesn't include
the word "stub," so I'm not sure if you want to include that in the attribute
name.)

> It appears several of the tests have been disabled for a long time.

Oh.  Is the test.js file you've updated being used in any active tests?  If not,
can you see if the test is easy to re-enable?  Thanks!

[bradn, 2014-02-20 00:54:55]

Good point on 'stub', I've shortened it.

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/90001/chrome/test/data/extensi...
File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/90001/chrome/test/data/extensi...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js:271: // DISABLED:
crbug.com/130138
Is there a better pattern to disable a test?
Also, this seems to now hang reliably on linux. I'm unsure how to debug offhand.
It may be that something else has changed during the time this test has been
off. Should I file a separate issue?

[Charlie Reis, 2014-02-20 01:20:18]

Thanks!  Excited to see most of tests enabled, and hopefully they'll pass on the
bots.  LGTM.

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/90001/chrome/test/data/extensi...
File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/90001/chrome/test/data/extensi...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js:271: // DISABLED:
crbug.com/130138
On 2014/02/20 00:54:56, bradn wrote:
> Is there a better pattern to disable a test?

The extensions folks will know better than I do.

> Also, this seems to now hang reliably on linux. I'm unsure how to debug
offhand.
> It may be that something else has changed during the time this test has been
> off. Should I file a separate issue?

Yes, please file a separate bug.  You can assign it to me and CC nasko.  Sounds
like we may not be getting NOTIFICATION_RENDERER_PROCESS_CLOSED.

[bradn, 2014-02-20 21:31:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/90001/chrome/test/data/extensi...
File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/90001/chrome/test/data/extensi...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js:271: // DISABLED:
crbug.com/130138
On 2014/02/20 01:20:19, Charlie Reis wrote:
> On 2014/02/20 00:54:56, bradn wrote:
> > Is there a better pattern to disable a test?
> 
> The extensions folks will know better than I do.
> 
> > Also, this seems to now hang reliably on linux. I'm unsure how to debug
> offhand.
> > It may be that something else has changed during the time this test has been
> > off. Should I file a separate issue?
> 
> Yes, please file a separate bug.  You can assign it to me and CC nasko. 
Sounds
> like we may not be getting NOTIFICATION_RENDERER_PROCESS_CLOSED.

Done.

[bradn, 2014-02-20 21:31:15]

The CQ bit was checked by bradnelson@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-20 21:34:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bradnelson@google.com/165153003/220002

[Charlie Reis, 2014-02-20 21:51:34]

I think you still need extensions folks to review this change.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-20 21:52:52]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-20 21:52:52]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_rel

[bradn, 2014-02-20 22:18:10]

Ah, oops, I thought you were an OWNER for all of this.

Antony, are you actually a good reviewer for this?

[miket_OOO, 2014-02-21 21:19:55]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/browser/extensio...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/processes/processes_apitest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/browser/extensio...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/processes/processes_apitest.cc:18: #if
defined(OS_MACOSX) || defined(OS_WIN) || defined(OS_LINUX) ||
defined(OS_CHROMEOS)
Are these parts meant to be included in this CL? I see the bugs are already
referenced in the CL so I assume so, but I want to make sure.

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/processes.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/api/processes.json:38: "description": "For Native
Client processes, the port on which they can be debugged (if enabled), otherwise
0."
I'm pretty sure I know what this means, but on a bad day I might find it
ambiguous. How about this:

The debugging port for Native Client processes. Zero for other process types and
for NaCl processes that do not have debugging enabled.

I'm not sure that's any better. Up to you.

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/test/data/extens...
File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/test/data/extens...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js:44:
console.log("naclDebugPort " + process.naclDebugPort);
Just a thought: will there be more NaCl stuff in the future? If so, would you
want to carve out a namespace for it? process.nacl.debugPort etc. I think I'm
splitting hairs. OK to ignore.

[bradn, 2014-02-21 22:08:05]

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/browser/extensio...
File chrome/browser/extensions/api/processes/processes_apitest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/browser/extensio...
chrome/browser/extensions/api/processes/processes_apitest.cc:18: #if
defined(OS_MACOSX) || defined(OS_WIN) || defined(OS_LINUX) ||
defined(OS_CHROMEOS)
On 2014/02/21 21:19:56, miket wrote:
> Are these parts meant to be included in this CL? I see the bugs are already
> referenced in the CL so I assume so, but I want to make sure.
Yeah I had hoped to turn this all back on.

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/common/extension...
File chrome/common/extensions/api/processes.json (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/common/extension...
chrome/common/extensions/api/processes.json:38: "description": "For Native
Client processes, the port on which they can be debugged (if enabled), otherwise
0."
On 2014/02/21 21:19:56, miket wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I know what this means, but on a bad day I might find it
> ambiguous. How about this:
> 
> The debugging port for Native Client processes. Zero for other process types
and
> for NaCl processes that do not have debugging enabled.
> 
> I'm not sure that's any better. Up to you.
> 

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/test/data/extens...
File chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/165153003/diff/220002/chrome/test/data/extens...
chrome/test/data/extensions/api_test/processes/api/test.js:44:
console.log("naclDebugPort " + process.naclDebugPort);
On 2014/02/21 21:19:56, miket wrote:
> Just a thought: will there be more NaCl stuff in the future? If so, would you
> want to carve out a namespace for it? process.nacl.debugPort etc. I think I'm
> splitting hairs. OK to ignore.

I don't foresee anything offhand. The most likely thing I could imagine is have
process.tabs point you to the tab nacl module is in, but that doesn't require a
new field.

[bradn, 2014-02-21 22:09:07]

The CQ bit was checked by bradnelson@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-21 22:11:32]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bradnelson@google.com/165153003/660001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-22 00:25:55]

Change committed as 252704