[MD settings] adjusting heights of settings rows; removing two .css files; unifying settings layout

[MD settings] adjusting heights of settings rows; removing two .css files; unifying settings layout

This CL continues the process of unifying MD settings layout.
- minimum line heights are now either 40px or 52px, depending
  on whether they are two-line.
- the .split class style has been removed.  A .settings-box
  now defaults to what .split was, as that was by far the
  more common case
- A .block class has been added for the rare cases where a
  .settings-box should use a non-split (block) style
- two .css files became unneeded along the way and have been
  removed
- some uses of paper-item were replaced with styled divs to
  make them leaner (div is well optimized)

BUG=425627
Committed: https://crrev.com/b146aaae933ae30ea5bd8f33eee6a585e5959cd4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#372765}

[dschuyler, 2016-01-29 23:10:46]

dschuyler@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dpapad@chromium.org

[dschuyler, 2016-01-29 23:10:46]

This would be a lot of screen shots to present.  Maybe you could stop by and I
can show you the side by side differences in the UI.

[dpapad, 2016-01-30 00:17:36]

lgtm

LGTM with question.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1652553002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/settings_shared.css (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1652553002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/settings_shared.css:80: white-space: nowrap;
Do you also need text-overflow: ellipsis; here?

[dschuyler, 2016-01-30 01:46:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1652553002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
File chrome/browser/resources/settings/settings_shared.css (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1652553002/diff/1/chrome/browser/resources/se...
chrome/browser/resources/settings/settings_shared.css:80: white-space: nowrap;
On 2016/01/30 00:17:35, dpapad wrote:
> Do you also need text-overflow: ellipsis; here?

I put this on my list to look into (for a later
CL, if necessary).  Thanks!

[dpapad, 2016-01-30 01:55:24]

lgtm

[michaelpg, 2016-01-31 00:42:16]

Adding a "block" class seems fishy. What is a settings-box, anyway? It's a super
generic name: this is settings, and everything is a box.

Maybe split its functions into style (the border) and structure (display: flex)?
Or have "settings-flexbox" and "settings-block" and style them the same except
for "display"?

[dschuyler, 2016-02-01 18:47:30]

The CQ bit was checked by dschuyler@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-01 18:49:36]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1652553002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1652553002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-01 18:54:36]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-01 18:54:36]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_clang_dbg_recipe on tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_clan...)
  android_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium.android (JOB_FAILED,
https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.android/builders/android_comp...)
  cast_shell_linux on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/cast_shell_linu...)
  linux_chromium_compile_dbg_32_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  ios_dbg_simulator_ninja on tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_dbg_simulator...)
  ios_rel_device_ninja on tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_rel_device_ni...)
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_comp...)
  mac_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_gn_r...)
  mac_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/mac_chromium_rel_...)

[dschuyler, 2016-02-01 21:12:40]

The CQ bit was checked by dschuyler@chromium.org

[dschuyler, 2016-02-01 21:12:40]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from dpapad@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1652553002/#ps20001
(title: "merge with master")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-01 21:13:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1652553002/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1652553002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-01 21:20:41]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-01 21:22:04]

Description was changed from

==========
[MD settings] adjusting heights of settings rows; removing two .css files;
unifying settings layout

This CL continues the process of unifying MD settings layout.
- minimum line heights are now either 40px or 52px, depending
  on whether they are two-line.
- the .split class style has been removed.  A .settings-box
  now defaults to what .split was, as that was by far the
  more common case
- A .block class has been added for the rare cases where a
  .settings-box should use a non-split (block) style
- two .css files became unneeded along the way and have been
  removed
- some uses of paper-item were replaced with styled divs to
  make them leaner (div is well optimized)

BUG=425627
==========

to

==========
[MD settings] adjusting heights of settings rows; removing two .css files;
unifying settings layout

This CL continues the process of unifying MD settings layout.
- minimum line heights are now either 40px or 52px, depending
  on whether they are two-line.
- the .split class style has been removed.  A .settings-box
  now defaults to what .split was, as that was by far the
  more common case
- A .block class has been added for the rare cases where a
  .settings-box should use a non-split (block) style
- two .css files became unneeded along the way and have been
  removed
- some uses of paper-item were replaced with styled divs to
  make them leaner (div is well optimized)

BUG=425627

Committed: https://crrev.com/b146aaae933ae30ea5bd8f33eee6a585e5959cd4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#372765}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-02-01 21:22:05]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b146aaae933ae30ea5bd8f33eee6a585e5959cd4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#372765}

[michaelpg, 2016-02-09 19:48:59]

On 2016/01/31 00:42:16, michaelpg wrote:
> Adding a "block" class seems fishy. What is a settings-box, anyway? It's a
super
> generic name: this is settings, and everything is a box.
> 
> Maybe split its functions into style (the border) and structure (display:
flex)?
> Or have "settings-flexbox" and "settings-block" and style them the same except
> for "display"?

You missed some sections which were relying on settings-block being
display:block:

* settings-people-page
* settings-manage-languages-page
* settings-edit-dictionary-page

and maybe others I can't see. How did you determine which were the "rare" cases
that needed .block?

[dschuyler, 2016-02-09 19:59:24]

On 2016/02/09 19:48:59, michaelpg wrote:
> On 2016/01/31 00:42:16, michaelpg wrote:
> > Adding a "block" class seems fishy. What is a settings-box, anyway? It's a
> super
> > generic name: this is settings, and everything is a box.
> > 
> > Maybe split its functions into style (the border) and structure (display:
> flex)?
> > Or have "settings-flexbox" and "settings-block" and style them the same
except
> > for "display"?
> 
> You missed some sections which were relying on settings-block being
> display:block:
> 
> * settings-people-page
> * settings-manage-languages-page
> * settings-edit-dictionary-page
> 
> and maybe others I can't see. How did you determine which were the "rare"
cases
> that needed .block?

I'll look into fixing those, thanks.