Adding content_shell to the dependencies in the chromium_builder_tests target.

Adding content_shell to the dependencies in the chromium_builder_tests target.

Some trybots bots, e.g. linux_clang, run webkit_tests, which use content_shell.
The bot only builds chromium_builder_tests. Since content_shell wasn't part of
this, webkit_tests didn't run an up-to-date content_shell binary on that bot,
which led to problems e.g. in try run
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_clang/builds/117825/ on
cl https://codereview.chromium.org/17420005/.

Add content_shell to chromium_builder_tests to fix this.

BUG=237249
R=thakis@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=207486

[Nico, 2013-06-20 01:49:29]

Please make the CL description a bit longer:

"Some trybots bots, e.g. linux_clang, run webkit_tests, which use content_shell.
The bot only builds chromium_builder_tests. Since content_shell wasn't part of
this, webkit_tests didn't run an up-to-date content_shell binary on that bot,
which led to problems e.g. in try run <link> on cl <codereview link>. Add
content_shell to chromium_builder_tests to fix this."

With that, lgtm, thanks. (Reason for lgtm: chromium_builder_tests already
includes most of content, so building content_shell will add next to no extra
build time.)

[ananta, 2013-06-20 01:55:06]

On 2013/06/20 01:49:29, Nico wrote:
> Please make the CL description a bit longer:
> 
> "Some trybots bots, e.g. linux_clang, run webkit_tests, which use
content_shell.
> The bot only builds chromium_builder_tests. Since content_shell wasn't part of
> this, webkit_tests didn't run an up-to-date content_shell binary on that bot,
> which led to problems e.g. in try run <link> on cl <codereview link>. Add
> content_shell to chromium_builder_tests to fix this."
> 
> With that, lgtm, thanks. (Reason for lgtm: chromium_builder_tests already
> includes most of content, so building content_shell will add next to no extra
> build time.)

Updated the description.

[Nico, 2013-06-20 01:55:56]

You didn't replace "<link>" with an actual link to the build where this went
wrong :-)

[ananta, 2013-06-20 01:57:45]

On 2013/06/20 01:55:56, Nico wrote:
> You didn't replace "<link>" with an actual link to the build where this went
> wrong :-)

ok. Done. Hopefully the try link remains valid till needed.

[Nico, 2013-06-20 01:59:17]

On 2013/06/20 01:57:45, ananta wrote:
> On 2013/06/20 01:55:56, Nico wrote:
> > You didn't replace "<link>" with an actual link to the build where this went
> > wrong :-)
> 
> ok. Done. Hopefully the try link remains valid till needed.

s/5>/5/, then lgtm.

[ananta, 2013-06-20 02:00:35]

On 2013/06/20 01:59:17, Nico wrote:
> On 2013/06/20 01:57:45, ananta wrote:
> > On 2013/06/20 01:55:56, Nico wrote:
> > > You didn't replace "<link>" with an actual link to the build where this
went
> > > wrong :-)
> > 
> > ok. Done. Hopefully the try link remains valid till needed.
> 
> s/5>/5/, then lgtm.

Done.

[ananta, 2013-06-20 18:20:00]

Committed patchset #4 manually as r207486 (presubmit successful).