Auto-formatted all .mojom files.

Auto-formatted all .mojom files.

BUG= #592
R=viettrungluu@chromium.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/mojo/+/d26dd21f9bf81fca64a5c1c6d50837c41ae2d87c

[jamesr, 2016-02-29 23:40:46]

jamesr@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jamesr@chromium.org

[jamesr, 2016-02-29 23:40:49]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/examples/echo/echo.mojom
File examples/echo/echo.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/examples/echo/echo.mojom#ne...
examples/echo/echo.mojom:6: JavaPackage="org.chromium.mojo.examples.echo"]
this is a bit ugly - the lines for the attributes don't line up

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/dart/unittests/embedde...
File mojo/dart/unittests/embedder_tester/dart_to_cpp.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/dart/unittests/embedde...
mojo/dart/unittests/embedder_tester/dart_to_cpp.mojom:14: int8 si8;
it looks like these were intentionally vertically aligned before

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/appl...
File mojo/public/interfaces/application/application.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/appl...
mojo/public/interfaces/application/application.mojom:53: AcceptConnection(string
requestor_url, ServiceProvider&? services, ServiceProvider? exposed_services,
string resolved_url);
yikes, this is really long. does the formatter know how to wrap intelligently?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/interface_control_messages.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/interface_control_messages.mojom:42: uint32
reserved0; // Must be set to 16.
two spaces before the start of a comment is fairly common

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_files.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_files.mojom:12: * The structures in this
file are intended to be used by the Mojom compiler
nice

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom:57: int32 a10@10 =
1234;
i think the "+" was deliberate - any reason the formatter has to toss it here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/test_structs.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/test_structs.mojom:218: const int8 V2 = 0;
// 0
this looks a lot worse when it isn't aligned

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/test_unions.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/test_unions.mojom:16: int8 f_int8;
this also looks worse when not aligned

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/versioning_test_service.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/versioning_test_service.mojom:34:
QueryEmployee(uint64 id, [MinVersion=1]bool retrieve_finger_print) => (Employee?
employee, [MinVersion=1]array<uint8>? finger_print);
this is way too long. i liked breaking on the =>

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/services/files/interfa...
File mojo/services/files/interfaces/ioctl_terminal.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/services/files/interfa...
mojo/services/files/interfaces/ioctl_terminal.mojom:110: const uint32
kIoctlTerminalTermiosIFlagINPCK = 0x0010;
these are super hard to read when not aligned

[vtl, 2016-02-29 23:41:58]

vtl@google.com changed reviewers:
+ vtl@google.com

[vtl, 2016-02-29 23:42:00]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/examples/echo/echo.mojom
File examples/echo/echo.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/examples/echo/echo.mojom#ne...
examples/echo/echo.mojom:6: JavaPackage="org.chromium.mojo.examples.echo"]
Probably this should be indented one space, to align with the previous line.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/appl...
File mojo/public/interfaces/application/application.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/appl...
mojo/public/interfaces/application/application.mojom:53: AcceptConnection(string
requestor_url, ServiceProvider&? services, ServiceProvider? exposed_services,
string resolved_url);
This seems to be a regression. We should enforce an 80-column (say) line length.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/interface_control_messages.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/interface_control_messages.mojom:42: uint32
reserved0; // Must be set to 16.
I think in general, we prefer two spaces before the "//" for a same-line
comment.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/interface_control_messages.mojom:56: struct
QueryVersion{};
This seems to be broken. At the very least, there should be a space before the
'{'.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_files.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_files.mojom:106: };
What is it doing at the end of file? (In general, the last line of text files
should also have a newline at the end.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/service_describer.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/service_describer.mojom:50:
GetTypeDefinition(string type_key) => (mojo.bindings.types.UserDefinedType?
type);
We should also decide whether/how we prefer to break lines "at" the =>. In
particular, does the => go on the first line (when possible) or always on the
next line?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_interfaces.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_interfaces.mojom:26: GetInteger()
=> (int64 data, [MinVersion=2]Enum type);
Do we really want to omit the space after the ']' here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom:57: int32 a10@10 =
1234;
I don't know that you should forcibly drop the "+". Hmmm. (But I don't feel
strongly about this. Maybe this just means that we shouldn't auto-format this
file.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom:64: double a17@17 =
1.23E-20;
"

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/versioning_test_service.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/versioning_test_service.mojom:26:
[MinVersion=1]
This formatting is pretty ugly and confusing.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/netw...
File mojo/public/interfaces/network/network_error.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/netw...
mojo/public/interfaces/network/network_error.mojom:12: 
I find it odd that it apparently leaves an extra blank line at the end?

[vtl, 2016-02-29 23:45:37]

I'm OK with not aligning types/field names (and similar) -- we don't align those
in C++ either.

However, clang-format is set up to try to align same-line comments.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/services/media/common/...
File mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_common.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/services/media/common/...
mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_common.mojom:22: //          
INVALID_ARG, depending on reason
This is a bit of a trainwreck.

[jamesr, 2016-02-29 23:49:02]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/services/media/common/...
File mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_common.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/services/media/common/...
mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_common.mojom:22: //          
INVALID_ARG, depending on reason
On 2016/02/29 at 23:45:37, vtl wrote:
> This is a bit of a trainwreck.

yeah, this is awful. aligning just the comments won't really cut it either.
maybe the expedient thing for cases like this if we don't want to teach the
formatter about them is to give it clang-format style exclusion comments and
wrap hand-formatted sections like this in those comments

[azani, 2016-03-04 01:08:49]

ptal

There should be a 100 col limit enforced for method definitions now.

If putting a method on a single line brings it over 100 cols, it tries to put
the return params on the next line. Then it checks independently whether the
input or return params go over 100 cols. If they do, it prints the params on
different lines.

Regarding alignment, as discussed, I added // no-format and // end-no-format
See https://codereview.chromium.org/1766463002/

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/examples/echo/echo.mojom
File examples/echo/echo.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/examples/echo/echo.mojom#ne...
examples/echo/echo.mojom:6: JavaPackage="org.chromium.mojo.examples.echo"]
On 2016/02/29 23:41:59, vtl wrote:
> Probably this should be indented one space, to align with the previous line.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/interface_control_messages.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/interface_control_messages.mojom:42: uint32
reserved0; // Must be set to 16.
On 2016/02/29 23:41:59, vtl wrote:
> I think in general, we prefer two spaces before the "//" for a same-line
> comment.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/interface_control_messages.mojom:56: struct
QueryVersion{};
On 2016/02/29 23:41:59, vtl wrote:
> This seems to be broken. At the very least, there should be a space before the
> '{'.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_files.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_files.mojom:106: };
On 2016/02/29 23:41:59, vtl wrote:
> What is it doing at the end of file? (In general, the last line of text files
> should also have a newline at the end.)

It puts a new line at the end of the file.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_interfaces.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_interfaces.mojom:26: GetInteger()
=> (int64 data, [MinVersion=2]Enum type);
On 2016/02/29 23:41:59, vtl wrote:
> Do we really want to omit the space after the ']' here?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom:57: int32 a10@10 =
1234;
On 2016/02/29 23:41:59, vtl wrote:
> I don't know that you should forcibly drop the "+". Hmmm. (But I don't feel
> strongly about this. Maybe this just means that we shouldn't auto-format this
> file.)

That information is tossed by the parser. We could try to preserve it, but I
don't see the point. 1234 and +1234 are semantically equivalent no?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/versioning_test_service.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/versioning_test_service.mojom:26:
[MinVersion=1]
On 2016/02/29 23:41:59, vtl wrote:
> This formatting is pretty ugly and confusing.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/bind...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/versioning_test_service.mojom:34:
QueryEmployee(uint64 id, [MinVersion=1]bool retrieve_finger_print) => (Employee?
employee, [MinVersion=1]array<uint8>? finger_print);
On 2016/02/29 23:40:49, jamesr wrote:
> this is way too long. i liked breaking on the =>

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/netw...
File mojo/public/interfaces/network/network_error.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/1/mojo/public/interfaces/netw...
mojo/public/interfaces/network/network_error.mojom:12: 
On 2016/02/29 23:41:59, vtl wrote:
> I find it odd that it apparently leaves an extra blank line at the end?

Done.

[azani, 2016-03-07 23:02:03]

Description was changed from

==========
[DO NOT SUBMIT!] Formatted everything.

BUG= #592
==========

to

==========
[DO NOT SUBMIT!] Formatted everything.

BUG= #592
==========

[azani, 2016-03-07 23:02:03]

azani@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ viettrungluu@chromium.org
- vtl@google.com

[azani, 2016-03-07 23:02:15]

ping for Trung.

[viettrungluu, 2016-03-07 23:11:50]

On 2016/03/04 01:08:49, azani wrote:
> ptal
> 
> There should be a 100 col limit enforced for method definitions now.
> 
> If putting a method on a single line brings it over 100 cols, it tries to put
> the return params on the next line. Then it checks independently whether the
> input or return params go over 100 cols. If they do, it prints the params on
> different lines.

Given that all (or nearly all) the mojom files are currently formatted to 80
columns, why did you choose 100?

[azani, 2016-03-08 01:07:44]

That's a good point. I've updated it to 80 cols.

[jamesr, 2016-03-09 19:18:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom:57: int32 a10@10 =
1234;
i think we want something somewhere that has a unary+ if we want that to keep
working

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/media/com...
File mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_clock.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/media/com...
mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_clock.mojom:32: 
this is weird - why did it add two blank lines to this empty interface?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/native_su...
File mojo/services/native_support/interfaces/process.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/native_su...
mojo/services/native_support/interfaces/process.mojom:36: => (mojo.files.Error
error);
slightly odd to push the return to a new line when it'd fit on the line as the
last param, but maybe it's all right

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/native_vi...
File mojo/services/native_viewport/interfaces/native_viewport.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/native_vi...
mojo/services/native_viewport/interfaces/native_viewport.mojom:31: =>
(ViewportMetrics metrics);
was this over 80col before?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/url_respo...
File
mojo/services/url_response_disk_cache/interfaces/url_response_disk_cache.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/url_respo...
mojo/services/url_response_disk_cache/interfaces/url_response_disk_cache.mojom:33:
=> (mojo.URLResponse? response,
the previous line breaking was slightly better, imo. i think we should only go
to 4-space intend as a last resort

[viettrungluu, 2016-03-09 20:49:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/application/shell.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/application/shell.mojom:20:
CreateApplicationConnector(ApplicationConnector& application_connector_request);
This seems to be > 80 chars.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_types.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_types.mojom:15: * other |Type| objects.
For example a |Type| object representing an array<int32>
If it's going to change the indentation of comments, it should know how to wrap
them.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom:57: int32 a10@10 =
1234;
On 2016/03/09 19:18:08, jamesr wrote:
> i think we want something somewhere that has a unary+ if we want that to keep
> working

I mentioned this previously. I can live with having to "// no-format" this
though.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/gfx/compo...
File mojo/services/gfx/composition/interfaces/renderers.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/gfx/compo...
mojo/services/gfx/composition/interfaces/renderers.mojom:32:
SetRootScene(SceneToken scene_token, uint32 scene_version, mojo.Rect viewport);
> 80 chars

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/network/i...
File mojo/services/network/interfaces/tcp_connected_socket.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/network/i...
mojo/services/network/interfaces/tcp_connected_socket.mojom:13: 
...

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/url_respo...
File
mojo/services/url_response_disk_cache/interfaces/url_response_disk_cache.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/url_respo...
mojo/services/url_response_disk_cache/interfaces/url_response_disk_cache.mojom:33:
=> (mojo.URLResponse? response,
On 2016/03/09 19:18:08, jamesr wrote:
> the previous line breaking was slightly better, imo. i think we should only go
> to 4-space intend as a last resort

I agree that the previous version was better, though I can live with this
result.

(If the request params are multi-line, putting the result params on a separate
line, indented 4 spaces, is more readable -- to me -- than putting them on the
last line of the request params.)

[jamesr, 2016-03-09 20:58:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom:57: int32 a10@10 =
1234;
On 2016/03/09 at 20:49:08, viettrungluu wrote:
> On 2016/03/09 19:18:08, jamesr wrote:
> > i think we want something somewhere that has a unary+ if we want that to
keep
> > working
> 
> I mentioned this previously. I can live with having to "// no-format" this
though.

Yeah I'm totally fine with that - but this should probably actually do the //
no-format like the other // no-format sections in this patch

[azani, 2016-03-15 22:18:48]

ptal

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/application/shell.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/application/shell.mojom:20:
CreateApplicationConnector(ApplicationConnector& application_connector_request);
On 2016/03/09 20:49:08, viettrungluu wrote:
> This seems to be > 80 chars.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_types.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/mojom_types.mojom:15: * other |Type| objects.
For example a |Type| object representing an array<int32>
On 2016/03/09 20:49:08, viettrungluu wrote:
> If it's going to change the indentation of comments, it should know how to
wrap
> them.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_service.mojom:57: int32 a10@10 =
1234;
On 2016/03/09 20:58:09, jamesr wrote:
> On 2016/03/09 at 20:49:08, viettrungluu wrote:
> > On 2016/03/09 19:18:08, jamesr wrote:
> > > i think we want something somewhere that has a unary+ if we want that to
> keep
> > > working
> > 
> > I mentioned this previously. I can live with having to "// no-format" this
> though.
> 
> Yeah I'm totally fine with that - but this should probably actually do the //
> no-format like the other // no-format sections in this patch

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/gfx/compo...
File mojo/services/gfx/composition/interfaces/renderers.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/gfx/compo...
mojo/services/gfx/composition/interfaces/renderers.mojom:32:
SetRootScene(SceneToken scene_token, uint32 scene_version, mojo.Rect viewport);
On 2016/03/09 20:49:08, viettrungluu wrote:
> > 80 chars

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/media/com...
File mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_clock.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/media/com...
mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_clock.mojom:32: 
On 2016/03/09 19:18:08, jamesr wrote:
> this is weird - why did it add two blank lines to this empty interface?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/native_vi...
File mojo/services/native_viewport/interfaces/native_viewport.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/native_vi...
mojo/services/native_viewport/interfaces/native_viewport.mojom:31: =>
(ViewportMetrics metrics);
On 2016/03/09 19:18:08, jamesr wrote:
> was this over 80col before?

Yes.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/network/i...
File mojo/services/network/interfaces/tcp_connected_socket.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/40001/mojo/services/network/i...
mojo/services/network/interfaces/tcp_connected_socket.mojom:13: 
On 2016/03/09 20:49:09, viettrungluu wrote:
> ...

Done.

[viettrungluu, 2016-03-15 23:14:50]

Apart from some minor comments, this looks good.

(Probably you should resolve those comments as appropriate, update the CL
description[*], and commit this change -- overall, it's an improvement in
formatting.)

[*] Obviously, remove the "DO NOT SUBMIT!" part. But, just as importantly,
"everything" is wrong -- it's "all .mojom files".

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_interfaces.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_interfaces.mojom:8: Foo="hello
world"]
Do we have (other) tests to ensure that extra spaces in situations like these,
etc. (e.g., no trailing commas in enum declarations) are parsed correctly?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/files/int...
File mojo/services/files/interfaces/ioctl_terminal.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/files/int...
mojo/services/files/interfaces/ioctl_terminal.mojom:75: // no-format
Could you put this immediately after the "// Constants for "termios" fields
------..." comment instead?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/gfx/image...
File mojo/services/gfx/images/interfaces/image.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/gfx/image...
mojo/services/gfx/images/interfaces/image.mojom:36: mojo.Size size;  //width and
height of image in pixels
Should we enforce there being at least one space after "//"?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/gfx/image...
File mojo/services/gfx/images/interfaces/image_pipe.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/gfx/image...
mojo/services/gfx/images/interfaces/image_pipe.mojom:50: 
Why did it add a blank line here?

(Shouldn't it delete the existing blank line instead?)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/input_eve...
File mojo/services/input_events/interfaces/input_key_codes.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/input_eve...
mojo/services/input_events/interfaces/input_key_codes.mojom:11: // no-format
Probably you should have a matching end-no-format, esp. since there's only one
enum defined. (Otherwise, if someone adds something, it may end up accidentally
unformatted.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/media/com...
File mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_common.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/media/com...
mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_common.mojom:16: // no-format
"

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/url_respo...
File
mojo/services/url_response_disk_cache/interfaces/url_response_disk_cache.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/url_respo...
mojo/services/url_response_disk_cache/interfaces/url_response_disk_cache.mojom:20:

I wonder if we should have it delete a non-standard blank line like this one.

[azani, 2016-03-23 22:37:29]

Description was changed from

==========
[DO NOT SUBMIT!] Formatted everything.

BUG= #592
==========

to

==========
Auto-formatted all .mojom files.

BUG= #592
==========

[azani, 2016-03-23 22:42:51]

ptal

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
File mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_interfaces.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/public/interfaces/...
mojo/public/interfaces/bindings/tests/sample_interfaces.mojom:8: Foo="hello
world"]
On 2016/03/15 23:14:50, viettrungluu wrote:
> Do we have (other) tests to ensure that extra spaces in situations like these,
> etc. (e.g., no trailing commas in enum declarations) are parsed correctly?

Yes, the parser has tests that covers at least the two cases you mentioned here.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/files/int...
File mojo/services/files/interfaces/ioctl_terminal.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/files/int...
mojo/services/files/interfaces/ioctl_terminal.mojom:75: // no-format
On 2016/03/15 23:14:50, viettrungluu wrote:
> Could you put this immediately after the "// Constants for "termios" fields
> ------..." comment instead?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/gfx/image...
File mojo/services/gfx/images/interfaces/image.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/gfx/image...
mojo/services/gfx/images/interfaces/image.mojom:36: mojo.Size size;  //width and
height of image in pixels
On 2016/03/15 23:14:50, viettrungluu wrote:
> Should we enforce there being at least one space after "//"?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/gfx/image...
File mojo/services/gfx/images/interfaces/image_pipe.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/gfx/image...
mojo/services/gfx/images/interfaces/image_pipe.mojom:50: 
On 2016/03/15 23:14:50, viettrungluu wrote:
> Why did it add a blank line here?
> 
> (Shouldn't it delete the existing blank line instead?)

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/input_eve...
File mojo/services/input_events/interfaces/input_key_codes.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/input_eve...
mojo/services/input_events/interfaces/input_key_codes.mojom:11: // no-format
On 2016/03/15 23:14:50, viettrungluu wrote:
> Probably you should have a matching end-no-format, esp. since there's only one
> enum defined. (Otherwise, if someone adds something, it may end up
accidentally
> unformatted.)

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/media/com...
File mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_common.mojom (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/media/com...
mojo/services/media/common/interfaces/media_common.mojom:16: // no-format
On 2016/03/15 23:14:50, viettrungluu wrote:
> "

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/url_respo...
File
mojo/services/url_response_disk_cache/interfaces/url_response_disk_cache.mojom
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1741963002/diff/60001/mojo/services/url_respo...
mojo/services/url_response_disk_cache/interfaces/url_response_disk_cache.mojom:20:

On 2016/03/15 23:14:50, viettrungluu wrote:
> I wonder if we should have it delete a non-standard blank line like this one.

Done.

[viettrungluu, 2016-03-24 15:01:25]

lgtm

[azani, 2016-03-24 20:24:58]

Description was changed from

==========
Auto-formatted all .mojom files.

BUG= #592
==========

to

==========
Auto-formatted all .mojom files.

BUG= #592
R=viettrungluu@chromium.org

Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/mojo/+/d26dd21f9bf81fca64a5c1c6d50...
==========

[azani, 2016-03-24 20:25:01]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001) manually as
d26dd21f9bf81fca64a5c1c6d50837c41ae2d87c (presubmit successful).