Convert location bar bubble delegates to bubble dialog delegates

ui/views/window/dialog_client_view.cc

Index: ui/views/window/dialog_client_view.cc
diff --git a/ui/views/window/dialog_client_view.cc b/ui/views/window/dialog_client_view.cc
index ea23fed27516f245b46f68958c7d8d556fff1a12..2e47aa6f17f716db002954d1c4d0e2e580a8e72c 100644
--- a/ui/views/window/dialog_client_view.cc
+++ b/ui/views/window/dialog_client_view.cc
@@ -214,6 +214,12 @@ void DialogClientView::Layout() {
 
 bool DialogClientView::AcceleratorPressed(const ui::Accelerator& accelerator) {
   DCHECK_EQ(accelerator.key_code(), ui::VKEY_ESCAPE);
+  // Give the contents view a chance to handle it first.
+  if (contents_view()->HandlesAccelerator(accelerator) &&
+      contents_view()->AcceleratorPressed(accelerator)) {

[msw, 2016/03/03 23:01:40]

Why not just call AcceleratorPressed and avoid the new View api?

[Evan Stade, 2016/03/04 04:12:08]

because many views do something like

AcceleratorPressed(accelerator) {
  DCHECK_EQ(VKEY_RETURN, accelerator);
  // do stuff for return
}

Even if there were no DCHECKs I still think it would be dumb to make all views
write this fn as

if (accelerator == VKEY_RETURN) {
  do something;
}

So, in summary, I don't think AcceleratorPressed should be (and presently isn't)
called for accelerators not registered for.

[msw, 2016/03/04 18:21:08]

Okay, good argument, I suppose I'm in favor of adding HandlesAccelerator.

+    return true;
+  }
+
   GetWidget()->Close();
   return true;
 }