Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value undefined.

Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=596495
R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org, piman@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/9e08bcbbb080114780f7d37ff4d9f3946e59d651
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#383296}

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-17 16:58:42]

Description was changed from

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=

R=abarth@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org
==========

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-17 16:58:42]

j.isorce@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org
- abarth@chromium.org

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-17 17:01:40]

Hi, I checked : CHROME_DEVEL_SANDBOX=out/Release/chrome_sandbox python
third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/run-webkit-tests --skipped=ignore
--no-retry-failures plugins
and there is no regression for tests that succeeds without this CL.

[dcheng, 2016-03-17 19:26:57]

1) Is this specified somewhere? What does changing this fix? AFAIK, this is only
exposed via pp::deprecated::ScriptableObject. As the name suggests, this is an
interface we're trying to remove someday.

2) How do other browsers behave?

3) Can you write a layout test if we want this patch? You can use the PPAPI test
plugin for deprecated interfaces @ //ppapi/tests/blink_deprecated_test_plugin.cc

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-17 21:45:16]

On 2016/03/17 19:26:57, dcheng wrote:
> 1) Is this specified somewhere? What does changing this fix?
Hi, thx for you comments. I am not sure if it is specified somewhere but if I
run the following full javascript code:

<script>
function A () {
  Object.defineProperty( scriptableObj, "onFoo", { value: undefined } );
  Object.defineProperty( scriptableObj, "bar", { get: function () { return
undefined; } } );
}

var obj = new A;
console.log(obj.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") + " " + obj.hasOwnProperty("bar"));
</script>

it will print: "true true", which is not the case if onFoo and bar are defined
the same way for the underlying v8 object behind an HTMLObjectElement.
The underlying v8 object being what is returned by the function
blink::WebViewPlugin::GetV8ScriptableObject(v8::Isolate*).

>  AFAIK, this is only
> exposed via pp::deprecated::ScriptableObject. As the name suggests, this is an
> interface we're trying to remove someday.

I do not use this interface though that's really interesting. I am going to have
a look even it is deprecated.

> 
> 2) How do other browsers behave?

It is working fine with WebKit. I cannot tell with others.
But for sure the small full javascript example above prints the same output on
the 4 main browsers.

> 
> 3) Can you write a layout test if we want this patch? You can use the PPAPI
test
> plugin for deprecated interfaces @
//ppapi/tests/blink_deprecated_test_plugin.cc

Thx for the pointer I guess it will help in order to make a layout test.
But at this point I am not sure if it is possible. I'll try and let you know.

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-17 21:52:29]

Also FWIW the code that I am changing has been introduced by this CL
https://codereview.chromium.org/230813002, especially this diff
https://codereview.chromium.org/230813002/patch/70001/80004

[bashi, 2016-03-17 23:48:22]

Could you write a layout test so that I can check the behavior of other
browsers?

[Krzysztof Olczyk, 2016-03-18 06:53:52]

On 2016/03/17 at 21:52:29, j.isorce wrote:
> Also FWIW the code that I am changing has been introduced by this CL
https://codereview.chromium.org/230813002, especially this diff
https://codereview.chromium.org/230813002/patch/70001/80004

LGTM, as the author of the original patch. (I'm not a commiter, so you will need
other lgtms though)

[haraken, 2016-03-18 06:58:57]

I'd like to have a layout test for this.

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-18 11:33:29]

On 2016/03/18 06:58:57, haraken wrote:
> I'd like to have a layout test for this.

Patch Set 2 contains a layout test.

[dcheng, 2016-03-18 23:32:30]

dcheng@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kolczyk@opera.com

[dcheng, 2016-03-18 23:32:31]

Let's not add things to test plugin since we're actively trying to remove it.
Can we use the PPAPI test plugin for deprecated interfaces instead? It's built
from //ppapi/tests/blink_deprecated_test_plugin.cc and it shouldn't be too hard
to use it instead.

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-21 15:31:22]

On 2016/03/18 23:32:31, dcheng wrote:
> Let's not add things to test plugin since we're actively trying to remove it.
> Can we use the PPAPI test plugin for deprecated interfaces instead? It's built
> from //ppapi/tests/blink_deprecated_test_plugin.cc and it shouldn't be too
hard
> to use it instead.

Done. 
Though I could convert "Object.defineProperty( scriptableObj, "bar", { get:
function () { return undefined; } } );" 
but not "Object.defineProperty( scriptableObj, "onFoo", { value: undefined //
default } ); "

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-21 15:32:09]

Description was changed from

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=596495

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org
==========

[dcheng, 2016-03-21 17:29:21]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html:17: "testprop": {
get: function () { return undefined; } }
If you rebase, can you just use testObject instead of testprop?

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-21 18:02:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html:17: "testprop": {
get: function () { return undefined; } }
On 2016/03/21 17:29:21, dcheng wrote:
> If you rebase, can you just use testObject instead of testprop?

Do you mean renaming "testprop" to "testObject" everywhere ? (in this file and
in the pepper plugin)

[dcheng, 2016-03-21 18:09:15]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html:17: "testprop": {
get: function () { return undefined; } }
On 2016/03/21 at 18:02:56, j.isorce wrote:
> On 2016/03/21 17:29:21, dcheng wrote:
> > If you rebase, can you just use testObject instead of testprop?
> 
> Do you mean renaming "testprop" to "testObject" everywhere ? (in this file and
in the pepper plugin)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1814093003 recently landed, so the deprecated
test plugin already has a property (testObject) that I think you can just reuse
for this test.

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-21 19:08:21]

On 2016/03/21 18:09:15, dcheng wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
> File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/40001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
> third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html:17: "testprop":
{
> get: function () { return undefined; } }
> On 2016/03/21 at 18:02:56, j.isorce wrote:
> > On 2016/03/21 17:29:21, dcheng wrote:
> > > If you rebase, can you just use testObject instead of testprop?
> > 
> > Do you mean renaming "testprop" to "testObject" everywhere ? (in this file
and
> in the pepper plugin)
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1814093003 recently landed, so the deprecated
> test plugin already has a property (testObject) that I think you can just
reuse
> for this test.

I uploaded a new version using testObject. I was not able to just use it without
defining new properties as you suggested. But anyway it sounded great to use it
in another way. But the test does not pass, even with the fix. See the updated
layout test.

[bashi, 2016-03-21 23:33:15]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/60001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/60001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html:22:
document.getElementById('result').innerHTML = 'SUCCESS';
Printing SUCCESS is not the best way to show results. I'd suggest that using
shouldBeXXX() helper functions which are defined in ../resources/js-test.js.

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-22 12:05:41]

On 2016/03/21 23:33:15, bashi1 wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/60001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
> File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/60001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
> third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html:22:
> document.getElementById('result').innerHTML = 'SUCCESS';
> Printing SUCCESS is not the best way to show results. I'd suggest that using
> shouldBeXXX() helper functions which are defined in ../resources/js-test.js.

Thx for the review. I uploaded "Patch Set 5" that contains what you suggested.

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-22 12:06:01]

j.isorce@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ piman@chromium.org

[bashi, 2016-03-22 23:14:51]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/80001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/80001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html:6: jsTestIsAsync =
true;
Why does this test need to be async?

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-23 17:56:55]

On 2016/03/22 23:14:51, bashi1 wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/80001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
> File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/80001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
> third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/plugins/plugin-scriptable.html:6: jsTestIsAsync
=
> true;
> Why does this test need to be async?

It is not needed to be async, thx for pointing that. It indeed make the test to
execute faster :). Please see Patch Set 6 that I just uploaded.

[piman, 2016-03-23 20:22:00]

LGTM, however please see https://codereview.chromium.org/1821103002/ where we
add documentation for the API exposed by the plugin. Could you rebase on top of
it and add documentation for the new property?

[haraken, 2016-03-24 02:38:08]

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

[haraken, 2016-03-24 02:38:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/100001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
File
third_party/WebKit/Source/bindings/core/v8/custom/V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom.cpp
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/100001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
third_party/WebKit/Source/bindings/core/v8/custom/V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom.cpp:64:
if (value->IsUndefined() &&
!instance->Has(info.GetIsolate()->GetCurrentContext(), property).FromJust())

Would you use a v8Call macro in V8BindingMacros.h (instead of directly calling
FromJust())?

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-24 09:52:55]

Description was changed from

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=596495

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=596495

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org,
piman@chromium.org
==========

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-24 09:55:33]

On 2016/03/23 20:22:00, piman wrote:
> LGTM, however please see https://codereview.chromium.org/1821103002/ where we
> add documentation for the API exposed by the plugin. Could you rebase on top
of
> it and add documentation for the new property?

Thx for the review. I rebased and added doc in Patch Set 7.

On 2016/03/24 02:38:09, haraken wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/diff/100001/third_party/WebKit/Sou...
>
third_party/WebKit/Source/bindings/core/v8/custom/V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom.cpp:64:
> if (value->IsUndefined() &&
> !instance->Has(info.GetIsolate()->GetCurrentContext(), property).FromJust())
> 
> Would you use a v8Call macro in V8BindingMacros.h (instead of directly calling
> FromJust())?

Thx for pointed that, I replaced FromJust by v8CallBoolean in Patch Set 7.

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-24 09:56:02]

The CQ bit was checked by j.isorce@samsung.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 09:56:24]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1813823002/120001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1813823002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 11:30:29]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 11:30:30]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[piman, 2016-03-24 18:43:05]

lgtm

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-24 20:12:09]

The CQ bit was checked by j.isorce@samsung.com

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-24 20:12:10]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from kolczyk@opera.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1813823002/#ps120001
(title: "Add doc and use v8CallBoolean instead of FromJust()")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 20:12:43]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1813823002/120001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1813823002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 20:23:53]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-24 20:23:55]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[bashi, 2016-03-24 23:38:08]

bindings/ LGTM.

[haraken, 2016-03-25 02:14:39]

bindings LGTM.

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-25 08:54:54]

The CQ bit was checked by j.isorce@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-25 08:55:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1813823002/120001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1813823002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-25 09:03:28]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-25 09:03:29]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[Julien Isorce Samsung, 2016-03-25 10:09:23]

** Presubmit ERRORS ** Missing LGTM from an OWNER for these files:
ppapi/tests/blink_deprecated_test_plugin.cc

[dcheng, 2016-03-25 16:11:33]

lgtm

Weird, both piman and I should be OWNERS for that file.

[dcheng, 2016-03-25 16:11:55]

The CQ bit was checked by dcheng@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-25 16:12:02]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1813823002/120001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1813823002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-25 17:13:27]

Description was changed from

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=596495

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org,
piman@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=596495

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org,
piman@chromium.org
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-25 17:13:29]

Committed patchset #7 (id:120001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-25 17:14:58]

Description was changed from

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=596495

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org,
piman@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Handle the case where the v8 scriptable object has a property defined with value
undefined.

Or with a getter that returns undefined.

Indeed V8HTMLPlugInElementCustom::getScriptableObjectProperty should only
fallback to the general HTMLObjectElement if a property does not exist.

For example if the v8 scriptable object has some properties
defined as equivalent as the following:

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "onFoo",
  {
    value: undefined // default
  }
);

or

Object.defineProperty(
  scriptableObj,
  "bar",
  {
    get: function () { return undefined; }
  }
);

Then myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("onFoo") or
myHTMLObjectElement.hasOwnProperty("bar") will return
false whereas they should return true.

BUG=596495

R=bashi@chromium.org, dcheng@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org,
piman@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/9e08bcbbb080114780f7d37ff4d9f3946e59d651
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#383296}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-25 17:15:00]

Patchset 7 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/9e08bcbbb080114780f7d37ff4d9f3946e59d651
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#383296}