Create chrome://serviceworker-internals

Create chrome://serviceworker-internals

This is the beginning of the internals page for service worker, to aid in
debugging and development. This lists all registered service workers and
allows you to manually start/stop the workers, as well as unregister them.

BUG=351197
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=256858

[alecflett, 2014-03-03 20:40:46]

Attempt number 2 on this patch - my previous cl seems to have been somehow
poisoned so that I could never upload a newer patch.

This one is complete though - I'll send a screenshot around.

[michaeln, 2014-03-04 00:25:47]

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/1/content/browser/service_work...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/1/content/browser/service_work...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:373:
scoped_ptr<std::vector<ServiceWorkerRegistration*> > registrations) {
Don't we need a different representation for this info so we can send it across
threads? 

ServiceWorkerRegistration isn't thread safe and the active and pending versions
can swap out an any time. The reg object itself may be deleted by the time the
task runs on the UI thread.

[alecflett, 2014-03-04 00:29:41]

On 2014/03/04 00:25:47, michaeln wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/1/content/browser/service_work...
> File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/1/content/browser/service_work...
> content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:373:
> scoped_ptr<std::vector<ServiceWorkerRegistration*> > registrations) {
> Don't we need a different representation for this info so we can send it
across
> threads? 
> 
> ServiceWorkerRegistration isn't thread safe and the active and pending
versions
> can swap out an any time. The reg object itself may be deleted by the time the
> task runs on the UI thread.

good point! I'll look into storing this by id or weak pointer or something.

[michaeln, 2014-03-04 01:07:34]

Probably the content settings UI could be a consumer of this info too.

> good point! I'll look into storing this by id or weak pointer or something.

For other systems, the way we've handled delivering this kind of status info to
consumers on other threads is by defining separate structures to represent
things and passing those from thread to thread. So live objects on the IO thread
con's up structs which are thrown over the wall. Some examples...

IDB - virtual std::vector<IndexedDBInfo> GetAllOriginsInfo() OVERRIDE;


AppCache -   void GetAllAppCacheInfo(AppCacheInfoCollection* collection,
                          const net::CompletionCallback& callback);

WebSQL -   virtual bool GetAllOriginsInfo(std::vector<OriginInfo>*
origins_info);

[alecflett, 2014-03-04 21:42:29]

Ok, I bit the bullet and did the *Info classes. PTAL.

[kinuko, 2014-03-05 03:43:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h:15: class
ServiceWorkerVersionInfo {
nit: could be a struct

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h:23: bool is_null_;
no trailing '_' for public member variables

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h:37: const
ServiceWorkerRegistrationInfo& other);
Why do we need explicit assignment operator?

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:61:
ServiceWorkerStatusCode status);
If all of these methods always forward scoped_ptr<ListValue> optional_args until
complete we could pass it to the ctor of OperationProxy and keep it in this
class

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:135:
base::Unretained(new OperationProxy(AsWeakPtr())),
It's usually not very serious in internals UI code, but this could leak if post
task fails in the chain.  Alternatively you could create OperationProxy as
scoped_ptr<> and forwarding the scoped_ptr<> until we call OperationComplete...
(then no explicit delete)

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:150: }  //
namespace
nit: can we have all anon namespaces together at the beginning of the file?

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:234: void
ServiceWorkerInternalsUI::OperationProxy::OperationComplete(
nit: can you match the method order in header and in impl?

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h:94: static
ServiceWorkerVersionInfo GetInfo(const ServiceWorkerVersion*);
It feels having non-static method which takes ServiceWorkerVersionInfo* or
returns ServiceWorkerVersionInfo is more natural

void GetInfo(ServiceWorkerVersionInfo* info) const
ServiceWorkerVersionInfo GetInfo() const

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h:142: return
embedded_worker_.get();
nit: indent

Returning non-const ptr from const method is not very safe imho, do we need this
change? Is the only caller the GetInfo()?

[alecflett, 2014-03-05 21:41:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h:23: bool is_null_;
On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> no trailing '_' for public member variables

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h:37: const
ServiceWorkerRegistrationInfo& other);
On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> Why do we need explicit assignment operator?

in order to push_back() into a vector - it's because GURL doesn't have a
compatible assignment operator, it's all very surprising to me!

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:61:
ServiceWorkerStatusCode status);
On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> If all of these methods always forward scoped_ptr<ListValue> optional_args
until
> complete we could pass it to the ctor of OperationProxy and keep it in this
> class

Done. I cleaned up this class pretty extensively as well, making it ref-counted
so that it could be kept alive through the whole callback chain, but
automatically deleted as well.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:135:
base::Unretained(new OperationProxy(AsWeakPtr())),
On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> It's usually not very serious in internals UI code, but this could leak if
post
> task fails in the chain.  Alternatively you could create OperationProxy as
> scoped_ptr<> and forwarding the scoped_ptr<> until we call
OperationComplete...
> (then no explicit delete)

Done. (via refcounting)

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:150: }  //
namespace
On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> nit: can we have all anon namespaces together at the beginning of the file?

I was trying to keep code near where it was called... I'd prefer to leave it
here.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:234: void
ServiceWorkerInternalsUI::OperationProxy::OperationComplete(
On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> nit: can you match the method order in header and in impl?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h:94: static
ServiceWorkerVersionInfo GetInfo(const ServiceWorkerVersion*);
On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> It feels having non-static method which takes ServiceWorkerVersionInfo* or
> returns ServiceWorkerVersionInfo is more natural
> 
> void GetInfo(ServiceWorkerVersionInfo* info) const
> ServiceWorkerVersionInfo GetInfo() const

So I've adjusted it to be this way - it was this way to be able to account for a
null SWVersion (now the caller does instead)

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h:142: return
embedded_worker_.get();
On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> nit: indent
> 
> Returning non-const ptr from const method is not very safe imho, do we need
this
> change? Is the only caller the GetInfo()?

Yep.. I wonder if we could make embedded_worker_instance_ be const too, but I'll
leave that for another patch.

[michaeln, 2014-03-06 01:19:01]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_context_core.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_context_core.h:54: const
std::vector<ServiceWorkerRegistrationInfo>& info)> InfoCallback;
Is this used anywhere?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:36: // those
values.
comment seems stale

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:73:
scoped_ptr<ListValue> original_args_;
I'm not so familiar with ListValue, does it matter that it may be deleted on a
different thread... just checking?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_registration.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_registration.cc:46: :
pending_version_->GetInfo());
Did you run this code? It looks like it will crash. Can you add some tests for
the new GetInfo methods and run some tryjobs?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_storage.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_storage.h:52:
GetAllRegistrationInfosCallback;
lets put the typedef up top with the other typedefs for consistency

[alecflett, 2014-03-06 19:24:32]

Clarify comment, add thread DCHECK, fix crash

[alecflett, 2014-03-06 19:25:15]

review comments addressed - clarified some of the comments. PTAL?

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_context_core.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_context_core.h:54: const
std::vector<ServiceWorkerRegistrationInfo>& info)> InfoCallback;
On 2014/03/06 01:19:02, michaeln wrote:
> Is this used anywhere?

oops, levftovers. Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:36: // those
values.
On 2014/03/06 01:19:02, michaeln wrote:
> comment seems stale

nope.. the operation eventually proxies itself back over to the UI thread where
this is deleted.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:73:
scoped_ptr<ListValue> original_args_;
On 2014/03/06 01:19:02, michaeln wrote:
> I'm not so familiar with ListValue, does it matter that it may be deleted on a
> different thread... just checking?

They're deleted on the UI thread, where they're created.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_registration.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_registration.cc:46: :
pending_version_->GetInfo());
On 2014/03/06 01:19:02, michaeln wrote:
> Did you run this code? It looks like it will crash. Can you add some tests for
> the new GetInfo methods and run some tryjobs?

sorry last minute refactoring, good catch. Done.

[michaeln, 2014-03-06 19:54:14]

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:36: // those
values.
>> comment seems stale
>
> nope.. the operation eventually proxies itself back over to the UI thread
where
> this is deleted.

But it doesn't "delete itself" and see other comments below.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:73:
scoped_ptr<ListValue> original_args_;
> They're deleted on the UI thread, where they're created.

Thats typically what will happen given how its used, but there really is no
guarantee that it will be deleted on the UI thread.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/100001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:312:
BrowserThread::PostTask(
fyi: OnHaveRegistrations may have been run on the UI thread prior to this
function having returned on the IO thread. This is why there is no guarantee
about which thread OperationProxy is deleted on and why i asked about ListValue
type.

[michaeln, 2014-03-06 20:14:28]

also, upload is borked :(

[alecflett, 2014-03-06 23:08:44]

After thinking this over, michaeln helped me realize that this really could be
deleted anywhere... so I've cleaned up the comment. PTAL?

[michaeln, 2014-03-06 23:31:48]

lgtm, but please do read the comments

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:36: // itself when
complete.
nit: the "it deletes itself" comment is more confusing than clarifying

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:39:
ServiceWorkerInternalsUI::OperationProxy> {
nit: indent is off

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:349:
internals_->web_ui()->CallJavascriptFunction(
nit: Maybe only do this part if the partition actually contains some
registrations. There are a surprising number of partitions especially on cros,
filtering out the empties might be nice.

Do we do anything to arrange for the "default" partiton for the normal web to
come first in resulting listing in the page?

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_registration.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_registration.cc:44:
active_version_ ? active_version_->GetInfo() : ServiceWorkerVersionInfo(),
nit: i know it fits, but it might be better to wrap these two versioninfo lines
the same way for consistency since the do the same thing

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.cc:122:
embedded_worker()->process_id(),
according to the ctor and dtor, embedded_worker_ may be null but i see
everything else in here depends on it being non-null too... ok

[alecflett, 2014-03-06 23:44:44]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[alecflett, 2014-03-06 23:46:46]

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:36: // itself when
complete.
On 2014/03/06 23:31:49, michaeln wrote:
> nit: the "it deletes itself" comment is more confusing than clarifying

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:39:
ServiceWorkerInternalsUI::OperationProxy> {
On 2014/03/06 23:31:49, michaeln wrote:
> nit: indent is off

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:349:
internals_->web_ui()->CallJavascriptFunction(
On 2014/03/06 23:31:49, michaeln wrote:
> nit: Maybe only do this part if the partition actually contains some
> registrations. There are a surprising number of partitions especially on cros,
> filtering out the empties might be nice.
Done.

> 
> Do we do anything to arrange for the "default" partiton for the normal web to
> come first in resulting listing in the page?

No, but it always comes first (other internals pages do the same thing)

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_registration.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/160001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_registration.cc:44:
active_version_ ? active_version_->GetInfo() : ServiceWorkerVersionInfo(),
On 2014/03/06 23:31:49, michaeln wrote:
> nit: i know it fits, but it might be better to wrap these two versioninfo
lines
> the same way for consistency since the do the same thing

I'm just using 'git cl format' to get rid of formatting ambiguities.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-06 23:58:40]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/180001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-07 00:34:32]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-07 00:34:32]

Retried try job too often on chromium_presubmit for step(s) presubmit
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=chromium_p...

[kinuko, 2014-03-07 02:19:08]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/180001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/180001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h:35: const
ServiceWorkerVersionInfo& pending_version_);
nit: pending_version_ -> pending_version (no trailing '_')

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/180001/content/browser/service...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/180001/content/browser/service...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_internals_ui.cc:301: // is this
hardware thread or internal thread?
(Will we keep this comment?) This is internal thread id, not reflecting platform
thread id.

[kinuko, 2014-03-07 09:20:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h:37: const
ServiceWorkerRegistrationInfo& other);
On 2014/03/05 21:41:20, alecflett wrote:
> On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> > Why do we need explicit assignment operator?
> 
> in order to push_back() into a vector - it's because GURL doesn't have a
> compatible assignment operator, it's all very surprising to me!

Btw are you sure about this? I've seen std::vector<GURL> or std::map<GURL, ...>
numerous times, and I can't believe we don't have compatible assignment operator
in GURL.  For example if I just delete this operator it still compiles.  Am I
missing something?

[alecflett, 2014-03-07 19:09:28]

On 2014/03/07 09:20:18, kinuko wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
> File content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/182383008/diff/20001/content/browser/service_...
> content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_info.h:37: const
> ServiceWorkerRegistrationInfo& other);
> On 2014/03/05 21:41:20, alecflett wrote:
> > On 2014/03/05 03:43:20, kinuko wrote:
> > > Why do we need explicit assignment operator?
> > 
> > in order to push_back() into a vector - it's because GURL doesn't have a
> > compatible assignment operator, it's all very surprising to me!
> 
> Btw are you sure about this? I've seen std::vector<GURL> or std::map<GURL,
...>
> numerous times, and I can't believe we don't have compatible assignment
operator
> in GURL.  For example if I just delete this operator it still compiles.  Am I
> missing something?

Oh boy, really? 

I had early experiments with some extra consts, and having the operator was the
only way to make it compile. now I'm wondering if removal of those consts will
help. I'll remove and re-CQ it.

[michaeln, 2014-03-07 20:30:55]

> Oh boy, really? 
> 
> I had early experiments with some extra consts, and having the operator was
the
> only way to make it compile. now I'm wondering if removal of those consts will
> help. I'll remove and re-CQ it.

Yea, the need for an assignment operator didn't really make sense to me either?

[alecflett, 2014-03-07 20:59:28]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-07 21:00:44]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/200001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-07 21:29:25]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-07 21:29:26]

Retried try job too often on chromium_presubmit for step(s) presubmit
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=chromium_p...

[alecflett, 2014-03-07 21:39:32]

jam@ - need a review for the non-serviceworker stuff to get this internals page
landed:

content/browser/resources/*
content/*.gpyi
content/public/common/url_constants.*

[jam, 2014-03-07 23:51:29]

lgtm

[alecflett, 2014-03-07 23:52:50]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-07 23:54:39]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/220001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-08 11:11:41]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/220001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-08 12:14:47]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-08 12:14:48]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[kinuko, 2014-03-10 07:48:05]

The CQ bit was checked by kinuko@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 07:48:34]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/220001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 08:12:05]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 08:12:06]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[kinuko, 2014-03-10 08:25:09]

The CQ bit was checked by kinuko@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 08:25:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/220001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 08:57:24]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 08:57:25]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-10 17:56:40]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 18:02:58]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 20:08:06]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 20:08:06]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-10 20:55:29]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 20:58:21]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 21:53:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 22:39:53]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-10 23:51:09]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 03:31:34]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 03:31:35]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-11 05:02:20]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 05:04:25]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/240001

[kinuko, 2014-03-11 05:16:47]

Linking libcontent.so keeps failing due to 'Argument list too long' error...
might be good to send a note to chromium-dev to get some help on it?

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 06:44:14]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 06:44:15]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-11 17:15:53]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 17:21:32]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 17:22:54]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 17:22:57]

Failed to apply patch for
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h:
While running patch -p1 --forward --force --no-backup-if-mismatch;
  patching file content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h
  Hunk #1 FAILED at 23.
  Hunk #2 succeeded at 88 with fuzz 2 (offset -2 lines).
  1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h.rej

Patch:       content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h
Index: content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h
diff --git a/content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h
b/content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h
index
c577ac30c2c0d0271cbf83359a3df49a1da8888a..2b3a5068410570d3d79948823029f837d02743a2
100644
--- a/content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h
+++ b/content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_version.h
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ namespace content {
 
 class EmbeddedWorkerRegistry;
 class ServiceWorkerRegistration;
+class ServiceWorkerVersionInfo;
 struct ServiceWorkerFetchRequest;
 struct ServiceWorkerFetchResponse;
 
@@ -90,6 +91,8 @@ class CONTENT_EXPORT ServiceWorkerVersion
     return static_cast<Status>(embedded_worker_->status());
   }
 
+  ServiceWorkerVersionInfo GetInfo();
+
   // Starts an embedded worker for this version.
   // This returns OK (success) if the worker is already running.
   void StartWorker(const StatusCallback& callback);

[alecflett, 2014-03-11 17:54:23]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 17:59:04]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 18:57:07]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 18:57:12]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-11 19:28:58]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 19:47:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 22:30:37]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 22:30:39]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-11 22:34:40]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-11 22:49:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 02:31:23]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 02:31:25]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-12 03:55:12]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 04:00:00]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 06:56:12]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 06:56:14]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-12 16:25:13]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 16:25:37]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 17:03:29]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 17:46:11]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-12 17:46:13]

Try jobs failed on following builders: linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-13 16:02:00]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-13 16:02:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-13 16:11:54]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-13 16:11:56]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  tryserver.chromium on linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg

[alecflett, 2014-03-13 16:31:03]

The CQ bit was checked by alecflett@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-13 16:31:41]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/alecflett@chromium.org/182383008/260001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-13 17:12:47]

Change committed as 256858