Don't mess with omnibox selection on update when the omnibox doesn't have focus.

chrome/browser/ui/views/omnibox/omnibox_view_views.cc

Index: chrome/browser/ui/views/omnibox/omnibox_view_views.cc
===================================================================
--- chrome/browser/ui/views/omnibox/omnibox_view_views.cc	(revision 209724)
+++ chrome/browser/ui/views/omnibox/omnibox_view_views.cc	(working copy)
@@ -390,7 +390,17 @@
 
     RevertAll();
 
-    if (was_select_all)
+    // When the old text was empty, we don't bother selecting the new text.
+    // You might think we could reach here if the user has deleted the previous

[msw, 2013/07/02 23:35:21]

nit: Just explain the reasoning plainly: "Do not select the new text when the
old text was empty. Navigating from the NTP should not trigger a URL selection."
If desired, you can add something like ", which may cause rendering jank."
Ditto for omnibox_view_win.cc

[Peter Kasting, 2013/07/02 23:38:45]

Rendering jank isn't my concern, and the rest of that comment is far too brief
to tell me anything.  I definitely would not understand the subtlety here from
reading that, which is the entire point of the comment.

[msw, 2013/07/03 00:04:07]

Fine, but there's little reason to speculate about unrelated reason why the
reader might think the empty check matters, can you explain the actual reasoning
without explaining why a hypothetical alternate reasoning is invalid?

+    // URL, but in that case the model will see that user input is in progress
+    // and return false from UpdatePermanentText() (so we won't reach here),
+    // unless we don't have focus, in which case we don't care anyway because
+    // re-focusing the omnibox will modify the selection regardless.  The only
+    // time we actually reach here with empty text is when the user was on the
+    // NTP and clicked something on the page to navigate, in which case the
+    // omnibox shouldn't have focus anyway, and selecting all will at best do

[msw, 2013/07/03 00:04:07]

The comment, "in which case the omnibox shouldn't have focus anyway" makes it
sound like the code should really check for omnibox focus, not text emptiness.
Should that be the actual condition checked here?

+    // nothing and at worst cause problems like reversing the URL.

[msw, 2013/07/03 00:04:07]

The URL would not be reversed; the problem we observed is that the
forward-selection of the URL causes the trailing URL text to be shown.

+    if (was_select_all && !range.is_empty())
       SelectAll(range.is_reversed());
   } else if (changed_security_level) {
     EmphasizeURLComponents();