cc: Move DamageTracker filter handling to MapRect.

cc: Move DamageTracker filter handling to MapRect.

While here, also fix a bug in which the rectangle in which the filter is
assumed to be visible was also mapped through the filter, and update unit
tests accordingly.

BUG=600821
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/8eb5fb7cc39a640ed6b732262c41e3110c9093d2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#397192}

[jbroman, 2016-05-27 19:13:14]

Description was changed from

==========
cc: Move DamageTracker filter handling to MapRect.

While here, also fix a bug in which the rectangle in which the filter is
assumed to be visible was also mapped through the filter, and update unit
tests accordingly.

BUG=600821
==========

to

==========
cc: Move DamageTracker filter handling to MapRect.

While here, also fix a bug in which the rectangle in which the filter is
assumed to be visible was also mapped through the filter, and update unit
tests accordingly.

BUG=600821
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel
==========

[jbroman, 2016-06-01 14:32:27]

jbroman@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ senorblanco@chromium.org

[jbroman, 2016-06-01 14:32:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2015343002/diff/1/cc/trees/damage_tracker_uni...
File cc/trees/damage_tracker_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2015343002/diff/1/cc/trees/damage_tracker_uni...
cc/trees/damage_tracker_unittest.cc:707: //         206x208 due to contributions
from grand_child1 and grand_child2.
I was confused until I realized why the surface was larger than its declared
bounds of 100x100; a comment of this would have made understanding the test
easier for me. Let me know if you don't want it in this CL.

[Stephen White, 2016-06-01 15:50:00]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/2015343002/diff/1/cc/trees/damage_tracker_uni...
File cc/trees/damage_tracker_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2015343002/diff/1/cc/trees/damage_tracker_uni...
cc/trees/damage_tracker_unittest.cc:637: filters.GetOutsets(&outset_top,
&outset_right, &outset_bottom, &outset_left);
Out of curiosity, why are we still using outsets here (and elsewhere)? Is the
damage tracker still using them in some places?

[jbroman, 2016-06-01 15:53:37]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2015343002/diff/1/cc/trees/damage_tracker_uni...
File cc/trees/damage_tracker_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2015343002/diff/1/cc/trees/damage_tracker_uni...
cc/trees/damage_tracker_unittest.cc:637: filters.GetOutsets(&outset_top,
&outset_right, &outset_bottom, &outset_left);
On 2016/06/01 at 15:50:00, Stephen White wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why are we still using outsets here (and elsewhere)? Is the
damage tracker still using them in some places?

They're used to constructed expected values, presumably because the sigma ->
outset calculation was previously non-trivial (now it's "multiply by 3"). I
intend to remove the calls in unit tests in a subsequent CL.

[jbroman, 2016-06-01 15:53:38]

The CQ bit was checked by jbroman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-01 15:54:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2015343002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2015343002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-01 16:01:04]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-01 16:01:05]

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...)

[jbroman, 2016-06-01 16:07:07]

jbroman@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ ajuma@chromium.org

[jbroman, 2016-06-01 16:07:08]

Whoops, forgot to actually get a cc owner to review. ajuma, would you mind
having a look?

[ajuma, 2016-06-01 17:02:59]

lgtm

[jbroman, 2016-06-01 17:14:03]

The CQ bit was checked by jbroman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-01 17:14:32]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2015343002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2015343002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-01 18:44:36]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-01 19:11:37]

Description was changed from

==========
cc: Move DamageTracker filter handling to MapRect.

While here, also fix a bug in which the rectangle in which the filter is
assumed to be visible was also mapped through the filter, and update unit
tests accordingly.

BUG=600821
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
cc: Move DamageTracker filter handling to MapRect.

While here, also fix a bug in which the rectangle in which the filter is
assumed to be visible was also mapped through the filter, and update unit
tests accordingly.

BUG=600821
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/8eb5fb7cc39a640ed6b732262c41e3110c9093d2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#397192}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-01 19:11:38]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/8eb5fb7cc39a640ed6b732262c41e3110c9093d2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#397192}